taltwi/LaCour huggingface dataset:
CASE OF ALBERT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Albert and Others v. Hungary (no. 5294/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-12-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 5294/14
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-01-29 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0129JUD000529414
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 34;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Luzius Wildhaber;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano
Represented by: GARDOS I.
Issue: Sections 15 and 17/C of the Integration Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, §§ 65 and 66, Series A no. 330 A;Albert and Others v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5294/14, 4 April 2017;Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000;Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 80, ECHR 2012;Credit and Industrial Bank v. the Czech Republic, no. 29010/95, §§ 50 to 52, ECHR 2003 XI (extracts);Dinçer and Others v. Turkey, no. 10435/08, §§ 13 and 14, 3 November 2011;Feldman and Slovyanskyy Bank v. Ukraine, no. 42758/05, §§ 28 and 29, 21 December 2017;G.J. v. Luxembourg, no. 21156/93, § 24, 26 October 2000;Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 40, ECHR 2007;Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003;Olczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 30417/96, ECHR 2002 X (extracts);Petrović v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 30721/15, §§ 15 and 16, 22 June 2017
Conclusion: No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Separate opinion: TRUE
ALBERT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Albert and Others v. Hungary (no. 5294/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-12-18 00:00:00)
Application no.: 5294/14
Document type: DECISIONS
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0404DEC000529414
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 34;35;P1-1
Judges: András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
Represented by: GARDOS I.
Conclusion: Admissible
CASE OF GESTUR JÓNSSON AND RAGNAR HALLDÓR HALL v. ICELAND
Hearing: Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v. Iceland (nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-10-09 00:00:00)
Application no.: 68273/14
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2020-12-22 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1222JUD006827314
Respondent state: ISL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;7;7-1;35;35-3-a
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Yonko Grozev;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: GESTSSON G.
Issue: Sections 222(1), 223(1)-(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act no. 88/2008 ; Chapter XXVII of the Civil Procedure Act no. 91/1991

Strasbourg case-law cited: A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L. v. Italy, no. 43509/08, § 39, 27 September 2011;Balyuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 17696/02, 6 September 2005;Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 65, ECHR 2006 III;Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 139, 4 April 2018;Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 81, ECHR 2013;Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 82-83, Series A no. 22;Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 82, ECHR 2003-X;Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos. 18640/10 and 4 others, § 99, 4 March 2014;Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, §§ 80, 173 and 250, 21 November 2019;Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 100 and 203, 4 December 2018;Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 30-31, ECHR 2006-XIV;Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, §§ 137-142, ECHR 2008;Kubli v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 50364/99, 21 February 2002;Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 173, ECHR 2005 XIII;Kyprianou v. Cyprus, no. 73797/01, § 31, 27 January 2004;Mamidakis v. Greece, no. 35533/04, § 21, 11 January 2007;Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no. 47195/06, § 47, 19 February 2013;Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 50, Series A no. 73;Produkcija Plus Storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia, no. 47072/15, §§ 10 and 45, 23 October 2018;Putz v. Austria, 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, § 32;Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, 6 November 2018;Ravnsborg v. Sweden, 23 March 1994, §§ 33-35, Series A no. 283 B;T. v. Austria, no. 27783/95, §§ 63-67, ECHR 2000 XII;Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, §§ 31 and 34, Series A no. 177;Zaicevs v. Latvia, no. 65022/01, 31 July 2007;Žugić v. Croatia, no. 3699/08, §§ 65-68, 31 May 2011
Conclusion: Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF GESTUR JÓNSSON AND RAGNAR HALLDÓR HALL v. ICELAND
Hearing: Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v. Iceland (nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-10-09 00:00:00)
Application no.: 68273/14
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-10-30 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1030JUD006827314
Respondent state: ISL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;7;7-1;35;35-1
Judges: Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Represented by: GESTSSON G.
Issue: Sections 141 (1) 196, 205 (3) of the Criminal Procedures Act No. 88/2008
Strasbourg case-law cited: Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, ECHR 2004-III;Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38644/97, 24 November 1998;De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86;Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 77, ECHR 2013;Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no. 30749/12, § 58, 14 February 2017;Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 109, ECHR 2007-III;Kononov v. Latvia, [GC], no. 36376/04, § 198, ECHR 2010;Kyprianou v. Cyprus, [GC], no. 73797/01, § 64, 15 December 2005;Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017;Nicklinson and Lamb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 2478/15 and 1787/15, 23 June 2015;Putz v. Austria, no. 18892/91, § 33, 22 February 1996;Ravnsborg v. Sweden, no. 14220/88, §§ 30-36, 23 February 1994;Schreiber and Boetsch v. France (dec.), no. 58751/00, 11 December 2003;Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, ECHR 2006 II;Sergey Zolotukhin v Russia, [GC], no. 14939/03, § 53, 10 February 2005;Shkalla v. Albania, no. 26866/05, § 67, 10 May 2011;T. v. Austria, no. 27783/95, §§ 61-67, 14 November 2000;Toyaksi and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 43569/08, 20 October2010;Unseen ehf v. Iceland, no. 55630/15, § 19, 20 March 2018;Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, § 154, ECHR 2015;Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-70, 25 March 2014;Zaicevs v. Latvia, no. 65022/01, §§ 31-36, 31 July 2007;Zugic v. Croatia, no. 3699/08, 31 May 2011
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege;Nullum crimen sine lege)
Separate opinion: FALSE
JONSSON v. ICELAND
Hearing: Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v. Iceland (nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-10-09 00:00:00)
Application no.: 68273/14
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: ISL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;6-3-d;7;7-1;P7-2
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF GESTUR JÓNSSON AND RAGNAR HALLDÓR HALL v. ICELAND
Hearing: Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v. Iceland (nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-10-09 00:00:00)
Application no.: 68271/14
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2020-12-22 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1222JUD006827314
Respondent state: ISL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;7;7-1;35;35-3-a
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Yonko Grozev;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: GESTSSON G.
Issue: Sections 222(1), 223(1)-(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act no. 88/2008 ; Chapter XXVII of the Civil Procedure Act no. 91/1991

Strasbourg case-law cited: A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L. v. Italy, no. 43509/08, § 39, 27 September 2011;Balyuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 17696/02, 6 September 2005;Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 65, ECHR 2006 III;Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 139, 4 April 2018;Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 81, ECHR 2013;Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 82-83, Series A no. 22;Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 82, ECHR 2003-X;Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy, nos. 18640/10 and 4 others, § 99, 4 March 2014;Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, §§ 80, 173 and 250, 21 November 2019;Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 100 and 203, 4 December 2018;Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 30-31, ECHR 2006-XIV;Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, §§ 137-142, ECHR 2008;Kubli v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 50364/99, 21 February 2002;Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 173, ECHR 2005 XIII;Kyprianou v. Cyprus, no. 73797/01, § 31, 27 January 2004;Mamidakis v. Greece, no. 35533/04, § 21, 11 January 2007;Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no. 47195/06, § 47, 19 February 2013;Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 50, Series A no. 73;Produkcija Plus Storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia, no. 47072/15, §§ 10 and 45, 23 October 2018;Putz v. Austria, 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, § 32;Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, 6 November 2018;Ravnsborg v. Sweden, 23 March 1994, §§ 33-35, Series A no. 283 B;T. v. Austria, no. 27783/95, §§ 63-67, ECHR 2000 XII;Weber v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990, §§ 31 and 34, Series A no. 177;Zaicevs v. Latvia, no. 65022/01, 31 July 2007;Žugić v. Croatia, no. 3699/08, §§ 65-68, 31 May 2011
Conclusion: Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF GESTUR JÓNSSON AND RAGNAR HALLDÓR HALL v. ICELAND
Hearing: Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v. Iceland (nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-10-09 00:00:00)
Application no.: 68271/14
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-10-30 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1030JUD006827314
Respondent state: ISL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;7;7-1;35;35-1
Judges: Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Represented by: GESTSSON G.
Issue: Sections 141 (1) 196, 205 (3) of the Criminal Procedures Act No. 88/2008
Strasbourg case-law cited: Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, ECHR 2004-III;Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38644/97, 24 November 1998;De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86;Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 77, ECHR 2013;Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no. 30749/12, § 58, 14 February 2017;Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 109, ECHR 2007-III;Kononov v. Latvia, [GC], no. 36376/04, § 198, ECHR 2010;Kyprianou v. Cyprus, [GC], no. 73797/01, § 64, 15 December 2005;Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017;Nicklinson and Lamb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 2478/15 and 1787/15, 23 June 2015;Putz v. Austria, no. 18892/91, § 33, 22 February 1996;Ravnsborg v. Sweden, no. 14220/88, §§ 30-36, 23 February 1994;Schreiber and Boetsch v. France (dec.), no. 58751/00, 11 December 2003;Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, ECHR 2006 II;Sergey Zolotukhin v Russia, [GC], no. 14939/03, § 53, 10 February 2005;Shkalla v. Albania, no. 26866/05, § 67, 10 May 2011;T. v. Austria, no. 27783/95, §§ 61-67, 14 November 2000;Toyaksi and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 43569/08, 20 October2010;Unseen ehf v. Iceland, no. 55630/15, § 19, 20 March 2018;Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, § 154, ECHR 2015;Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-70, 25 March 2014;Zaicevs v. Latvia, no. 65022/01, §§ 31-36, 31 July 2007;Zugic v. Croatia, no. 3699/08, 31 May 2011
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege;Nullum crimen sine lege)
Separate opinion: FALSE
HALL v. ICELAND
Hearing: Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v. Iceland (nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-10-09 00:00:00)
Application no.: 68271/14
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: ISL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;6-3-d;7;7-1;P7-2
Conclusion: Communicated
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM AND ALICE ROSS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-07-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 62322/14
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;10;10-1
Represented by: LEIGH DAY & CO
Conclusion: Communicated
10 HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hearing: Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-07-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 24960/15
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: GBR
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;8;8-1;10;10-2;14
Represented by: WELSH J. ; WILLIAMS N. ; SCOTT M. 
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN
Hearing: Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden (no. 35252/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-07-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 35252/08
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2021-05-25 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0525JUD003525208
Respondent state: SWE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;34
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Marko Bošnjak;Mārtiņš Mits;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Pere Pastor Vilanova;Tim Eicke
Represented by: BERMAN F. ; EVANS A.
Issue: Foreign Intelligence Act and Ordinance ; Signals Intelligence Act and Ordinance ; Foreign Intelligence Court Act ; FRA Personal Data Processing Act and Ordinance ; Foreign Intelligence Inspectorate Instructions Ordinance ; Parliamentary Ombudsmen Instructions Act ; Chancellor of Justice Supervision Act

Strasbourg case-law cited: Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 69, ECHR 2000 II;Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007;Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 58170/13 and 2 others, 13 September 2018;Heglas v. the Czech Republic, no. 5935/02, 1 March 2007;Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176 B;Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, 18 May 2010;Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28;Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116;Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008;Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82;Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, ECHR 2015;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000-V;S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008;Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, § 120, ECHR 2006-VII;Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 V;Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006 XI
External sources: Report of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the “Venice Commission”) on the Democratic Oversight of Signals Intelligence Agencies (2015)
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN
Hearing: Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden (no. 35252/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-07-10 00:00:00)
Application no.: 35252/08
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-06-19 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0619JUD003525208
Respondent state: SWE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;34
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: BERGMAN F.
Issue: Signals Intelligence Act (2008) ; Foreign Intelligence Act (2000) ; Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (2009) ; FRA Personal Data Processing Act (2007)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007;Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, 10 February 2009;Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, 18  May 2010;Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28;Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, 1 July 2008;Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, ECHR 2015;Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, no. 37138/14, 12 January 2016;Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, ECHR 2006-XI
External sources: Report of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”) on the Democratic Oversight of Signals Intelligence Agencies (December 2015)
Conclusion: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF S.M. v. CROATIA
Hearing: S.M. v. Croatia (no. 60561/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-05-15 00:00:00)
Application no.: 60561/14
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2018-07-19 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0719JUD006056114
Respondent state: HRV
Articles of the Convention: 4;4-1;41
Judges: Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: BEZBRADICA JELAVIC S.
Issue: Articles 106, 157, 175 and 195 of the Criminal Code ; Articles 2, 9, 16, 38, 43, 45, 47, 438 and 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Strasbourg case-law cited: Ali and Ayşe Duran v. Turkey, no 42942/02, 8 April 2008;Baştürk v. Turkey, no. 49742/09, § 26, 28 April 2015;Beganović v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 77, 25 June 2009;C.N. and V. v. France, no. 67724/09, § 105, 11 October 2012;C.N. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4239/08, 13 November 2012;Chowdury and Others v. Greece, no. 21884/15, ECHR 2017;J. and Others v. Austria, no. 58216/12, § 104, ECHR 2017 (extracts);L.E. v. Greece, no. 71545/12, 21 January 2016;M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 150, ECHR 2003 XII;Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 66, ECHR 2006 XII (extracts);Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, ECHR 2010 (extracts);Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, ECHR 2005 VII;X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no 91
External sources: Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, adopted on 2 December 1949, entered into force on 25 July 1951 and ratified by Croatia on 12 October 1992;Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“the CEDAW”) adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly and ratified by Croatia on 9 September 1992;Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (“the Palermo Protocol”), supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime 2000, signed by Croatia on 12 December 2000 and ratified on 24 January 2003;Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, adopted at the United Nations General Assembly plenary meeting on 20 December 1993;Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, adopted on 16 May 2005, entered into force on 1 February 2008 and ratified by Croatia on 5 September 2007
Conclusion: Violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4 - Positive obligations;Effective investigation;Article 4-1 - Trafficking in human beings);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
S.M. v. CROATIA
Hearing: S.M. v. Croatia (no. 60561/14) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-05-15 00:00:00)
Application no.: 60561/14
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: HRV
Articles of the Convention: 3;4;4-1;8;8-1
Represented by: BEZBRADICA JELAVIC S.
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF A.M. v. FRANCE
Hearing: A.M. v. France (no. 12148/18) (Chamber hearing, 2019-01-22 00:00:00)
Application no.: 12148/18
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-04-29 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0429JUD001214818
Respondent state: FRA
Articles of the Convention: 3;35;35-1;41
Represented by: LANTHEAUME Y.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Azzolina and Others v. Italy, nos. 28923/09 and 67599/10, § 105, 26 October 2017;Bahaddar v. the Netherlands, 19 February 1998, §§ 47-48, Reports 1998 I;Baumann v. France, no 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001 V (extracts);Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1855, § 79;Daoudi v. France, no 19576/08, 3 December 2009;F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no 43611/11, §§ 111-118, 23 March 2016;Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no 25389/05, §§ 64-66, ECHR 2007 II;J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no 59166/12, 23 August 2016;Karoussiotis v. Portugal, no 23205/08, § 57, ECHR 2011 (extracts);Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no 26828/06, § 286, 26 June 2012;M.A. v. France, no 9373/15, 1 February 2018;M.X. v. France (no 21580/10, § 37, 1 July 2014;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no 17056/06, § 55, ECHR 2009;NA. v. the United Kingdom, no 25904/07, § 90, 17 July 2008;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no 10593/08, § 142, ECHR 2012;Rafaa v. France, no 25393/10, § 33, 30 May 2013;Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII;Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no 13;Saadi v. Italy [GC], no 37201/06, § 128, ECHR 2008;Sahin Alpay v. Turkey, no 16538/17, § 86, 20 March 2018;Selmouni v. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V;Stanka Mirkovic and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 33781/15 and 3 others, § 48, 7 March 2017;Trabelsi v. Belgium, no 140/10, § 89, ECHR 2014 (extracts);X v. the Netherlands, no 14319/17, § 72, 10 July 2018;Y.P. and L.P. v. France, no 32476/06, § 53, 2 September 2010
Conclusion: No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Algeria)
Separate opinion: FALSE