taltwi/LaCour huggingface dataset:
CASE OF LÓPEZ RIBALDA AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
Hearing: López Ribalda and Others v. Spain (no. 1874/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-11-28 00:00:00)
Application no.: 1874/13
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-01-09 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0109JUD000187413
Respondent state: ESP
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;8;8-1;35;41
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: GONZALEZ ESPADA J.A.
Issue: Article 20.3 of the Labour Regulations (Estatuto de los Trabadores) approved by Royal Legislative Decree no. 1/1995 ; Section 5 of the Data Protection Act ; Article 3 of Instruction no. 1/2006 issued by the Spanish Data Protection Agency

Strasbourg case-law cited: Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, §§ 42 and 43, 5 November 2002;Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, ECHR 2017 (extracts);Benediktsdóttir v. Iceland (dec.), no. 38079/06, 16 June 2009;Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 88-98, 10 March 2009;García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I;Halford v. the United Kingdom, 25 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 III;I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, §§ 35-36, 17 July 2008;J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 48839/09, §§ 77-79, 20 December 2011;K.U. v. Finland, no. 2872/02, §§ 42-43, ECHR 2008;Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296 C;Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 34, ECHR 2000 V;P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, ECHR 2001 IX;Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, §§ 58-59, ECHR 2003 I;Perry v. the United Kingdom, no. 63737/00, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2003 IX (extracts);Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, no. 1234/05, § 40, 15 January 2009;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, §§ 43-44, ECHR 2000 V;Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-48;Schüssel v. Austria (dec.), no. 42409/98, 21 February 2002;Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, §§ 78-79, ECHR 2013;Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, § 50, Reports 1997 III;Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 50, ECHR 2004 VI
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
LÓPEZ RIBALDA v. SPAIN and 1 other application
Hearing: López Ribalda and Others v. Spain (no. 1874/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-11-28 00:00:00)
Application no.: 1874/13
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: ESP
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;8;8-1
Represented by: GONZALEZ ESPADA, J.A.
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary (no. 201/17) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-11-21 00:00:00)
Application no.: 201/17
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-01-23 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0123JUD000020117
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 10;10-1;10-2;35;35-1;41
Judges: Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano
Represented by: TORDAI Cs.
Issue: Article IX (1) of the Fundamental Law ; Section 2(1), (a) and (e) of Act XXXVI of 2013 on Electoral Procedure

Strasbourg case-law cited: Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, § 116, ECHR 2015;Džinić v. Croatia, no. 38359/13, § 49, 17 May 2016;Erményi v. Hungary, no. 22254/14, § 38, 22 November 2016;Guseva v. Bulgaria, no. 6987/07, § 36, 17 February 2015;Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v. Sweden (dec.), no. 40397/12, 20 June 2012;Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59(b), Series A no. 216;Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI;Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no. 25358/12, § 169, ECHR 2017;S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, §§ 113-114, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 84, ECHR 2001 IX;Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 103, ECHR 2012
Conclusion: Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: FALSE
MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary (no. 201/17) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-11-21 00:00:00)
Application no.: 201/17
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 10;10-1
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF STRAND LOBBEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
Hearing: Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway (no. 37283/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-10-17 00:00:00)
Application no.: 37283/13
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2019-09-10 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0910JUD003728313
Respondent state: NOR
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;35;35-3-a;41
Represented by: THUAN DIT DIEUDONNÉ G.
Issue: Sections 4-21 and 4-20 of the Child Welfare Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 281, ECHR 2010;A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, 8 January 2013;Aune v. Norway, no. 52502/07, § 66, 28 October 2010;Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, ECHR 2000-VIII;Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000 IX;Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 2000 XI;Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, § 100, 4 December 2018;Johansen v. Norway, no. 17383/90, § 78, 7 August 1996;Jovanovic v. Sweden, no. 10592/12, 22 October 2015;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, ECHR 2001 VII;Kruškić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 10140/13, §§ 101-02, 25 November 2014;Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 75, ECHR 2002 I;Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 94, ECHR 2015 (extracts);Maršálek v. the Czech Republic, no. 8153/04, § 71, 4 April 2006;Mohamed Hasan v. Norway, no. 27496/15, § 151, 26 April 2018;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, ECHR 2010;Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130;Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no. 25358/12, § 179, 24 January 2017;Pontes v. Portugal, no. 19554/09, §§ 92 and 99, 10 April 2012;R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, § 88, 31 May 2011;R.M.S. v. Spain, no. 28775/12, § 86, 18 June 2013;S.H. v. Italy, no. 52557/14, § 42, 13 October 2015;Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138, ECHR 2000 VIII;Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, ECHR 2003 VIII (extracts);T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 72, ECHR 2001 V (extracts);Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235 B;W. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, §§ 63-65, Series A no. 121;Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, § 138, 13 March 2012
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF STRAND LOBBEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
Hearing: Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway (no. 37283/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-10-17 00:00:00)
Application no.: 37283/13
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2017-11-30 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1130JUD003728313
Respondent state: NOR
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;34;35;35-1;35-3-a
Judges: André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Síofra O'Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
Represented by: REIKERAS M.
Issue: Sections 4-12, 4-20, 4-20a and 4-21 of the Child Welfare Act of 17 July 1992
Strasbourg case-law cited: A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, § 48, 8 January 2013;Aune v. Norway, no. 52502/07, 28 October 2010;Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 96, ECHR 2014;Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999 I;Giunta v. Italy, [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 138-139, ECHR 2000 VIII;Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, ECHR 2000 IX;Görgülü v. Germany, no. 74969/01, § 48, 26 February 2004;Johansen v. Norway (dec.), 12750/02, 10 October 2002;Jovanovic v. Sweden, no. 10592/12, § 77, 22 October 2015;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, ECHR 2001 VII;Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9035/06, §§ 52-53, 19 June 2012;Kruškić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 10140/13, 25 November 2014;Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, ECHR 2002 I;Lawlor v. the United Kingdom, no. 12763/87, Commission decision of 14 July 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 57, p. 216;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, §§ 48-49, ECHR 2009;Moustaquim v. Belgium, no. 12313/86, § 36, 18 February 1991;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, ECHR 2010;Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 33, Series A no. 123;Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no. 25358/12, 24 January 2017;Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 12402/86, Commission decision of 9 March 1988, DR 55, p. 224;R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, § 88, 31 May 2011;Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy, [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, ECHR 2000 VIII;T.S. and J.J. v. Norway (dec.), no. 15633/15, 11 October 2016;Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, § 118, 28 June 2007;Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, 13 March 2012;Znamenskaya v. Russia, no. 77785/01, § 27, 2 June 2005
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
STRAND LOBBEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
Hearing: Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway (no. 37283/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-10-17 00:00:00)
Application no.: 37283/13
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: NOR
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1
Represented by: REIKERAS M.
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF N.D. AND N.T. v. SPAIN
Hearing: N.D. and N.T. v. Spain (no. 8675/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-09-26 00:00:00)
Application no.: 8675/15
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2017-10-03 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1003JUD000867515
Respondent state: ESP
Articles of the Convention: 1;13;13+P4-4;34;35;35-1;35-3-a;41;P4-4
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: GERICKE C. ; BOYE TUSET G.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 55721/07, § 137, ECHR 2011;Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no 71503/01, § 139, ECHR 2004-II;Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII;Berdzenishvili and Others v. Russia, nos.  14594/07 and 6 others, 20 December 2016;Čonka v. Belgium, no 51564/99, ECHR 2002 I;De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no 22689/07, § 83;Georgia v. Russia (I) (dec.), 13255/07, 36 June 2009;Hasan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 29750/09, § 74, ECHR 2014;Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no 27765/09, ECHR 2012;Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no 48787/99, ECHR 2004 VII;Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no 16483/12, ECHR 2016;Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece, no 16643/09, 21 October 2014;Shioshvili and Others v. Russia, no 19356/07, 20 December 2016
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Violation of Article 13+P4-4 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general};Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF ROOMAN v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Rooman v. Belgium (no. 18052/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-06-06 00:00:00)
Application no.: 18052/11
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2017-07-18 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0718JUD001805211
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 3;5;5-1;5-1-e;34;41
Judges: Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano
Represented by: HISSEL V. ; VERSIE B.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 V;Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no 93;Bamouhammad v. Belgium, no 47687/13, §§ 115-123, 17 November 2015;Claes v. Belgium, no 43418/09, 10 January 2013;De Donder and De Clippel v. Belgium, no 8595/06, § 100, 6 December 2011;Dufoort v. Belgium, no 43653/09, §§ 76, 77 and 79, 10 January 2013;Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no 22978/05, § 115, ECHR 2010;Gelaude v. Belgium, no 43733/09, §§ 26-30, 9 January 2014;L.B. v. Belgium, no 22831/08, 2 October 2012;Lankester v. Belgium, no 22283/10, 9 January 2014;Moreels v. Belgium, no 43717/09, §§ 29-33, 9 January 2014;Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no 10511/10, ECHR 2016;Oukili v. Belgium, no 43663/09, §§ 29-33, 9 January 2014;Papillo v. Switzerland, no 43368/08, §§ 41-43, 27 January 2015;Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 13229/03, § 69, ECHR 2008;Saadouni v. Belgium, no 50658/09, §§ 37-41, 9 January 2014;Scordino v. Italy (no 1) [GC], no 36813/97, §§ 179-180, ECHR 2006 V;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no 36760/06, § 147, ECHR 2012;Swennen v. Belgium, no 53448/10, §§ 69 72, 10 January 2013;Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no 7/08, § 105, ECHR 2010;Torreggiani and Others v. Italy, nos. 43517/09 and 6 others, § 50, 8 January 2013;W.D. v. Belgium, no 73548/13, 6 September 2016;Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 51, Series A no 33;Y.Y. v. Turkey, no 14793/08, §§ 52-55, ECHR 2015 (extracts)
Conclusion: Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II)
Hearing: Georgia v. Russia (II)  (no. 38263/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-05-23 00:00:00)
Application no.: 38263/08
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2023-04-28 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0428JUD003826308
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 41;38;46;46-2;2;2-1;2-2;3;5;5-1;8;8-1;P1-1;P1-1-1;P4-2;P4-2-1
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania, no. 46454/11, §§ 480-83, 31 May 2018;Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III;Carter v. Russia, no. 20914/07, §§ 92-94, 21 September 2021;Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 128-36, ECHR 2015;Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 13216/05, § 60, 12 December 2017;Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2014;Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, §§ 10-12, ECHR 2001 IV;Denmark, Norway and Sweden v. Greece, no. 4448/70, Commission (Plenary) decision of 16 July 1970;Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, 17 January 2023;Georgia v. Russia (I) (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 13255/07, 29 January 2019;Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 202, ECHR 2013;Kudukhova v. Georgia, nos. 8274/09 and 8275/09, § 33, 20 November 2018;Lisnyy and Others v. Ukraine and Russia (dec.), nos. 5355/15, 44913/15 and 50853/15, § 30, 5 July 2016;Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 201, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, §§ 176-84, ECHR 2015;Svetova and Others v. Russia, no. 54714/17, § 30, 24 January 2023;Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.) [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 2 others, 25 January 2023;Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, ECHR 2009
External sources: Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2022)254 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, adopted on 22 September 2022, on the execution of the Court’s judgment in Georgia v. Russia (I)
Conclusion: Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II)
Hearing: Georgia v. Russia (II)  (no. 38263/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-05-23 00:00:00)
Application no.: 38263/08
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:1213DEC003826308
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 33;35;35-1;35-3-a
Judges: Anatoly Kovler;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Peer Lorenzen;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Represented by: N/A
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 68, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV;Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI;Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 55721/07, 7 July 2011 ECHR 2011-...;Cyprus v. Turkey, no. 25781/94, Commission decision of 28 June 1996, Decisions and Reports (DR) 86-A, p. 130;Cyprus v. Turkey, no. 25781/94, Commission decision of 28 June 1996, DR 86-A, p. 130;Denmark v. Turkey (dec), no. 34382/97, 8 June 1999;Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 26 June 1992, § 91, Series A no. 240;Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, §§ 79 and 82, Reports 1998-IV;France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands v. Turkey, nos. 9940-9944/82, Commission decision of 6 December 1983, DR 35;Georgia v. Russia (no. I) (dec.), no. 13255/07, 30 June 2009;Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (dec.) [GC], no. 48787/99, 4 July 2001;Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 159, Series A no. 25;Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, §§ 180 and 210, 24 February 2005;Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310;Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, 18 September 2009
External sources: Order of 15 October 2008 of the International Court of Justice;Judgment of 1 April 2011 of the International Court of Justice;Report of 27 November 2008 of the ODIHR of the OSCE;Report of September 2009 by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission of the European Union on the Conflict in Georgia;Reports of 17 December 2008 and 26 January 2009 of the Monitoring Committee and Resolutions nos. 1633 and 1647 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Conclusion: Preliminary objections joined to merits;Admissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione loci;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae
ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (no. 47287/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-04-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 47287/15
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 3;5;5-1
Represented by: POHARNOK, BARBARA
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Hearing: Z.A. and Others v. Russia (nos. 61411/15, 61420/15, 61427/15 and 3028/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-04-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 61411/15
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2017-03-28 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0328JUD006141115
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 3;5;5-1;5-1-f;41;46;46-2
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: DAVIDYAN E. ; TRENINA D.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abou Amer v. Romania, no. 14521/03, § 37, 24 May 2011;Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, §§ 43-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III;Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 121-123, 10 January 2012;Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09 and 2 others, § 58, ECHR 2012;El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 230, ECHR 2012;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 216-218, ECHR 2011;Mahdid and Addar v. Austria (dec.), no. 74762/01, 8 December 2005;Mogoş v. Romania (dec.), no. 20420/02, 6 May 2004;Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-97, 20 October 2016;Nolan and K. v. Russia, no. 2512/04, § 93, 12 February 2009;Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001 III;Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, 24 January 2008;Shamsa v. Poland (dec.), nos. 45355/99 and 45357/99, 5 December 2002
External sources: United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951;Chapter 5 of Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation 2015

Conclusion: Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Prevent unauthorised entry into country);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
Z.A. v. RUSSIA
Hearing: Z.A. and Others v. Russia (nos. 61411/15, 61420/15, 61427/15 and 3028/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-04-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 61411/15
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 3;5;5-1
Represented by: DAVIDIYAN E. ; TRENINA D.
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Hearing: Z.A. and Others v. Russia (nos. 61411/15, 61420/15, 61427/15 and 3028/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-04-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 61420/15
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2017-03-28 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0328JUD006141115
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 3;5;5-1;5-1-f;41;46;46-2
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: DAVIDYAN E. ; TRENINA D.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abou Amer v. Romania, no. 14521/03, § 37, 24 May 2011;Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, §§ 43-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III;Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 121-123, 10 January 2012;Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09 and 2 others, § 58, ECHR 2012;El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 230, ECHR 2012;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 216-218, ECHR 2011;Mahdid and Addar v. Austria (dec.), no. 74762/01, 8 December 2005;Mogoş v. Romania (dec.), no. 20420/02, 6 May 2004;Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-97, 20 October 2016;Nolan and K. v. Russia, no. 2512/04, § 93, 12 February 2009;Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001 III;Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, 24 January 2008;Shamsa v. Poland (dec.), nos. 45355/99 and 45357/99, 5 December 2002
External sources: United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951;Chapter 5 of Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation 2015

Conclusion: Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Prevent unauthorised entry into country);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE