Search

The article discusses the European Court of Human Rights case Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey wherein the court ruled violations of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to right to life. The court examined the applicant's complaint about circumstances of his son's death and the inadequacy of the ensuing proceedings, and deceased's criminal conviction was not proof of the acknowledgement of any liability for failure to safeguard the right to life.

The article discusses various court cases on human rights in European countries. It states the European Court of Human Rights concluded the violation on the European Convention on Human Rights on the account of killing the son of applicants by Turkish police on the case of Mazlum Mansuroglu v. Turkey. It mentions that the European Court of Human Rights stated that there would be a violation on the European Convention on Human Rights if they will deport the applicant Nassim Saadi to Tunisia.

A subject index for the March-April 2008 issue of the journal "Human Rights Case Digest" (HRCD) is presented.

The article presents summaries of judgements in several court cases including Mocarska v. Poland, Stepuleac v. Moldova and Perry v. Latvia. It features the history of cases individually, procedures of court and court's decision. It mentions that all mentioned cases are related to the human rights and their violation.

The article presents information on several court cases including Al Fayed v. France, Stummer v. Austria and Sammut and Visa Investments Limited v. Malta. It features the history of individual cases, the court trials, and the decisions of the courts. It mentions that all of the cases were related to human rights.

A cases index for the January 2007 issue of "Human Rights Case Digest," is presented.

A case index for the January 2007 issue of "Human Rights Case Digest," is presented.

The article presents summaries of judgments in several court cases including Johansson v. Finland, Kliza v. Poland and Kucheruk v. Ukraine. It features the history of cases individually, procedures of court and court's decision. It mentions that all mentioned cases are related to the human rights and their violation.

The article presents information on several court cases including Paradis and Others v. Germany, Schaefer v. Germany and Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece. It features the history of individual cases, the court trials and, the decisions of the court. It mentions that all of the cases are related to human rights violations.

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 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 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.

An index of court cases related to human rights is presented.

The article discusses several decisions on admissibility of the court cases filed in the European Court of Human Rights. In one case, the application against inability to claim non-pecuniary damage for wrongful conviction was declared admissible. In another case, the application against a police warning to a schoolboy for indecent assault on girls at his school was dismissed. The case of Szula v. the United Kingdom was dismissed as there was no violation of right to respect for private life.

An index of court cases related to human rights is presented.

The article discusses several decisions on admissibility of the court cases filed in the European Court of Human Rights. In one case, the application against the refusal to register a foreign forename was declared admissible. In another case, two husbands tried to get gender recognition after gender reassignment surgery, but their case was dismissed as they were married. The case of Ben El Mahi and Others v. Denmark was dismissed as there was no violation of right to respect for private life.

A case index for the 2006 to 2007 issue of "Human Rights Case Digest," is presented.

The article presents several court cases. These include a case wherein the plaintiff was charged with several criminal offences including attempted aggravated robbery. Another on a case wherein the plaintiff complained the refusal of the school to allow the children's exemption from compulsory primary religious education. Moreover, a court case examining the plaintiff's complaint over the unlawful interference with its possession, its entitlement to a licence for fishing is also presented.

The article offers information concerning the summaries of judgments on European Court of human rights. These summaries of judgments include: the case of Ramirez Sanchez v. France delivered on July 4, 2006 wherein the court decided that there is no violation on the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, but with violation on the right to an effective remedy; the case of Erbakan v. Turkey delivered on July 6, 2006 wherein the court decided that the right to a fair hearing and freedom of expression have been violated; and the case of Boicenco v. Moldova delivered on July 11, 2006 wherein the court decided that the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, right to liberty and security, and right of individual petition have been violated.

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.

A subject index for the March 2006 issue of Human Rights Case Digest is presented.

A subject index for the March 1, 2006 issue of the journal "Human Rights Case Digest" is presented.

The article focuses on the judgements delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on several court cases including Sejdovic v. Italy, Svipsta v. Latvia, Perk and Others v. Turkey. In the Sejdovic v. Italy case, it was held that there had been a violation of right to a fair trial. In the Svipsta v. Latvia case, it was held that there had been a violation of the applicant's right to liberty. In the Perk and Others v. Turkey case, it was held that there had been a violation of right to life.

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 table of contents for the November-December 2005 issue of "Human Rights Case Digest," Volume 16 is presented.

The article presents several court cases including Ivanciuc v. Romania, Popescu v. Romania and C. Goudswaard-van der Lans v. the Netherlands. The Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights declared the case of Ivanciuc v. Romania inadmissible of the right to fair trial and freedom of expression. The Popescu v. Romania case was declared on September 22, 2005 by the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights as partly admissible for the right to respect for private and family life.

A summary of judgments from the book titled "HUMAN RIGHTS CASE DIGEST" is presented.

A subject index for the September-October 2005 issue of "HUMAN RIGHTS CASE DIGEST" is presented.

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.

A case index for the 2004-2005 issue of "Human Rights Case Digest," vol. 15, is presented.

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 offers an overview on the topics addressed within the issue, which focuses on several cases of human rights violation in various European countries, presented before the European Court of Human Rights.

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.

Cases adjudicated by the European Court of Human Rights in July and August 2002 are summarized with their facts, court procedures and rulings. Among the cases is "Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey," which deals with the right to life and the prohibition of torture. There are 21 cases on the right to fair trial, among them "Balanescu v. Romania." Next in the number of cases is protocol on the protection of private property, one of them "Cretu v. Romania." 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.

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.

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."

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]

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]

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]

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]