JUDGMENT Epure v. Romania 11.05.2021 (app. no. 73731/17) see here SUMMARY Detention of the mentally ill. Inhuman and degrading treatment. The ECtHR has already ruled that the conditions of detention of a mentally ill criminal should in no case create feelings of fear, anxiety and inferiority capable of humiliating and devaluing him and possibly breaking […]
JUDGMENT Stevan Petrović v. Serbia 20.04.2021 (app. no. 6097/16 and 28999/19) see here SUMMARY Torture of a detainee by police. Duration of 3 years of temporary detention. Ineffective research into torture. Following a search of his residence, the applicant was misled into the police station to testify as a witness, but an arrest warrant and […]
JUDGMENT Baranin and Vukčević v. Montenegro 11.03.2021 (app. no. 24655/18 and 24656/18) see here SUMMARY Police violence against citizens. Police beat pedestrians. Inhuman and degrading treatment by unknown police officers. Incomplete and ineffective investigation prevented the finding of the specific police officers and consequently the administration of justice. More specifically that night, the applicants were […]
JUDGMENT Κ.Ι. v. France 15.04.2021 (app. no. 5560/19) see here SUMMARY The case concerned a Russian national of Chechen origin who arrived in France when he was still a minor and obtained refugee status. After being convicted for a terrorism offence and on the grounds that his presence in France represented a serious threat to […]
JUDGMENT Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France 25.03.2021 (app.no. 40324/16 and 12623/17) see here SUMMARY The case concerned the applicants’ surrender by France to the Romanian authorities under European arrest warrants (EAWs) for the purpose of execution of their prison sentences. The case prompted the Court to clarify the conditions for application of the presumption of […]
JUDGMENT R.R. and others v. Hungary 02.03.2020 (app. no. 36037/17) see here SUMMARY Detention of a family of asylum seekers in the Röszke transit zone under inappropriate conditions. Regarding the conditions of detention, the Court found a high temperature in the accommodation, lack of ventilation, unsuitable beds for children, lack of access to activities, lack […]
JUDGMENT Ćwik v. Poland 05.11.2020 (app. no. 31454/10) see here SUMMARY The case concerned Mr Ćwik’s complaint that proceedings against him for drug-trafficking had been unfair. He complained in particular that the courts had admitted in evidence statements by a third party which had been obtained through torture by members of a criminal gang. The […]
JUDGMENT
Le Mailloux v. France 03.12.2020 (app. no. 18108/20)
The case concerned the applicant’s objections to the handling by the French State of the Covid-19
health crisis.
The Court observed that the applicant was complaining about the measures taken by the French State to curb the propagation of the Covid-19 virus among the whole population of France, but had not shown how he was personally affected. It reiterated that it did not recognise an actio popularis:
meaning that applicants cannot complain about a provision of domestic law, a domestic practice or
public acts simply because they appear to contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. In
order for applicants to be able to claim to be a victim, they must produce reasonable and convincing
evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting them personally will occur.
The application was thus incompatible with the European Convention.
JUDGMENT
Bardali v. Switzerland 24.11.2020 (app. no. 31623/17)
The case concerned the applicant’s conditions of detention in Champ-Dollon Prison in the Canton of
Geneva.
The Court found, in particular, that the lack of personal space for the applicant in Champ-Dollon
Prison could not on its own constitute a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Indeed, the individual
space available to the applicant, less than the 4 m² standard established by the European Committee
for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CPT), had to be considered
together with the applicant’s other material conditions of detention in order to determine whether
or not there had been a violation of Article 3.
Deportation of the applicant to Sudan by the Belgian authorities despite the existence of a court order ordering the temporary suspension of the measure and despite the pending request of the court to release him.
Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.
Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.