taltwi/LaCour huggingface dataset:
CASE OF PENTIKÄINEN v. FINLAND
Hearing: Pentikäinen v. Finland (no. 11882/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-12-17 00:00:00)
Application no.: 11882/10
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2015-10-20 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1020JUD001188210
Respondent state: FIN
Articles of the Convention: 10;10-1;10-2
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Iulia Motoc;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano
Represented by: SALOKANGAS J.
Issue: Section 19 of the Police Act, in Chapter 1 ; Section 2, subsection 2, of the Coercive Measures Act ; Chapter 16, section 4, of the Penal Code ; Section 24, subsection 2, of the Criminal Investigations Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III;Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 140, ECHR 2012;Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 116, ECHR 2004 XI;Dammann v. Switzerland, no. 77551/01, § 52, 25 April 2006;De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 I;Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999 I;Gsell v. Switzerland, no. 12675/05, § 49, 8 October 2009;Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49 in fine, Series A no. 24;Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 141, ECHR 2001 VII;Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, §§ 61 and 63-68, 19 April 2011;Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 59, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II;Krone Verlag GmbH v. Austria, no. 27306/07, §§ 46-47, 19 June 2012;Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A;Monnat v. Switzerland, no. 73604/01, § 66, ECHR 2006-X;Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 124, 23 April 2015;Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, § 67, 2 October 2012;Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia, no. 14087/08, § 37, 28 March 2013;Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 47, ECHR 2003 V;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V;Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, ECHR 2007 V;Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 95, 15 May 2014;The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 65, Series A no. 30;The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), 26 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 217;Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03, ECHR 2009;Ungváry and Irodalom Kft v. Hungary, no. 64520/10, § 42, 3 December 2013;Yordanova and Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 5126/05, §§ 53 and 55, 2 October 2012
Conclusion: No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF PENTIKÄINEN v. FINLAND
Hearing: Pentikäinen v. Finland (no. 11882/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-12-17 00:00:00)
Application no.: 11882/10
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-02-04 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0204JUD001188210
Respondent state: FIN
Articles of the Convention: 10;10-1;10-2
Judges: George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano
Represented by: RYTI R.
Issue: Section 4 of the Penal Code
Strasbourg case-law cited: Barfod v. Denmark, 22 February 1989, § 28, Series A no. 149;Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 58, ECHR 1999-III;De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 I;Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I;Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I;Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298;Juppala v. Finland, no. 18620/03, § 40, 2 December 2008;Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103;Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, § 68, 2 October 2012;News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000-I;Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 44, ECHR 2002 II;Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII;Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30
Conclusion: No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Separate opinion: TRUE
PENTIKAINEN v. FINLAND
Hearing: Pentikäinen v. Finland (no. 11882/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-12-17 00:00:00)
Application no.: 11882/10
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2011-05-19 00:00:00
Respondent state: FIN
Articles of the Convention: 10
Represented by: RYTI R.
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF AL-DULIMI AND MONTANA MANAGEMENT INC. v. SWITZERLAND
Hearing: Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland (no. 5809/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-12-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 5809/08
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-11-26 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1126JUD000580908
Respondent state: CHE
Articles of the Convention: 1;6;6-1;35;35-3;41
Judges: András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Luzius Wildhaber;Nebojša Vučinić;Peer Lorenzen
Represented by: MICHEL J.-C.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Aït-Mouhoub v. France, 28 October 1998, § 52, Reports 1998-VIII;Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI;Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 27021/08, ECHR 2011;Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no 61498/08, § 128, ECHR 2010;Al Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 55721/07, ECHR 2011;Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004-II;Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no 52207/99, ECHR 2001 XII;Behrami and Behrami  v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (dec.) [GC], nos. 71412/01 and 78166/01, 2 May 2007;Běleš and Others v. the Czech Republic, no 47273/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-IX;Blagojević v. the Netherlands (dec.), no 49032/07, § 46, 9 June 2009;Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no 45036/98, ECHR 2005 VI;Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no 15869/02, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2010;Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no 294-B;Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 37112/97, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI;Galić v. the Netherlands (dec.), no 22617/07, § 46, 9 June 2009;Gasparini v. Italy and Belgium (dec.), no 10750/03, 12 May 2009;Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, § 20, 14 May 2002;Glor v. Switzerland, no 13444/04, § 48, ECHR 2009;Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A no 18;Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 I;Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no 48787/99, §§ 311-312, ECHR 2004-VII;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no 30696/09, § 338, ECHR 2011;Michaud v. France, no 12323/11, § 103, 6 December 2012;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no 10593/08, ECHR 2012;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no 41615/07, § 131, ECHR 2010;Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no 42527/98, § 43, ECHR 2001-VIII;Rambus Inv. v. Germany (dec.), no 40382/04, 16 June 2009;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 86, Series A no 161;T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 28945/95, § 98, ECHR 2001-V;United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 29, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 I;Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no 26083/94, § 59, ECHR 1999-I
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF F.G. v. SWEDEN
Hearing: F.G. v. Sweden (no. 43611/11)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-12-03 00:00:00)
Application no.: 43611/11
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-01-16 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0116JUD004361111
Respondent state: SWE
Articles of the Convention: 2;3
Judges: André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens
Represented by: DONNER G.
Conclusion: No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran)
Separate opinion: TRUE
TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Hearing: Tagayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 26562/07) (Chamber hearing, 2014-10-14 00:00:00)
Application no.: 26562/07
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0609DEC002656207
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 2;3;6;8;10;13;13+2;35;37;37-1
Judges: Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska
Represented by: KOROTEYEV K.N. ; TREPASHKIN M.I. ; KNYAZKIN S.A.
Conclusion: Partly admissible;Partly inadmissible;Partly struck out of the list
CASE OF BOUYID v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Bouyid v. Belgium (no. 23380/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-10-08 00:00:00)
Application no.: 23380/09
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-11-21 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:1121JUD002338009
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 3;35
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens
Represented by: CHIHAOUI Z. ; MARCHAND C. 
Strasbourg case-law cited: Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1982, § 30, Series A no 48;Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 32, Series A no 247 C;Creanğa v. Romania [GC], no 29226/03, § 88, 23 February 2012;El Masri v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” [GC], no. 39630/09, ECHR 2012;Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, Series A no 25;Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX;Kudła v. Poland [GC], no 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI;Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000 IV;M.S.S. v. Belgium [GC], no 30696/09, § 220, ECHR 2011;Mete and Others v. Turkey, no 294/08, 4 October 2012;Perez v. France [GC], no 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004 I;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III;Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no 336;Rivas v. France, no 59584/00, 1 April 2004;Salman v. Turkey [GC], no 21986/93, ECHR 2000 VII
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Separate opinion: TRUE
PARRILLO v. ITALY
Hearing: Parillo v. Italy (no. 46470/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-06-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 46470/11
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0528DEC004647011
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 8;10;35;35-3;P1-1
Judges: Danuté Jociené;Guido Raimondi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen
Represented by: PAOLETTI N. ; SARTORI PC.
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible
CASE OF VASILIAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
Hearing: Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania (no. 35343/05)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-06-04 00:00:00)
Application no.: 35343/05
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2015-10-20 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1020JUD003534305
Respondent state: LTU
Articles of the Convention: 7;7-1;7-2;41
Judges: András Sajó;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mark Villiger;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: VILCINSKAS S.
Issue: Articles 71 § 2 and 99 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code
Strasbourg case-law cited: C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 34, Series A no. 335 C;Del Rio Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, ECHR 2013;Donohoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 73, 12 December 2013;Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 66, ECHR 2000 VIII;Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, §§ 101-102, ECHR 2007 III;K.-H.W. v. Germany, [GC], no. 37201/97, § 74, ECHR 2001 II (extracts);Kipritçi v. Turkey, no. 14294/04, § 18, 3 June 2008;Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 52, Series A no. 260 A;Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia (dec.), nos. 23052/04 and 24018/04, ECHR 2006 I;Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, ECHR 2010;Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, ECHR 2008;Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Penart v. Estonia (dec.), 14685/04, 24 January 2006;Pessino v. France, no. 40403/02, § 33, 10 October 2006;S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 36, Series A no. 335 B;Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 93, 17 September 2009;Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001 II;Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999 I;Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 96, ECHR 2006 IV
External sources: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96 (I), adopted on 11 December 1946;Articles I, II and V of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted on 9 December 1948;Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of 26 November 1968;Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY Statute) of 1993;Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda  (ICTR Statute) of 1994;Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court  (ICC Statute) of 1998;Control Council Law no. 10;1953 international treaty law;Article 31 § 1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Conclusion: Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nullum crimen sine lege;Retroactivity;Criminal offence;Article 7-2 - Criminal offence);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
VASILIAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
Hearing: Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania (no. 35343/05)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-06-04 00:00:00)
Application no.: 35343/05
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2009-06-16 00:00:00
Respondent state: LTU
Articles of the Convention: 7;7-2
Represented by: N/A
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF MORICE v. FRANCE
Hearing: Morice v. France (no. 29369/10)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-05-21 00:00:00)
Application no.: 29369/10
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-07-11 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0711JUD002936910
Respondent state: FRA
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;10;10-1;41
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Josep Casadevall;Mark Villiger;Nicolas Bratza;Paul Lemmens
Represented by: AUDHOUI C. ; TARDIF J.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no 60115/00, §§ 27-28, ECHR 2004-III;Brunet-Lecomte and Others v. France, no 42117/04, 5 February 2009, § 51;Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 54, Series A no 285-A;Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], no 33348/96, § 111, ECHR 2004-XI;Foglia v. Switzerland, no 35865/04, § 95, 13 December 2007;Huglo Lepage and Associés SCP v. France (dec.), no 59477/00, 30 March 2004;July and Sarl Libération v. France, no 20893/03, § 66, ECHR 2008 (extracts);Kudeshkina v. Russia, no 29492/05, § 94, 26 February 2009;Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, ECHR 2007-XI;Micallef v. Malta, [GC], no 17056/06, ECHR 2009;Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no 313, § 34;Radio France and Others v. France du 30 March 2004, no 53984/00, § 40, ECHR 2004-II;Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II;Rizos and Daskas v. Greece, no. 65545/01, § 43, 27 May 2004;Roussin v. France (dec.), no 44674/08, 19 October 2010;Schöpfer v. Switzerland, 20 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III;Selmouni v. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V
Conclusion: Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF MUSTAFA TUNÇ AND FECİRE TUNÇ v. TURKEY
Hearing: Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey (no. 24014/05) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-04-16 00:00:00)
Application no.: 24014/05
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-06-25 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0625JUD002401405
Respondent state: TUR
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;35;41
Judges: András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Peer Lorenzen
Represented by: N/A
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdurashidova v. Russia, no 32968/05, § 69, 8 April 2010;Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 55721/07, § 167, ECHR 2011;Angelova v. Bulgaria, no 38361/97, § 138, ECHR 2002-IV;Anik and Others v. Turkey, no 63758/00, §§ 76-77, 5 June 2007;Beker v. Turkey, no 27866/03, 24 March 2009;Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no 23458/02, ECHR 2011;Gürkan v. Turkey (no 10987/10, §§ 13 to 19, 3 July 2012;Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no 24746/94, § 109, ECHR 2001-III;Kolevi v. Bulgaria, no 1108/02, § 201, 5 November 2009;Mantog v. Romania no 2893/02, §§ 70 et seq., 11 October 2007;McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no 28883/95, § 129, ECHR 2001-III;Pankov v. Bulgaria, no 12773/03, § 59, 7 October 2010;Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no 52391/99, ECHR 2007-II;Salman v. Turkey ([GC], no 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII;Selmouni v. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V;Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no 71463/01, § 157, 9 April 2009;Stefan v. Romania (dec.), no 5650/04, § 48, 29 November 2011;Stern v. France (dec.), no 70820/01, 11 October 2005;Suprun v. Ukraine (dec.), no 7529/07, 27 April 2010;Trévalec v. Belgium, no. 30812/07, § 89, 14 June 2011;Trufin v. Romania, no 3990/04, § 52, 20 October 2009;Velcea and Mazare v. Romania, no 64301/01, 1 December 2009;Yotova v. Bulgaria, no 43606/04, § 68, 23 October 2012
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF TARAKHEL v. SWITZERLAND
Hearing: Tarakhel v. Switzerland (no. 29217/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-02-12 00:00:00)
Application no.: 29217/12
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2014-11-04 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1104JUD002921712
Respondent state: CHE
Articles of the Convention: 3;35;41
Judges: András Sajó;André Potocki;Dean Spielmann;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Nebojša Vučinić;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Peer Lorenzen
Represented by: BREGNARD ECOFFEY C. (SAJE)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, § 43, ECHR 2012;Beldjoudi v. France, 26 March 1992, §§ 79 and 86, Series A no 234-A;Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland ([GC], no 45036/98, ECHR 2005 VI;Budina v. Russia, (dec.), no 45603/05, 18 June 2009;Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 27238/95, § 99, ECHR 2001 I;Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 I;H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 34, Reports 1997-III;Halil Yüksel Akıncı v. Turkey, no 39125/04, § 54, 11 December 2012;Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no 27765/09, § 198, ECHR 2012;Jabari v. Turkey, no 40035/98, § 38, ECHR 2000 VIII;Kudła v.  Poland [GC], no 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI;M. and Others v. Bulgaria, no 41416/08, §§ 105 and 143, 26 July 2011;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no 30696/09, ECHR 2011;Michaud v. France, no 12323/11, §§ 102-104, ECHR 2012;Mohammed Hussein and Others v. the Netherlands and Italy ((dec.), no 27725/10, § 78, 2 April 2013;Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no 13178/03, § 55, ECHR 2006 XI;Müslim v. Turkey, no 53566/99, 26 April 2005;Nizamov and Others v. Russia, nos. 22636/13, 24034/13, 24334/13, 24328/13, § 50, 7 May 2014;Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, 19 January 2012;Saadi v. Italy [GC], no 37201/06, § 152, ECHR 2008;Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no 1948/04, § 135, ECHR 2007 I;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90-91, Series A no 161;Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 103, Series A no 125
External sources: Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (“the Dublin Regulation”);Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;Report by Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, published on 18 September 2012, following his visit to Italy from 3 to 6 July 2012 (CommDH(2012)26)
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Italy);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN
Hearing: Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 40167/06)  (Grand Chamber hearing, 2014-02-05 00:00:00)
Application no.: 40167/06
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-12-12 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1212JUD004016706
Respondent state: AZE
Articles of the Convention: 1;8;8-1;13;19;35;35-3-a;41;46;46-2;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: Angelika Nußberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mārtiņš Mits;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: GASPARYAN N. ; OHANYAN K. ; LEACH Ph.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, ECHR 2014;Avcı and Others v. Turkey, no. 70417/01, § 56, 27 June 2006;Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 218-223, ECHR 2012;Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 25781/94, § 56, ECHR 2014;Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99 and 7 others, ECHR 2010;Doğan and Others v. Turkey (just satisfaction), nos. 8803/02 and 14 others, §§ 52-53, 13 July 2006;Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, §§ 115-116 and 148-149, 29 March 2006;Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 41 and 109, ECHR 2000-IX;Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, and 2 others, §§ 255 256, 3 October 2008;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2014;Loizidou v. Turkey (Article 50), 28 July 1998, § 33, Reports 1998 IV;Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, §§ 67-71, 12 July 2001;Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 34, Series A no. 330 B;Solomonides v. Turkey (just satisfaction), no. 16161/90, §§ 42-43 and 47, 27 July 2010;Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 224, ECHR 2009;Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, §§ 84-88, ECHR 2009
Conclusion: Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE