taltwi/LaCour huggingface dataset:
CASE OF REGNER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Regner v. the Czech Republic (no. 35289/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-10-19 00:00:00)
Application no.: 35289/11
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-11-26 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1126JUD003528911
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Vincent A. De Gaetano
Represented by: TROJAN L.
Issue: Sections 12 and 133 § 3 of Law no. 412/2005
Strasbourg case-law cited: Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no 35178/97, ECHR 2000 VI;Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no 37575/04, §§ 91 and 94, ECHR 2012;Camps v. France (dec.), no 42401/98, 23 November 1999;Čepek v. the Czech Republic, no 9815/10, § 44, 5 September 2013;Ellès and Others v. Switzerland, no 12573/06, § 16, 16 December 2010;Fitt v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 29777/96, ECHR 2000 II;Fodor v. Germany, no 25553/02, 11 December 2006;Güner Çorum v. Turkey, no 59739/00, 31 October 2006;Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic, no 35376/97, 3 March 2000;Kress v. France [GC], no 39594/98, ECHR 2001-VI;Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 51, Series A no 327 A;Mats Jacobsson v. Sweden, 28 June 1990, § 32, Series A no 180 A;Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, 18 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 I;Nikolova and Vandova v. Bulgaria, no 20688/04, § 91, 17 December 2013;Nikolova and Vandova Matyjek v. Poland, no 38184/03, § 55, 24 April 2007;Obermeier v. Austria, 28 June 1990, § 69, Series A no 179;Prikyan and Angelova v. Bulgaria, no 44624/98, § 40, 16 February 2006;Pudas v. Sweden, 27 October 1987, § 34, Series A no 125 A;Ternovskis v. Latvia, no 33637/02, 29 April 2014;Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, 10 July 1998, § 78, Reports 1998 IV;Topal v. Turkey, no 3055/04, § 14, 21 April 2009;Užukauskas v. Lithuania, no 16965/04, 6 July 2010;Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no 63235/00, ECHR 2007 II
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Károly Nagy v. Hungary (no. 56665/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-10-12 00:00:00)
Application no.: 56665/09
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-09-14 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0914JUD005666509
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;35;35-3-a
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Iulia Motoc;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Marko Bošnjak;Nebojša Vučinić;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Síofra O'Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani
Represented by: CECH A.
Issue: Section 15 (2) of the 1990 Church Act ; Article 130 (1) f of the Code of Civil Procedure ; Sections 9 and 29 of Statute no. II of 1994 ; Sections 34, 35, 77 and 79  of Statute no. I of 2000
Strasbourg case-law cited: Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 5809/08, § 97, 21 June 2016;Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III;Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 100, 23 June 2016;Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, § 43, ECHR 2016;Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 91, ECHR 2016;Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 42, ECHR 2015;Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 91, ECHR 2012;Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, 29 November 2016;Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, §§ 49-50, 20 October 2011;Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, §§ 119-120, ECHR 2005 X;Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, § 120, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Z and Others v. the United Kingdom[GC], no. 29392/95, § 89, ECHR 2001 V
Conclusion: Inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAPORSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND
Hearing: Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland (no. 931/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-09-14 00:00:00)
Application no.: 931/13
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-07-21 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0721JUD000093113
Respondent state: FIN
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;10;10-1;10-2;35;41
Judges: George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Yonko Grozev
Represented by: VAINIO P.
Issue: Personal Data Act ; Act on the Public Disclosure and Confidentiality of Tax Information
Strasbourg case-law cited: Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012;Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008;De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 I;E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 47, 22 January 2008, ECHR 2000-I;Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 28, Series A no. 149;Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, § 81, 6 April 2010;Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I;Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, ECHR 2000-VII;Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, ECHR 1999-I;Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298;Koua Poirrez v. France, no. 40892/98, § 61, ECHR 2003 X;Lehideux and Isorni v. France, 23 September 1998, § 57, Reports 1998 VII;Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103;MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, § 142, 18 January 2011;News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52;Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII;Pafitis and Others v. Greece, 26 February 1998, § 95, Reports 1998 I;Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 62, Series A no. 30;Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 72, ECHR 2013;Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 104-107, ECHR 2012;Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 68, ECHR 2004 VI
External sources: Directive 95/46/EC
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF MEDŽLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRČKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Hearing: Medžlis Islamske zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 17224/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-08-31 00:00:00)
Application no.: 17224/11
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-10-13 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1013JUD001722411
Respondent state: BIH
Articles of the Convention: 10;10-1;10-2
Judges: George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä
Represented by: MULAHALILOVIC O.
Issue: Section 6 of the Defamation Act 2003
Strasbourg case-law cited: Busuioc v. Moldova, no. 61513/00, § 88, 21 December 2004;De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, no. 19983/92, § 47, 24 February 1997;Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999 I;Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 42, ECHR 2001 II;Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, 18 December 2008;Lešník v. Slovakia, no. 35640/97, § 53, ECHR 2003 IV;Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland [GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 11039/02, § 59, 11 October 2005;Siryk v. Ukraine, no. 6428/07, § 42, 31 March 2011;Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, §§ 28-32, 21 December 2010;Zakharov v. Russia, no. 14881/03, § 23, 5 October 2006
Conclusion: No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF SIMEONOVI v. BULGARIA
Hearing: Simeonovi v. Bulgaria (no. 21980/04) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-07-06 00:00:00)
Application no.: 21980/04
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-10-20 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1020JUD002198004
Respondent state: BGR
Articles of the Convention: 3;6;6+6;6-1;6-3-c
Judges: George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev
Represented by: MARGARITOVA-VUCHKOVA S.
Conclusion: Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6+6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
Separate opinion: FALSE
AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA
Hearing: Al Nashiri v. Romania (no. 33234/12) (Chamber hearing, 2016-06-29 00:00:00)
Application no.: 33234/12
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: ROU
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;3;5;5-1;8;8-1
Represented by: SKILBECK R.
Conclusion: Communicated
AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA
Hearing: Al Nashiri v. Romania (no. 33234/12) (Chamber hearing, 2016-06-29 00:00:00)
Application no.: 33234/12
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2012-09-18 00:00:00
Respondent state: ROU
Articles of the Convention: 2;3;5;5-1;6;8;8-1;10;13;P6-1;P6-2
Represented by: GOLDSTON J.A. ; SKILBECK R. ; SINGH A. ; HOLLANDER N.
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF V.M. AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM
Hearing: V.M. and Others v. Belgium (no. 60125/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-05-25 00:00:00)
Application no.: 60125/11
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-17 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1117JUD006012511
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 37;37-1;37-1-c
Judges: András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mārtiņš Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Pauliine Koskelo;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: NERAUDAU E.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Ali v. Switzerland, 5 August 1998, § 32, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 V;Diallo v. the Czech Republic, no. 20493/07, §§ 44-47, 23 June 2011;Ibrahim Hayd v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30880/10, § 10, 29 November 2011;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 140, ECHR 2001 VII;Kadzoev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 56437/07, § 7, 1 October 2013;M.H. and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 41744/10, § 14, 14 January 2014;M.Is. v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 41805/10, § 20, 10 February 2015;Ramzy v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25424/05, § 64, 20 July 2010;Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece, no. 16643/09, 21 October 2014
Conclusion: Struck out of the list (Article 37-1 - Striking out applications;Article 37-1-c - Continued examination not justified)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF V.M. AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM
Hearing: V.M. and Others v. Belgium (no. 60125/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-05-25 00:00:00)
Application no.: 60125/11
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-07-07 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0707JUD006012511
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;3;13;13+3;35;35-1;41
Judges: András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens
Represented by: NERAUDAU E.
Strasbourg case-law cited: A.C. and Others v. Spain, no 6528/11, 22 April 2014;Budina v. Russia (dec.), no 45603/05, 18 June 2009;Çelik and İmret v. Turkey, no 44093/98, § 57, 26 October 2004;Čonka v. Belgium, no 51564/99, §§ 81-83, ECHR 2002-I;D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no 38719/97, § 136, 10 October 2002;De Donder and De Clippel v. Belgium, no  8595/06, §§ 68-69, 6 December 2011;De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no 22689/07, § 83, ECHR 2012;El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no 39630/09, § 202, ECHR 2012;F.H. v. Greece, no 78456/11, §§ 107-111, 31 July 2014;Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no 25389/05, ECHR 2007 V;Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no 27765/09, ECHR 2012;I.M. v. France, no 9152/09, 2 February 2012;Kanagaratnam v. Belgium, no 15297/09, § 62, 13 December 2011;Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no 27229/95, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2001 III;Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no 30696/09, ECHR 2011;Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium, no 41442/07, §§ 55 and 63, 19 January 2010;Müslim v. Turkey, no 53566/99, § 85, 26 April 2005;Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria, no 48609/06, §§ 105 and 108, 18 June 2013;Nuri Kurt v. Turkey, no 37038/97, § 116, 29 November 2005;Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 91, 19 January 2012;R.U. v. Greece, no 2237/08, § 77, 7 June 2011;S.H.H. v. the United Kingdom, no 60367/10, § 90, 29 January 2013;Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no 1948/04, § 136, 11 January 2007;Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece, no 16643/09, §§ 138-139, 21 October 2014;Singh and Others v. Belgium, no 33210/11, 2 October 2012;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 90, Series A no 161;Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 283, 28 June 2011;Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 114-115, 17 July 2014;Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no 29217/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006 XII;Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium, no 10486/10, § 106, 20 December 2011
Conclusion: Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
KHAMTOKHU v. RUSSIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
Hearing: Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia (nos. 60367/08 and 961/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-04-20 00:00:00)
Application no.: 60367/08
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2011:0927DEC006036708
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 2;3;5;6;7;13;14;17
Judges: Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen
Represented by: N/A
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
KHAMTOKHU AND AKSENCHIK v. RUSSIA
Hearing: Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia (nos. 60367/08 and 961/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-04-20 00:00:00)
Application no.: 60367/08
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0513DEC006036708
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 5;5-1;14;14+5;35
Judges: Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: MIKASYAN T.
Issue: Article 57 of the Russian Criminal Code
Conclusion: Partly admissible;Partly inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
KHAMTOKHU AND AKSENCHIK v. RUSSIA
Hearing: Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia (nos. 60367/08 and 961/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-04-20 00:00:00)
Application no.: 961/11
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0513DEC006036708
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 5;5-1;14;14+5;35
Judges: Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: MIKASYAN T.
Issue: Article 57 of the Russian Criminal Code
Conclusion: Partly admissible;Partly inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
CASE OF J.K. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN
Hearing: J.K. and Others v. Sweden (no. 59166/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-02-24 00:00:00)
Application no.: 59166/12
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-08-23 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0823JUD005916612
Respondent state: SWE
Articles of the Convention: 3;41
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Dmitry Dedov;Guido Raimondi;Helena Jäderblom;Iulia Motoc;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Síofra O'Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: SKYFACOS C.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Bahaddar v. the Netherlands, 19 February 1998, § 45, Reports 1998 I;Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 98, Reports 1996-V;Collins and Akaziebie v. Sweden (dec.), no. 23944/05, 8 March 2007;D.N.W. v. Sweden, no. 29946/10, §§ 42 and 45, 6 December 2012;F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, ECHR 2016;F.H. v. Sweden, no. 32621/06, § 102, 20 January 2009;H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 III;Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, ECHR 2001-II;Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 116, ECHR 2012;Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000 IV;M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 133, ECHR 2013 (extracts);M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 286, ECHR 2011;Müslim v. Turkey, no. 53566/99, §§ 72-76, 26 April 2005;N. v. Finland, no. 38885/02, §§ 154-155, 26 July 2005;NA. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, 17 July 2008;Nizamov and Others v. Russia, nos. 22636/13, 24034/13, 24334/13 and 24528/13, § 50, 7 May 2014;R.C. v. Sweden, no. 41827/07, § 55, 9 March 2010;R.J. v. France, no. 10466/11, § 42, 19 September 2013;S.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 19956/06, §§ 69-71, 15 June 2010;S.H.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 60367/10, § 71, 29 January 2013;Saadi v. Italy [GC] no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008;Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 49, ECHR 2005 VI;Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, 11 January 2007;Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 June 2011;T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III;Venkadajalasarma v. the Netherlands, no. 58510/00, § 63, 17 February 2004
External sources: EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (as recast by Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011);UNHCR Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims;UNHCR Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status
Conclusion: Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iraq);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF J.K. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN
Hearing: J.K. and Others v. Sweden (no. 59166/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-02-24 00:00:00)
Application no.: 59166/12
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-06-04 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0604JUD005916612
Respondent state: SWE
Articles of the Convention: 3;35
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano
Represented by: SKYFAROS C.
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. A. M. v. Sweden, no. 68519/10, § 63, 3 April 2014;Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 34, § 67;Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, Reports 1997 VI, p. 2264, § 42;Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, § 96;Collins and Akaziebie v. Sweden (dec.), no. 23944/05, 8 March 2007;F.H. v. Sweden, no. 32621/06, § 93, 20 January 2009;H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, Reports 1997-III;Hakizimana v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37913/05, 27 March 2008;Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, § 60, ECHR 2001-II;M.Y.H. and Others v. Sweden, no. 50859/10, § 57, 27 June 2013;Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, § 40, ECHR 2000-;Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 67, ECHR 2005-I;NA. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, 17 July 2008;Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008-...;Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-XII
External sources: UNHCR position on returns to Iraq of October 2014
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iraq)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF LHERMITTE v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Lhermitte v. Belgium (no. 34238/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-01-27 00:00:00)
Application no.: 34238/09
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-29 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1129JUD003423809
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani
Represented by: MAGNÉE X. ; CHIHAOUI Z.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Agnelet v. France, no. 61198/08, §§ 56-62, 10 January 2013;Bernard v. France, 23 April 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II;Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015;Bodein v. France, no. 40014/10, 13 November 2014;Castellino v. Belgium, no. 504/08, 25 July 2013;Devriendt v. Belgium, no. 32001/07, 17 February 2015;Fraumens v. France, no. 30010/10, 10 January 2013;Gybels v. Belgium, no. 43305/09, 18 November 2014;Hechtermans v. Belgium, no. 56280/09, 18 November 2014;Judge v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35863/10, 8 February 2011;Khaledian v. Belgium, no. 42874/09, 18 November 2014;Kurt v. Belgium, no. 17663/10, 17 February 2015;Legillon v. France, no. 53406/10, 10 January 2013;Magy v. Belgium, no. 43137/09, 24 February 2015;Maillard v. Belgium, no. 23530/08, 17 February 2015;Oulahcene v. France, no. 44446/10, 10 January 2013;Papon v. France (dec.), no. 54210/00, ECHR 2001-XII;Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 54, ECHR 2008;Saric v. Denmark (dec.), no. 31913/96, 2 February 1999;Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1998, § 46, Series A no. 140;Shala v. Norway (dec.), no. 1195/10, 10 July 2012;Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, § 37, 1 July 2003;Tatishvili v. Russia, no. 1509/02, § 58, ECHR 2007-III;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, §§ 22-42, ECHR 2010;Voica v. France, no. 60995/09, 10 January 2013;Yimam v. Belgium, no. 39781/09, 18 November 2014
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
Separate opinion: TRUE