taltwi/LaCour huggingface dataset:
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: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-05-26 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0526JUD003423809
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;35
Judges: András Sajó;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano
Represented by: MAGNEE X.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Agnelet v. France, no 61198/08, §§ 56-62, 10 January 2013;Castellino v. Belgium (dec.), no 504/08, § 22, 22 May 2012;Castellino v. Belgium, no 504/08, § 38, 25 July 2013;Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no 21906/04, § 97, ECHR 2008;Legillon v. France, no 53406/10, § 61, 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;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, ECHR 2010;Taxquet v. Belgium, no 926/05, §§ 71-74, 13 January 2009;Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Voica v. France, no 60995/09, § 49, 10 January 2013;Zarouali v. Belgium, no 20664/92, decision of the Commission of 29 June 1994, Decisions and Reports 78, p. 97
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF A AND B v. NORWAY
Hearing: A and B v. Norway (nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-01-13 00:00:00)
Application no.: 24130/11
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-15 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011
Respondent state: NOR
Articles of the Convention: P7-4
Judges: András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Dag Bugge Nordén;Erik Møse;Guido Raimondi;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: KJELDAHL R.
Issue: Sections 10 2(1), 10 4(1), 12-1(1)(a) and 12-2 of the Tax Assessment Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 44, ECHR 2006 IV;Boman v. Finland, no. 41604/11, 17 February 2015;Carlberg v. Sweden (dec.), no. 9631/04, 27 January 2009;Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 82, Series A no. 22;Franz Fischer v. Austria, no. 37950/97, § 29, 29 May 2001;Glantz v. Finland, no. 37394/11, 20 May 2014;Göktan v. France, no. 33402/96, § 51, ECHR 2002 V;Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 51, Series A no. 328 C;Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos. 18640/10, 18647/10, 18663/10, 18668/10 and 18698/10, 4 March 2014;Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007;Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, §§ 68-71, ECHR 2002-VII;Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 43, ECHR 2006 XIV;Kapetanios and Others v. Greece, nos. 3453/12, 42941/12 and 9028/13, §72, 30 April 2015;Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 68, Series A no. 28;Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000 XI;Lucky Dev v. Sweden, no. 7356/10, 27 November 2014;Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, § 36, ECHR 2000-X;Manasson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003;Mjelde v. Norway (dec.), no. 11143/04, 11 February 2007;Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no 32042/11, 14 January 2014;Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, 20 May 2014;Österlund v. Finland, no. 53197/13, 10 February 2015;Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 34, ECHR 2001 VII;R.T. v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 31982/96, 30 May 2000;Rinas v. Finland, no. 17039/13, 27 January 2015;Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004;Ruotsalainen v. Finland, no 13079/03, 16 June 2009;Sismanidis and Sitaridis v. Greece, nos. 66602/09 and 71879/12, 9 June 2016;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 48, ECHR 2005 X;Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, 1 February 2007;Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB v. Sweden (dec.), no. 44298/02, 17 June 2008;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 83, ECHR 2010;Tomasović v. Croatia, no. 53785/09, 18 October 2011;Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden, no. 36985/97, §§ 79-82, 23 July 2002;Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009
Conclusion: No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice;Criminal offence)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF A AND B v. NORWAY
Hearing: A and B v. Norway (nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-01-13 00:00:00)
Application no.: 29758/11
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-15 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002413011
Respondent state: NOR
Articles of the Convention: P7-4
Judges: András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Dag Bugge Nordén;Erik Møse;Guido Raimondi;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: KJELDAHL R.
Issue: Sections 10 2(1), 10 4(1), 12-1(1)(a) and 12-2 of the Tax Assessment Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 44, ECHR 2006 IV;Boman v. Finland, no. 41604/11, 17 February 2015;Carlberg v. Sweden (dec.), no. 9631/04, 27 January 2009;Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 82, Series A no. 22;Franz Fischer v. Austria, no. 37950/97, § 29, 29 May 2001;Glantz v. Finland, no. 37394/11, 20 May 2014;Göktan v. France, no. 33402/96, § 51, ECHR 2002 V;Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 51, Series A no. 328 C;Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos. 18640/10, 18647/10, 18663/10, 18668/10 and 18698/10, 4 March 2014;Haarvig v. Norway (dec.), no. 11187/05, 11 December 2007;Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, §§ 68-71, ECHR 2002-VII;Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 43, ECHR 2006 XIV;Kapetanios and Others v. Greece, nos. 3453/12, 42941/12 and 9028/13, §72, 30 April 2015;Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 68, Series A no. 28;Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000 XI;Lucky Dev v. Sweden, no. 7356/10, 27 November 2014;Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, § 36, ECHR 2000-X;Manasson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 41265/98, 8 April 2003;Mjelde v. Norway (dec.), no. 11143/04, 11 February 2007;Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no 32042/11, 14 January 2014;Nykänen v. Finland, no. 11828/11, 20 May 2014;Österlund v. Finland, no. 53197/13, 10 February 2015;Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 34, ECHR 2001 VII;R.T. v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 31982/96, 30 May 2000;Rinas v. Finland, no. 17039/13, 27 January 2015;Rosenquist v. Sweden (dec.), no. 60619/00, 14 September 2004;Ruotsalainen v. Finland, no 13079/03, 16 June 2009;Sismanidis and Sitaridis v. Greece, nos. 66602/09 and 71879/12, 9 June 2016;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 48, ECHR 2005 X;Storbråten v. Norway (dec.), no. 12277/04, 1 February 2007;Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB v. Sweden (dec.), no. 44298/02, 17 June 2008;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 83, ECHR 2010;Tomasović v. Croatia, no. 53785/09, 18 October 2011;Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden, no. 36985/97, §§ 79-82, 23 July 2002;Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009
Conclusion: No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice;Criminal offence)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Béláné Nagy v. Hungary (no. 53080/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-16 00:00:00)
Application no.: 53080/13
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-02-10 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0210JUD005308013
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 35;41;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano
Represented by: CECH A.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑IV;Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 50, Reports 1996 III;Aunola v. Finland (dec.), no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001;Banfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6223/04, 18 October 2005;Béla Szabó v. Hungary, no. 37470/06, 9 December 2008;Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 73, ECHR 2002 VII;Jahn and Others v. Germany [GC], nos. 46720/99, 72203/01 and 72552/01, §§ 81-94, ECHR 2005-VI;Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004 IX;Lakićević and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia, nos. 27458/06, 37205/06, 37207/06 and 33604/07, § 70, 13 December 2011;Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 62, 31 May 2011;Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, § 39, 15 September 2009;Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 71, 28 April 2009;Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005 X;Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, § 85, 17 October 2002;Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 48, Series A no. 70;Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, 8 December 2009
External sources: Article 57 § 1(b) of the ILO Convention on Social Security;Ethical guidelines of the WHO’s document on International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

Conclusion: Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF PARADISO AND CAMPANELLI v. ITALY
Hearing: Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy (no. 25358/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-09 00:00:00)
Application no.: 25358/12
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-01-27 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0127JUD002535812
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;35;35-3;41
Judges: András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano
Represented by: SVITNEV K.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 62, Series A no 94;Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, §§ 65-69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;E.B. v. France [GC], no 43546/02, § 41, 22 January 2008;Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 39, Series A no 160;Gnahoré v. France, no 40031/98, § 50, ECHR 2000 IX;Havelka and Others v. the Czech Republic, no 23499/06, §§ 34-35, 21 June 2007;Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 55, Series A no 112;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no 25702/94, ECHR 2001 VII;Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, §§ 44-45, Series A no 290;Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 30, Series A no 297-C;Kutzner v. Germany, no 46544/99, § 56, ECHR 2002-I;Labassee v. France, no 65941/11, § 60, 26 June 2014;Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Série A no 31;Mennesson v. France, no 65192/11, § 81, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Mikulić v. Croatia, no 53176/99, ECHR 2002 I;Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, no 16318/07, 27 April 2010;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no 10593/08, §§ 168-169, ECHR 2012;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no 41615/07, § 136, ECHR 2010;Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no 251-B;Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI;Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, § 148, ECHR 2004-V;Pontes v. Portugal, no 19554/09, §§ 74-80, 10 April 2012;Pontes v. Portugal, no 19554/09, § 74, 10 April 2012;S.D., D.P., and T. v. the United Kingdom, no 23714/94, decision of the Commission of 20 May 1996;Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no 36813/97, ECHR 2003 IV;Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 148, ECHR 2000 VIII;Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, no 76240/01, 28 June 2007;Wallová and Walla v. the Czech Republic, no 23848/04, § 47, 26 October 2006;X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, 22 April 1997, § 36, Reports 1997 II;Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no 4547/10, §§ 133-138, 13 March 2012;Zhou v. Italy, no 33773/11, §§ 55-56, 21 January 2014
Conclusion: Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28859/11
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-15 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002885911
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Lemmens;Síofra O'Leary
Represented by: ZAHUMENSKY D. ; HOREJSI R.
Issue: Health Care in Private Health-Care Institutions Act ; Decree no. 424/2004 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 55/2011 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 221/2010 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 92/2012 of the Ministry of Health
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, ECHR 2010;Fernández Martinez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 124, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, ECHR 2005-IX;Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003-III;Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, ECHR 2015;S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008;S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, ECHR 2011;Shelley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2006-VI;Ternovszky v. Hungary, no. 67545/09, 14 December 2010;Van Der Heijden v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 42857/05, § 56, 3 April 2012
External sources: Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on the Czech Republic of 22 October 2010 (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/5)
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28859/11
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-12-11 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1211JUD002885911
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;35
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens
Represented by: ZAHUMENSKY D. ; HOREJSI R.
Issue: Medical Services Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, 16 December 2010;Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, § 82, 27 May 2004;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 66, ECHR 2007-V;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 71, ECHR 2007 I;Haas v. Switzerland, no. 31322/07, § 50, 20 January 2011;Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, § 93, ECHR 2004 III (extracts);Odièvre v. France, [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003 III;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002 III;Stubing v. Germany, no. 43547/08, § 60, 12 April 2012;Tysiąc v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 107, ECHR 2007 I
External sources: Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women’s Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic of 22 October 2010 (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/5)
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
DUBSKÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28859/11
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2012-09-03 00:00:00
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1
Represented by: ZAHUMENSKY D.
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28473/12
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-15 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1115JUD002885911
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Lemmens;Síofra O'Leary
Represented by: ZAHUMENSKY D. ; HOREJSI R.
Issue: Health Care in Private Health-Care Institutions Act ; Decree no. 424/2004 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 55/2011 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 221/2010 of the Ministry of Health ; Decree no. 92/2012 of the Ministry of Health
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, ECHR 2010;Fernández Martinez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 124, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, ECHR 2005-IX;Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003-III;Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, ECHR 2015;S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008;S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, ECHR 2011;Shelley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2006-VI;Ternovszky v. Hungary, no. 67545/09, 14 December 2010;Van Der Heijden v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 42857/05, § 56, 3 April 2012
External sources: Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on the Czech Republic of 22 October 2010 (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/5)
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28473/12
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-12-11 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1211JUD002885911
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;35
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens
Represented by: ZAHUMENSKY D. ; HOREJSI R.
Issue: Medical Services Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, 16 December 2010;Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, § 82, 27 May 2004;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 66, ECHR 2007-V;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 71, ECHR 2007 I;Haas v. Switzerland, no. 31322/07, § 50, 20 January 2011;Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, § 93, ECHR 2004 III (extracts);Odièvre v. France, [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003 III;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002 III;Stubing v. Germany, no. 43547/08, § 60, 12 April 2012;Tysiąc v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 107, ECHR 2007 I
External sources: Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women’s Concluding Observations on the Czech Republic of 22 October 2010 (CEDAW/C/CZE/CO/5)
Conclusion: No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic (nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-12-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28473/12
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Document date: 2012-09-03 00:00:00
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;14
Represented by: HOREJSI R.
Conclusion: Communicated
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF IBRAHIM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-11-25 00:00:00)
Application no.: 50541/08
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-12-16 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1216JUD005054108
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 6;6+6-3-c;6-1;6-3;6-3-c
Judges: George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Represented by: IRVINE THANVI NATAS SOLICITORS ; BENNATHAN J. ; KING J. ; FAUL A.
Issue: Paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 ; Paragraph 6.7 of Code C ; Sections 76 and 78 PACE

Strasbourg case-law cited: Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, no. 39660/02, 18 February 2010;Bandaletov v. Ukraine, no. 23180/06, 31 October 2013;Beggs v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15499/10, § 124, 16 October 2012;Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 45, ECHR 2001 X;Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 90, 10 March 2009;Çimen v. Turkey, no. 19582/02, § 26, 3 February 2009;Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, § 33, 13 October 2009;Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, ECHR 2010;Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 275;John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 I;Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 42, 18 December 2008;Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, § 41, ECHR 2000 VI;Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 77, 20 January 2005;Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 40, 18 January 2011;Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, §§ 81-82, 11 December 2008;Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, 24 September 2009;Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 94, 2 November 2010;Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008;Şedal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38802/08, § 33, 13 May 2014;Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, § 67, 26 June 2008;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 84, 16 November 2010;Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, § 87, 20 September 2012;Yoldaş v. Turkey, no. 27503/04, 23 February 2010
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)
Separate opinion: TRUE
IBRAHIM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
Hearing: Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-11-25 00:00:00)
Application no.: 50541/08
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0522DEC005054108
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;6-3-c;6-3-d;35
Judges: George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Represented by: IRVINE THANVI NATAS SOLICITORS ; ARANI SOLICITORS
Conclusion: Partly inadmissible