Search

The article discusses several court cases involving decisions on admissibility. In the Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway cases, the European Court of Human Rights struck out the Saramati case concerning Germany declared inadmissible the remainder of the Saramati case against Germany and Norway and the case of Behrami and Behrami v. France. The European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible the application in the case of Saiz Oceja v. Spain.

The article presents judgements of several trials including Custers, Deveaux and Turk v. Denmark, Soysal v. Turkey and Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey. In the Custers, Deveaux and Turk v. Denmark case the European Court of Human Rights gave the judgement that there has been no violation of the applicants' rights. In the Soysal v. Turkey case the European Court of Human Rights gave the judgement that there had been no violation of right to liberty and security.

The article discusses judgements of several court cases including Harutyunyan v. Armenia, O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom and Flux v. Moldova in Great Britain. In the case of Harutyunyan v. Armenia, the European Court of Human Rights gave the judgement that there had been a violation of the applicant's rights. In the case of O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights gave the judgement that there had been no violation of Article 6, Section I.

The article discusses several court cases involving decisions on admissibility. In Ghosh v. Germany, a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible the application made by the accused mentioning the inhuman or degrading treatment in prison. In Karakaya v. Turkey, a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible the application mentioning fair trial. In Tamburini v. France, the application mentioning fair trial was declared inadmissible.

The article presents information on several decisions pronounced by the European Court of Human Rights. As reported, in a judgment delivered on March 1, 2007 in the case of Geerings v. the Netherlands, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 6, Section 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the case of TØnsbergs Blad AS and Haukom v. Norway, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the convention.

The article presents information on several cases in which the European Court of Human Rights pronounced decisions on admissibility. As reported, a Chamber of the Court declared inadmissible the application in the case Pavel Ivanov v. Russia, on February 20, 2007. Also, on February 20, 2007 a Chamber of the Court declared admissible the application in the case of Unistar Ventures GmbH v. Moldova, by considering that the case raised complex issues of law and fact under the convention.

The article presents several judgments made by the European Court of Human Rights during January-February 2007. In the case of Intersplav v. Ukraine, it was held that applicant's rights to protection of property was violated. In another case, Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova, it was decided that applicant was denied the right to freedom of expression. In the case of Puzinas v. Lithuania, the court held that there had been no violation of the applicant's right to respect for correspondence.

The article offers information concerning the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights' admissibility and inadmissibility declaration on various case applications in Europe. These court case decisions include: the inadmissibility of the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time in the case of Ugilt Hansen v. Denmark; the inadmissibility of the right to respect for private and family life in the case of D. v. Ireland; and the admissibility of the right to respect for private and family life and the right to an effective remedy.

The article presents several cases related to human rights from the European Court of Human Rights in Europe. The case of Klein v. Slovakia centers on the criticism by Klein, who is a journalist, against Slovak Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church, which was declared by the court as admissible. In the case of EEG-Slachthuis Verbist v. Belgium, EEG-Slachthuis accuses that the Law of March 23, 1998 had been enacted in breach of several provisions of the human rights convention. Meanwhile, the court find the case as inadmissible.

The article discusses the decisions on admissibility of the European Court of Human Rights on several cases. In the case of Martinie versus France, a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights declared the application of the right to a fair trial admissible. In the Ashworth and Others versus the United Kingdom case, a Chamber of the Court declared the application of the right to respect for private and family life and protection of property inadmissible. In the case of Berdzenishvili versus Russia, a Chamber of the Court declared the application of the prohibition of discrimination inadmissible.

The article focuses on the judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in 2004. It reports that the total number of judgments that was delivered in 2004 showed a modest increase, which was considered as the first annual increase since 2001. In addition, an analysis of the type of judgments involved revealed a significant increase in the number of more complex judgments. The judgments reflected substantial growth in terms of productivity. Over 50% of all judgments were accounted from Turkey, Poland, France and Italy. The applications lodged continued its momentum to an estimated increase of 13.7%, while the number of applications declared admissible had an increase of 11.75%.

The article offers a summary of several human rights cases. In the Sadik Önder versus Turkey case and Çolak and Filizer versus Turkey case, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 3, which is the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the Voggenreiter versus Germany case, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of the applicant's rights under the right to a fair trial. In the case of Haas versus the Netherlands, the Court held that there had been no violation of the applicant's right under the right to respect for private and family life, the right to an effective remedy and the prohibition of discrimination.

The article presents the summary of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on several court cases that were applied to the Court for judicial violation of the human rights law in several European countries. The cases discussed include Kopecký v. Slovakia, Shishkov v. Bulgaria, K. A. v. Finland, Karagiannis and Others v. Greece and Peck v. the United Kingdom. Information about the principal facts of each case, details of the proceedings and decision of the human rights court on each case are discussed.

The article discusses several court cases in Europe, that were being applied to the European Court of Human Rights for human rights violation. Summaries of the cases, complaint made and the decision of the Court regarding the admissibility of each application are reviewed. The cases discussed include the Younger v. the United Kingdom, whose complaints on the violation of the person's right to life was considered inadmissible by the Court. Another is the Gorraiz Lirazzaga and Others v. Spain, which the Court declared the admissibility of the applicants' application for the right to fair trial, respect for private and family life, and protection of property.

Presents a list of legal cases on human rights abuses that were arranged according to applicable articles, protocols and rules of the 2002 European Convention on Human Rights.

This article provides details on the decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights, from September-October 2002, which clarified the law. The discussion was arranged based on the following headings: Obligation to secure rights and freedoms, right to a fair trial, right to respect for private and family life, freedom of expression, right to marry, establishment of the court, individual applications, admissibility criteria, striking out applications, referral to the grand chamber and rules of court.

Several decisions made on legal cases on human rights abuses by the European Court of Human Rights, as of 2002, are presented. The first case dealt with the acknowledgement made by Turkey that Turkish law and practice must as a matter of urgency be brought into conformity withy the requirements of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The second case dealt with the failure of Greek authorities to maintain the requisite fair balance between the protection of individual rights and the requirements of the general interest. The third case dealt with deciding whether or not the verification of an applicant's need for interpretation facilities was a matter for the judge to determine in consultation with the applicant, especially since the judge had been alerted to counsel's own difficulties in communicating with the applicant.

Several decisions made on legal cases on human rights abuses by the European Court of Human Rights, as of 2002, are presented. The first case dealt with the expulsion of Roma gypsies and their minor children to Bosnia-Herzegovina, where they claim they will be exposed to a risk of persecution. The second case dealt with the search of applicant's business premises and home in relation to criminal proceedings against son. The third case dealt with the alleged administration of medicines and psychotropic injections to a detainee and physical ill treatment.

The European Court of Human Rights in July and August 2002 made a number of decisions clarifying the law. Among the cases decided is "Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey," which deals with the right to life. The Court tackled prohibition of torture in "Kalashnikov v. Russia." Of the cases on the right to fair trial, notable is "Ezeh and Connors v. United Kingdom." On the protection of private property, the Court ruled "Göktan v. France." Among the cases on the right to respect for private and family life is "Amrollahi v. Denmark." "Wilson and the National Union of Journalists, Palmer, Wyeth and the National Union of Rail Maritime and Transport Workers and Doolan and Others v. the United Kingdom" is a case regarding freedom of association.

Cases adjudicated by the European Court of Human Rights in July and August 2002 are indexed alphabetically and classified by applicable articles of the convention on and protocols and rules of human rights. Among the cases is "Kalashnikov v. Russia," which deals with the prohibition of torture; Right to fair trial has the most number of cases at 21, among them "Perote Pellon v. Spain." The protocol on the protection of property has the next highest number of cases at nine, among them "Ciobanu v. Romania." Other cases focus on the right to life, right to liberty and security, right to respect for private and family life, freedom of association, right to an effective remedy, right of appeal in criminal matters and the ban on double jeopardy.

Discusses the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on various cases concerning the civil rights of complainants. Issue on the right to liberty and security; Applicability of the provision on freedom of expression; Emphasis on the right to an effective remedy; Applicability of the provision concerning the right to protection of property; Elaboration on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Presents the summaries of judgments on various court cases from the European Court of Human Rights. Provisions of the law invoked by the complainant in the case "Ouzounis and Others v. Greece"; Contention of the complainant in the case of McVicar v. the United Kingdom; Decision of the Court in the case "Burdov v. Russia."

There had been no “lawful” basis for the applicant's remand in custody for the periods from 21 September 1996 to 3 January 1997, from23 September 1997 to 15 October 1998, and from 30 September 1999 to 8 February 2000. Furthermore, the detention orders of 3 January and 23 May 1997, and the decision of the Court of Appeal of 29 January 1998, did not refer to any grounds for remand. The domestic courts, in their decisions authorising the applicant's remand in custody or rejecting his requests for release, gave no reply to his numerous complaints about the unlawfulness of his detention from 21 September 1996 until 3 January 1997 and from 23 September 1997 until 15 October 1998. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There had been no “lawful” basis for the applicant's remand in custody under Article 5, Section 1 of the Convention for the periods from 30 November to 8 December 1997, and from 31 December 1997 until 8 January 1998. Furthermore, the domestic courts, in their decisions authorising the applicant's remand in custody or rejecting his requests for release, gave no reply to his numerous complaints about the unlawfulness of his detention from 30 November to 8 December 1997, and from 31 December 1997 until 8 January 1998. While the remarks of the Chairman of the Parliament were in each case brief and made on separate occasions, they amounted to declarations by a public official of the applicant's guilt, which served to encourage the public to believe him guilty and prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The third applicant had been convicted solely on the basis of anonymous evidence. As the Convention effectively prohibits a conviction based solely on anonymous evidence, the third applicant's defence rights and his right to a fair trial had been violated in this respect. The courts' failure to question anonymous witnesses, and to conduct a scrutiny of the manner and circumstances in which the anonymous statements had been obtained, had been unacceptable from the point of view of the first and the second applicants' defence rights and their right to a fair trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even where proposals informed by democratic principles were likely to clash with the main strands of government policy or the convictions of a majority of the public, the proper functioning of democracy required political groupings to be able to introduce them into public debate in order to help to find solutions to problems of general interest concerning politicians of all persuasions. The dissolution of a political party is a “drastic” measure which should correspond to a “pressing social need”. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the absence of any objective guarantees, the procedure followed in the applicant's case where, although she held a valid language certificate, she was required to sit a further language examination, the assessment of which had been left to the sole discretion of a single official, was incompatible with the procedural requirements of fairness and legal certainty for determining eligibility for election. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article 2 could not, without a distortion of language, be interpreted as conferring the diametrically opposite right, namely a right to die; nor could it create a right to self-determination in the sense of conferring on an individual the entitlement to choose death rather than life. No right to die, whether at the hands of a third person or with the assistance of a public authority, could be derived from Article 2. The Court was not prepared to exclude that being prevented by law from exercising a choice to avoid what the applicant considered would be an undignified and distressing end to her life might constitute an interference with her right to respect for private life as guaranteed under Article 8, Section 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Detainee giving birth in detention on remand and unable to keep her baby with her in prison [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While Article 10 of the Convention did not in terms prohibit the imposition of prior restraints on publications, the dangers inherent in prior restraints were such that they called for the most careful scrutiny. The relevant law must provide a clear indication of the circumstances when such restraints were permissible, and, a fortiori, when the consequences of the restraint were to block completely publication of a periodical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If the authorities know or ought to know at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party, the authorities have a Convention requirement to take operational measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might be expected to prevent that risk from materialising. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Only in exceptional cases can restriction — even by way of a lenient criminal sanction — of defence counsel's freedom of expression be accepted as necessary in a democratic society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of a certificate under Section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 constituted a disproportionate restriction on the applicant's right of access to a court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The changes introduced by the United Kingdom's Armed Forces Act 1996 had gone a long way towards meeting the Court's concerns about the structure of the UK court martial system. However, the position and powers of the two serving officers and of the Defence Council in its capacity as “reviewing authority” meant that the applicant's misgivings about the independence of the court martial and its status as a “tribunal” were objectively justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authorities had failed to discharge their duty to protect the life of the applicant's son when he was subject to State supervision while in police custody. Moreover they had failed to adequately investigate his death, by merely accepting the version of events given by the accused and the other gendarmes present in the barracks, given that no explanation of the radical difference between the two versions of events had been forthcoming and in view of the nature of the injuries found on the various parts of the deceased's body. The Government had not supplied any plausible explanation for the areas of bruising found, among other places, on the applicant's son's arms and thigh, the soles of his feet and the crown and sides of his head or of the scratches on his genitals, whereas he had been in good health before he was taken into police custody. The way applicant's son had been treated when in police custody constituted treatment prohibited by Article 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Court did not find sufficient, consistent or reliable evidence to establish, to the necessary degree of proof, that the village guards or gendarmes damaged the applicant's home and property as alleged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fact that a politician was in a situation where his business and political activities overlapped might give rise to public discussion, even where, strictly speaking, no problem of incompatibility of office under domestic law arose. While it was true that the applicants, on a slim factual basis, published harsh criticism in strong, polemical language, it must be remembered that Article 10 also protected information or ideas that offended, shocked or disturbed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Convention did not guarantee, as such, the right to adopt. The national authorities could legitimately and reasonably have considered that the right to be able to adopt asserted by the applicant under French domestic law was circumscribed by the interests of adoptable children, without his personal choices being called into question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impugned statement about “racist agitation” was not necessarily a statement of fact; it could be considered fair comment on a matter of public interest, that is, a value judgment, the truth of which was not susceptible to proof. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severing contact between two young children and their parents, because of concerns about both the parents and children's development, and imposing extreme restrictions on visiting rights, could only lead to the children's increased “alienation” from their parents and from each other, while a care order had in principle to be regarded as a temporary measure, to be discontinued as soon as circumstances permitted, and that any measures implementing temporary care had to be consistent with the ultimate aim of reuniting the natural parents and the child. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An interval of one year and eight months between the drafting of a medical report on the applicant's mental condition and the subsequent decision on his release could in itself conflict with the underlying principle of Article 5 of the Convention: the protection of the individual against arbitrariness when liberty was at stake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Expulsion based upon Latvian-Russian treaty on withdrawal of Russian troops [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The applicants had entered into a settlement agreement and voluntarily waived their right to pursue the proceedings against a doctor which they accused of responsibility for the death of their new-born child, thereby denying themselves access to the best means — and one that, in the special circumstances of the instant case, would have satisfied the positive obligations arising under Article 2 — of elucidating the extent of the doctor's responsibility for the death of their child. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No reasons had been disclosed or substantiated which could justify the control of the applicant's correspondence with a Convention organ or his representative before that organ. Given the lack of adequate implementation by the Netherlands Antilles authorities of judicial orders to repair the unacceptable shortcomings of penitentiary facilities, as well as noting their failure to implement the urgent recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, there was a lack of an effective remedy for Convention complaints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under the principle of equality of arms, as one of the features of the wider concept of a fair trial, it was unfair for the prosecution to make submissions to a court without the knowledge of the defence. Surveillance by the investigating judge of the contacts of a detainee with his defence counsel was a serious interference with an accused's defence rights and very weighty reasons should be given for its justification. In the present case such extraordinary features could not be made out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even as regards immigration overstayers, a conscious decision by the authorities to facilitate or improve the effectiveness of a planned operation for the expulsion of aliens by misleading them about the purpose of a notice so as to make it easier to deprive them of their liberty was not compatible with Article 5. At no stage in the period between the service of the notice on the aliens to attend the police station and their expulsion had the procedure afforded sufficient guarantees demonstrating that the personal circumstances of each of those concerned had been genuinely and individually taken into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present case differs from the Court's previous paternity cases in so far as no family tie had been established between the applicant and her alleged father. However, Article 8 protected not only “family” but also “private” life. There appeared to be no reason of principle why the notion of “private life” should be taken to exclude the determination of the legal relationship between a child born out of wedlock and her natural father. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a case where the applicant's conviction had been based to a decisive extent on anonymous testimony, the domestic court had not carried out a sufficient examination into the seriousness and well-foundedness of the reasons for the anonymity of the witness when it decided to use the statement made before the investigating judge in evidence against the applicant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The requirements of Article 6, Section 1 were not necessarily satisfied where litigants had been able to make use of domestic remedies only to be told that their actions were statute-barred. It was necessary in addition for the degree of access afforded by statute law to be sufficient to guarantee the right of the litigants concerned to a hearing by a tribunal, regard being had to the principle of the rule of law in a democratic society. The Greek courts had decided that the applicants' claim for compensation was out of time at an advanced stage of the proceedings, which the applicants had pursued diligently and in good faith. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It was doubtful whether the exercise of the right to vote in parliamentary elections by persons detained on remand should be subject to any special conditions other than those dictated by the normal requirements of prison security. In any event, the Court did not accept that it was justified that such conditions should include an order to strip naked in front of a group of prison guards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]