taltwi/LaCour huggingface dataset:
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.: 50571/08
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.: 50571/08
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
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.: 50573/08
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.: 50573/08
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
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.: 40351/09
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
CASE OF HUTCHINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom (no. 57592/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-10-21 00:00:00)
Application no.: 57592/08
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-01-17 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0117JUD005759208
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 3
Judges: András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Josep Casadevall;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: Kyles Legal Practice
Issue: Section 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 ; Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
Strasbourg case-law cited: Bodein v. France, no. 40014/10, 13 November 2014;Čačko v. Slovakia, no. 49905/08, 22 July 2014;E. v. Norway, 29 August 1990, § 60, Series A no. 181 A;Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, ECHR 2008;Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 121, ECHR 2015;Kronfeldner v. Germany, no. 21906/09, § 59, 19 January 2012;László Magyar v. Hungary, no. 73593/10, 20 May 2014;Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, ECHR 2016;O.H. v. Germany, no. 4646/08, § 118, 24 November 2011;Öcalan v. Turkey (no. 2), nos. 24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06 and 10464/07, 18 March 2014;Trabelsi v. Belgium, no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts)
Conclusion: No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF HUTCHINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom (no. 57592/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-10-21 00:00:00)
Application no.: 57592/08
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-02-03 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0203JUD005759208
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 3;35
Judges: George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Represented by: KYLES LEGAL PRACTICE
Issue: Section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ; Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 ; Chapter 12 of the Indeterminate Sentence Manual (“the Lifer Manual”)

Strasbourg case-law cited: C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 34, Series A no. 335 C;Cooper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48843/99, § 125, ECHR 2003 XII;Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, ECHR 2008;László Magyar v. Hungary, no. 73593/10, §§ 46-53, 20 May 2014;Öcalan v. Turkey (no. 2), nos. 24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06 and 10464/07, §§ 193-198, 18 March 2014;Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 102, ECHR 2013;Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, 9 July 2013;Vučković and Others v. Serbia [GC], no. 17153/11, § 80, 25 March 2014;Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999 I
External sources: Rules 6, 102.1 and 103.8 of the European Prison Rules;COE Committee of Ministers Resolution 76(2);COE Committee of Ministers Recommendation 2003(23) (on the management by prison administrations of life sentence and other long-term prisoners);COE Committee of Ministers Recommendation 2003(22) (on conditional release);Article 10 § 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the General Comment on that Article

Conclusion: No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF BUZADJI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Hearing: Buzadji v. Republic of Moldova (no. 23755/07) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-10-07 00:00:00)
Application no.: 23755/07
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-12-16 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:1216JUD002375507
Respondent state: MDA
Articles of the Convention: 5;5-3
Judges: Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
Represented by: CERGA I.
Conclusion: Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF PAPOSHVILI v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Paposhvili v. Belgium (no. 41738/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-16 00:00:00)
Application no.: 41738/10
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-12-13 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1213JUD004173810
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 3;8;8-1;41
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: KERN J. ; VERBROUCK C.
Strasbourg case-law cited: A.S. v. Switzerland, no. 39350/13, 30 June 2015;Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32;Aswat v. the United Kingdom, no. 17299/12, § 49, 16 April 2013;Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 86, ECHR 2015;D. v. the United Kingdom, 2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 III;E.O. v. Italy (dec.), no. 34724/10, 10 May 2012;El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, ECHR 2012;F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, ECHR 2016;Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, ECHR 2012;Karagoz v. France (dec.), no. 47531/99, 15 November 2001;Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003 IX;Khachatryan v. Belgium (dec.), no. 72597/10, 7 April 2015;Kochieva and Others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 75203/12, 30 April 2013;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011;Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000‑XII;Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 121, ECHR 2005-I;Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, § 93, ECHR 2008;Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 79, ECHR 2016;N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, ECHR 2008;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002 III;S.H.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 60367/10, 29 January 2013;Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008;Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 214, 28 June 2011;Tarakhel v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 29217/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Tatar v. Switzerland, no. 65692/12, 14 April 2015;Trabelsi v. Belgium, no. 140/10, § 130, ECHR 2014 (extracts);V.S. and Others v. France (dec.), no. 35226/11, 25 November 2014;Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215;Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium, no. 10486/10, 20 December 2011
Conclusion: Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Conditional) (Georgia);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 PAPOSHVILI v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Paposhvili v. Belgium (no. 41738/10) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-16 00:00:00)
Application no.: 41738/10
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-04-17 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0417JUD004173810
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 2;3;8;8-1;35;35-1
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens
Represented by: KERN J.
Issue: Section 39/82 of the Aliens Act ; Act of 15 March 2012 amending the Aliens Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, §§ 67-68, Series A no 94;Ahmut v. the Netherlands, 28 November 1996, § 63, Reports 1996 VI;Antwi and Others v. Norway, no 26940/10, § 89, 14 February 2012;Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999 III;Arvelo Aponte v. the Netherlands, no 28770/05, § 60, 3 November 2011;Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports 1997 VI;Boultif v. Switzerland, no 54273/00, § 48, ECHR 2001 IX;D. v. the United Kingdom, 2 May 1997, Reports 1997 III;Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway, no 265/07, 31 July 2008;Gezginci v. Switzerland, no 16327/05, § 67, 9 December 2010;Gül v. Switzerland, 19 February 1996, § 38, Reports 1996 I;Kanagaratnam v. Belgium, no 15297/09, § 67, 13 December 2011;Maslov v. Austria [GC], no 1638/03, § 68, ECHR 2008;Mi. L. v. France (dec.), no 23473/11, § 33, 11 September 2012;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no 17056/06, § 55, ECHR 2009;N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 26565/05, §§ 48 and 50, ECHR 2008;Nunez v. Norway, no 55597/09, 28 June 2011;Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 109, 19 January 2012;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002 III;Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 VIII;Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no 50435/99, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2006-I;Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no 44328/98, 5 September 2000;Trabelsi v. Germany, no 41548/06, 13 October 2011;Udeh v. Switzerland, no 12020/09, 16 April 2013;Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no 46410/99, §§ 59 to 61, ECHR 2006 XII;Y.P. and L.P. v. France, no 32476/06, § 53, 2 September 2010
Conclusion: Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY
Hearing: G.I.E.M s.r.l v. Italy (no. 1828/06) , Hotel Promotion Bureau s.r.l. and Rita Sarda s.r.l. v. Italy (no. 34163/07) and Falgest s.r.l. and Gironda v. Italy (no. 19029/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 1828/06
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2023-07-12 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0712JUD000182806
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 37;37-1;37-1-c;41
Represented by: MARIANI G. ; ROTUNNO F. ; LAVITOLA G. ; MANES V. ; LANA A.G. ; SACCUCCI A. 
Strasbourg case-law cited: Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT v. Ukraine, no. 1006/07, 5 October 2017;Brumărescu v. Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 28342/95, § 20, ECHR 2001-I;
Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 78, ECHR 2005 XII (extracts);Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV;
Dumitru v. Romania (just satisfaction), no. 4710/04, § 11, 3 June 2014;Euromak Metal Doo v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 68039/14, 14 June 2018;G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, 28 June 2018;Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 90, 22 December 2009;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 79, ECHR 2014,;Molla Sali v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 20452/14, § 32, 18 June 2020;Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, §§ 65-66, 30 March 2017;Olewnik-Cieplińska and Olewnik v. Poland, no. 20147/15, § 150, 5 September 2019;RF SPOL. S R.O. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 9926/03, 20 October 2010;Schweizerische Radio-und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, § 43, 22 December 2020;Sud Fondi S.r.l. and Others v. Italy (just satisfaction), no. 75909/01, 10 May 2012;Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece (just satisfaction), no. 44769/07, § 18, 10 February 2011;
Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, 8 September 2020;Uniya OOO and Belcourt Trading Company v. Russia, no. 4437/03 and 13290/03, 19 June 2014;Zhidov and Others v. Russia (just satisfaction), nos. 54490/10 and 3 others, § 19, 17 March 2020

Conclusion: Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-{general};(Art. 37-1) Striking out applications;(Art. 37-1-c) Continued examination not justified;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
G.I.E.M. S.R.L. v. ITALY
Hearing: G.I.E.M s.r.l v. Italy (no. 1828/06) , Hotel Promotion Bureau s.r.l. and Rita Sarda s.r.l. v. Italy (no. 34163/07) and Falgest s.r.l. and Gironda v. Italy (no. 19029/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 1828/06
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;7;13;P1-1
Represented by: MARIANI G.
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY
Hearing: G.I.E.M s.r.l v. Italy (no. 1828/06) , Hotel Promotion Bureau s.r.l. and Rita Sarda s.r.l. v. Italy (no. 34163/07) and Falgest s.r.l. and Gironda v. Italy (no. 19029/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-09-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 34163/07
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2023-07-12 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0712JUD000182806
Respondent state: ITA
Articles of the Convention: 37;37-1;37-1-c;41
Represented by: MARIANI G. ; ROTUNNO F. ; LAVITOLA G. ; MANES V. ; LANA A.G. ; SACCUCCI A. 
Strasbourg case-law cited: Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT v. Ukraine, no. 1006/07, 5 October 2017;Brumărescu v. Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 28342/95, § 20, ECHR 2001-I;
Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 78, ECHR 2005 XII (extracts);Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV;
Dumitru v. Romania (just satisfaction), no. 4710/04, § 11, 3 June 2014;Euromak Metal Doo v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 68039/14, 14 June 2018;G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, 28 June 2018;Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 90, 22 December 2009;Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 79, ECHR 2014,;Molla Sali v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 20452/14, § 32, 18 June 2020;Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, §§ 65-66, 30 March 2017;Olewnik-Cieplińska and Olewnik v. Poland, no. 20147/15, § 150, 5 September 2019;RF SPOL. S R.O. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 9926/03, 20 October 2010;Schweizerische Radio-und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, § 43, 22 December 2020;Sud Fondi S.r.l. and Others v. Italy (just satisfaction), no. 75909/01, 10 May 2012;Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece (just satisfaction), no. 44769/07, § 18, 10 February 2011;
Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, 8 September 2020;Uniya OOO and Belcourt Trading Company v. Russia, no. 4437/03 and 13290/03, 19 June 2014;Zhidov and Others v. Russia (just satisfaction), nos. 54490/10 and 3 others, § 19, 17 March 2020

Conclusion: Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-{general};(Art. 37-1) Striking out applications;(Art. 37-1-c) Continued examination not justified;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE