taltwi/LaCour huggingface dataset:
CASE OF L.B. v. HUNGARY
Hearing: L.B. v. Hungary (no. 36345/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-11-03 00:00:00)
Application no.: 36345/16
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2021-01-12 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0112JUD003634516
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;35
Judges: Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Yonko Grozev;Georges Ravarani
Represented by: KISS D.B.
Issue: Section 55(3) and (5) of the Tax Administration Act ; Act CVII of 2011 on the right to informational self-determination of freedom and information (“the Data Protection Act”)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A.-M.V. v. Finland, no. 53251/13, § 82, 23 March 2017;Alkaya v. Turkey, no. 42811/06, 9 October 2012;Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 65, ECHR 2000 II;Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 110, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012;Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 117, ECHR 2015;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 78, ECHR 2007 V;Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12, § 179, 15 November 2016;Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, no. 24703/15, § 46, 7 November 2017;G.S.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28601/11, § 90, 22 December 2015;James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 36, Series A no. 98;Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 48, Series A no. 116;Lundvall v. Sweden, no. 10473/83, Commission decision of 1 December 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 45, p. 131;M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10, § 104, 28 June 2018;Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 194, 8 November 2016;Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251 B;P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 57, ECHR 2001 IX;Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 58812/15 and 4 others, § 293, 17 October 2019;Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 46, ECHR 2000 V;S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR 2008;S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, ECHR 2011).;Šantare and Labazņikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, § 52, 31 March 2016;Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 136-37, 27 June 2017;Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, § 79, 28 August 2018;Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 95, ECHR 2003 IX (extracts);Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006 VI;Tiba v. Romania, no. 36188/09, § 21, 13 December 2016;Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 94, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 110, ECHR 2012;Vukota-Bojić v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, § 52, 18 October 2016
External sources: Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (“the Data Protection Convention”)
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE
SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
Hearing: Savickis and Others v. Latvia (no. 49270/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-05-26 00:00:00)
Application no.: 49270/11
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: LVA
Articles of the Convention: 14;P1-1
Represented by: BUZAJEVS V.
Conclusion: Communicated
GRZĘDA v. POLAND
Hearing: Grzęda v. Poland (no. 43572/18) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-05-19 00:00:00)
Application no.: 43572/18
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: POL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;13
Represented by: PIETRZAK M. ; MACZKA-PACHOLAK M.
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF ABDI IBRAHIM v. NORWAY
Hearing: Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway (no. 15379/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-01-27 00:00:00)
Application no.: 15379/16
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2021-12-10 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1210JUD001537916
Respondent state: NOR
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;9;9-1;41
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Marko Bošnjak;Mārtiņš Mits;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turković;Pere Pastor Vilanova
Represented by: LUTINA A.
Issue: Child Welfare Act of 17 July 1992
Strasbourg case-law cited: A.S. v. Norway, no. 60371/15, §§ 59-61, 17 December 2019;Cînța v. Romania, no. 3891/19, § 26, 18 February 2020;Folgerø and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 15472/02, §§ 54 and 100, ECHR 2007 III;Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 311, 1 December 2020;Haddad v. Spain, no. 16572/17, § 79, 18 June 2019;Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 61-63, 10 March 2020;Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, § 100, 4 December 2018;İzzettin Doğan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, §§ 68 and 93, 26 April 2016;Johansen v. Norway (dec.), no. 12750/02, 10 October 2002;K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 59-60, 19 November 2019;Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 52, Series A no. 23;Lautsi and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 30814/06, § 59, ECHR 2011 (extracts);M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 77-81 and 98, 22 December 2020;Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, §§ 63 and 85, 30 March 2017;Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 102, 15 November 2018;Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 95, Series A no. 130;Omorefe v. Spain, no. 69339/16, § 70, 23 June 2020;Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, §§ 53 et seq., ECHR 2011;Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 60-62, 10 March 2020;Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018;Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 48, ECHR 2005-X;Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 37283/13, 10 September 2019;Tennenbaum v. Sweden (dec.) no. 16031/90, 3 May 1993;X v. the United Kingdom, no. 7626/76, 11 July 1977;Y.I. v. Russia, no. 68868/14, §§ 75-78, 25 February 2020;Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, § 57, Series A no. 44
External sources: Article 20(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted on 20 November 1989
Conclusion: Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) read in the light of Article 9 - (Art. 9) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF ABDI IBRAHIM v. NORWAY
Hearing: Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway (no. 15379/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-01-27 00:00:00)
Application no.: 15379/16
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-12-17 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1217JUD001537916
Respondent state: NOR
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1
Judges: Egidijus Kūris;Marko Bošnjak;Robert Spano
Represented by: LUTINA A.
Conclusion: Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF T.K. AND S.R. v. RUSSIA
Hearing: Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia (nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-01-20 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28492/15
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-11-19 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1119JUD002849215
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 3
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Paul Lemmens;María Elósegui
Represented by: YERMOLAYEVA N.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94;Dzhaksybergenov v. Ukraine, no. 12343/10, §§ 36-38, 10 February 2011;F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 111-130, ECHR 2016;Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, §§ 61-62, 17 April 2014;H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 III;J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, §§ 77-105, ECHR 2016;Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, §§ 96-97, 17 July 2014;Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 69, 16 April 2015;L.M. and Others v. Russia, nos. 40081/14 and 2 others, § 108, 15 October 2015;Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, §§ 69-73, 16 October 2012;Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 67, ECHR 2005 I;Mamazhonov v. Russia, no.17239/13, §§ 127-135 and 141, 23 October 2014;Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 188, 17 January 2012;S.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 19956/06, §§ 69-71, 15 June 2010;Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, §§ 125 and 148, ECHR 2008;Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 337, ECHR 2005 III;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 91, Series A no. 161;Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, §§ 216 and 218, 28 June 2011;Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, § 32, 22 October 2015
Conclusion: No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF T.K. AND S.R. v. RUSSIA
Hearing: Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia (nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-01-20 00:00:00)
Application no.: 49975/15
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-11-19 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1119JUD002849215
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 3
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Paul Lemmens;María Elósegui
Represented by: YERMOLAYEVA N.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94;Dzhaksybergenov v. Ukraine, no. 12343/10, §§ 36-38, 10 February 2011;F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 111-130, ECHR 2016;Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, §§ 61-62, 17 April 2014;H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 III;J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, §§ 77-105, ECHR 2016;Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, §§ 96-97, 17 July 2014;Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 69, 16 April 2015;L.M. and Others v. Russia, nos. 40081/14 and 2 others, § 108, 15 October 2015;Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, §§ 69-73, 16 October 2012;Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 67, ECHR 2005 I;Mamazhonov v. Russia, no.17239/13, §§ 127-135 and 141, 23 October 2014;Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 188, 17 January 2012;S.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 19956/06, §§ 69-71, 15 June 2010;Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, §§ 125 and 148, ECHR 2008;Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 337, ECHR 2005 III;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 91, Series A no. 161;Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, §§ 216 and 218, 28 June 2011;Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, § 32, 22 October 2015
Conclusion: No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan)
Separate opinion: TRUE
S.R. v. RUSSIA
Hearing: Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia (nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-01-20 00:00:00)
Application no.: 49975/15
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 3
Represented by: YERMOLAYEVA N.
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF DENIS AND IRVINE v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Denis and Irvine v. Belgium (nos. 62819/17 and 63921/17) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-10-21 00:00:00)
Application no.: 62819/17
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-10-08 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1008JUD006281917
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 5;5-1;5-4
Judges: Carlo Ranzoni;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Represented by: VERPOORTEN P.
Conclusion: No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)
Separate opinion: FALSE
CASE OF DENIS AND IRVINE v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Denis and Irvine v. Belgium (nos. 62819/17 and 63921/17) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-10-21 00:00:00)
Application no.: 63921/17
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-10-08 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1008JUD006281917
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 5;5-1;5-4
Judges: Carlo Ranzoni;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Represented by: VERPOORTEN P.
Conclusion: No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)
Separate opinion: FALSE
NIT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Hearing: NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 28470/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-10-14 00:00:00)
Application no.: 28470/12
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: MDA
Articles of the Convention: 10;10-1;P1-1
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF SAVRAN v. DENMARK
Hearing: Savran v. Denmark (no. 57467/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-06-24 00:00:00)
Application no.: 57467/15
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-10-01 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1001JUD005746715
Respondent state: DNK
Articles of the Convention: 3;41
Judges: Carlo Ranzoni;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Represented by: TRIER T. ; BOELSKIFTE A.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Aswat v. the United Kingdom, no. 17299/12, § 57, 16 April 2013;Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001 I;D. v. the United Kingdom, 2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 III;F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 115, 23 March 2016;Hamsevic v Denmark (dec.), 25748/15, § 28, 16 May 2017;J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, § 127, ECRH 2016;Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 168, 13 July 2010;Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008;N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 43, ECHR 2008;Osman v. Denmark, no. 38058/09, § 88, 14 June 2011;Paposhvili v. Belgium, [GC], no. 41738/10, 13 December 2016;Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, § 120, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Tatar v. Switzerland, no. 65692/12, 14 April 2015
Conclusion: Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Turkey);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF KURT v. AUSTRIA
Hearing: Kurt v. Austria (no. 62903/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-06-17 00:00:00)
Application no.: 62903/15
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2021-06-15 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0615JUD006290315
Respondent state: AUT
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;5;5-1;35;35-1
Judges: Alena Poláčková;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Mārtiņš Mits;Paul Lemmens;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković;María Elósegui
Represented by: KOLBITSCH K. ; AZIZ S.
Issue: Section 38a of the Security Police Act ; Sections 382b and 382e of the Enforcement Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: B. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 61382/09, §§ 52-53, 16 July 2013;Bălşan v. Romania, no. 49645/09, § 62, 23 May 2017;Barsova v. Russia, no. 20289/10, § 35, 22 October 2019;Bennich Zalewski v. Poland, no. 59857/00, § 98, 22 April 2008;Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52 and 58, 15 January 2009;Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 147, ECHR 2005-II (extracts);Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 92 and 102, 5 July 2016;Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 48, ECHR 2002‑I;Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 40, Series A no. 225;Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 135-36, 25 September 201;Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, §§ 59-60, 28 May 2013;Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, § 81, 31 January 2019;Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal, no. 78103/14, § 49, 28 March 2017;Halime Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 63034/11, 28 June 2016;Jėčius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000 IX;Kontrová v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, 31 May 2007;M.G. v. Turkey, no. 646/10, § 93, 22 March 2016;McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 147, Series A no. 324;Mudric v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 74839/10, § 51, 16 July 2013;Munteanu v. Moldova, no. 34168/11, § 70, 26 May 2020;Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009;Osman v. the United Kingdom, §§ 115-16, 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 VIII;Ostendorf v. Germany, no. 15598/08, 7 March 2013;S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, 22 October 2018;Şahin Alpay v. Turkey, no. 16538/17, § 103, 20 March 2018;Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, § 72, ECHR 2011 (extracts);T.M. and C.M. v.  the Republic of Moldova, no. 26608/11, § 46, 28 January 2014;Talpis v. Italy, no. 41237/14, 2 March 2017;Valiulienė v. Lithuania, no. 33234/07, § 69, 26 March 2013;Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, 9 July 2019
External sources: Article 51 of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence
Conclusion: Preliminary objection joined to merits (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)
Separate opinion: TRUE
CASE OF KURT v. AUSTRIA
Hearing: Kurt v. Austria (no. 62903/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-06-17 00:00:00)
Application no.: 62903/15
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-07-04 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0704JUD006290315
Respondent state: AUT
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1
Judges: André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
Represented by: KOLBITSCH C.
Issue: Sections 382b (protection from violence in the home) and 382e (procedure and issuance) of the Enforcement Act
Strasbourg case-law cited: Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, § 129, ECHR 2008 (extracts);Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 48, ECHR 2002 I;Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, 31 January 2019;Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 24458/02, § 174;Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 17423/05 and 5 others, § 157, 28 February 2012;Kontrová v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, 31 May 2007;Öneryıldız v. Turkey, [GC] no. 48939/99, § 89, ECHR  2004-XII;Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, ECHR 2;Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161;Talpis v. Italy, no. 41237/14, 2 March 2017
Conclusion: No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)
Separate opinion: TRUE
KURT v. AUSTRIA
Hearing: Kurt v. Austria (no. 62903/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-06-17 00:00:00)
Application no.: 62903/15
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: AUT
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;3;8;8-1
Represented by: KOLBITSCH C.
Conclusion: Communicated
HANAN v. GERMANY
Hearing: Hanan v. Germany (no. 4871/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-02-26 00:00:00)
Application no.: 4871/16
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: DEU
Articles of the Convention: 2;2-1;13
Represented by: KALECK W.
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF GUÐMUNDUR ANDRI ÁSTRÁÐSSON v. ICELAND
Hearing: Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland (no. 26374/18) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-02-05 00:00:00)
Application no.: 26374/18
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-03-12 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0312JUD002637418
Respondent state: ISL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;41
Judges: Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano
Represented by: VILHJALMSSON V.H.
Issue: Administrative Procedures Act No. 37/1993 ; Temporary provision IV of the Judiciary Act No. 50/2016

Strasbourg case-law cited: Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, 9 November 2018, § 119;Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96 and 4 others, § 98, ECHR 2000 VII;DMD GROUP, a.s., v. Slovakia, no. 19334/03, § 61, 5 October 2010;Gorguiladzé v. Georgia, no. 4313/04, § 68, 20 October 2009;Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09, § 315, 13 September 2016;Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-III (extracts);Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002;Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 99, 11 July 2017;Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 78, 23 April 2015;Pandjikidzé and Others v. Georgia, no. 30323/02, § 104, 27 October 2009;Ramos Nunes de Carvalho E SÁ v Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13, 57728/13 and 74041/13, §§ 144 and 222, 6 November 2018;Savino and Others v. Italy, nos. 17214/05, 20329/05 and 42113/04, § 94, 28 April 2009;Zand v. Austria, no. 7360/76, Commission report of 12 October 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 15, pp. 70 and 80
Conclusion: Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE
GUDMUNDUR ANDR ÁSTRÁÐSSON v. ICELAND
Hearing: Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland (no. 26374/18) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-02-05 00:00:00)
Application no.: 26374/18
Document type: COMMUNICATEDCASES
Respondent state: ISL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1
Conclusion: Communicated
CASE OF X AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Hearing: X and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 22457/16) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-01-15 00:00:00)
Application no.: 22457/16
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2019-01-17 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0117JUD002245716
Respondent state: BGR
Articles of the Convention: 3;8;8-1
Judges: André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O'Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
Represented by: MAUCERI F.
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 VI;B.V. v. Belgium, no 61030/08, 2 May 2017;Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no 23380/09, ECHR 2015;Di Salvo v. Italy (dec.), no 16098/05, 11 January 2007;Đorđević v. Croatia, no 41526/10, § 139, ECHR 2012;Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014;M. and C. v. Romania, no 29032/04, § 113, 27 September 2011;M.C. v. Bulgaria, no 39272/98, § 149, ECHR 2003 XII;M.P. and Others v. Bulgaria, no 22457/08, 15 November 2011;Řehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no 67208/01, 18 May 2004;S.Z. v. Bulgaria, no 29263/12, 3 March 2015;Szula v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 18727/06, 4 January 2007;V.C. v. Italy, no 54227/14, 1 February 2018;X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 20, Series A no 91;Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 29392/95, ECHR 2001 V
Conclusion: No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: FALSE