Article 8

The lack of a statement of reasons for judicial decisions and the non-judicial investigation of complaints concerning individual and family life constitute a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR!

JUDGMENT A.T. v. Estonia 13.11.2018 (no. 23183/15) see here SUMMARY  Reasoning of court rulings. Judicial examination of allegations of violation of private and family life. The role of the courts. Visits of a dangerous patient in a hospital with handcuffs and legs. The ECtHR considered that because of his  history (violent, aggressive, etc.) handcuffing did […]

read more

Individual’s right to respect for reputation infringed by court judgment on harassment case against local authority

JUDGMENT  Vicent Del Campo v. Spain 6.11.2018 (no. 25527/13) see here SUMMARY The case concerned a domestic judgement which named Mr Vicent Del Campo as having harassed a work colleague, although the defendant in the case was actually his local authority employer. The Court found in particular that there had been no good reason to […]

read more
Ρομά

Attacks against Roma by members of the local community. Failure to take appropriate protective measures by the police and inadequate investigation have violated the ECHR.

JUDGMENT Burlya and others v. Ukraine 6.11.2018  (no. 3289/10) see here SUMMARY Expulsion and pillage of a Roma village in Ukraine. Lack of measures to protect homes and no objective explanation of the facts. The passivity of the police during the attack, coupled with the village council resolution on the persecution of the Roma community, […]

read more

A prisoner refused to go to his grandmother’s funeral because the van that was to carry him was small and did not have a safety belt!

JUDGMENT  Jatsõšõn v. Estonia 30.10.2018 (no. 27603/15) see here   SUMMARY A detainee in prison in Estonia asked for permission to go to his grandmother’s funeral. The prison authorities granted him a permit and a small bus for his transportation. As soon as he saw the bus, the prisoner refused to board and be transferred to […]

read more

The parent can not be able to take measures that could harm his/her child. The removal of parental rights from a schizophrenic mother.

JUDGMENT  S.S. v. Slovenia 30.10.2018 (no.40938/16) see here SUMMARY Parental rights and schizophrenia. Removing parental rights from a mother suffering from schizophrenia and the then adoption of the child. According to the national courts, despite her psychological problems, there was no realistic chance that the applicant would take care of her daughter diligently. She complained […]

read more

Violent, intimidating and threatening journalistic attack on authors of the report regarding minority rights. Violation of privacy.

JUDGMENT Kaboğlu and Oran v. Turkey 30.10.2018 (no. 1759/08, 50766/10 and 50782/10) see here SUMMARY Official university report on the problems faced by minorities in Turkey. Journalists attacked the authors of the above report, using hate speech and incitement to violence with phrases such as “spilling blood”, “if we had beaten these people, people would […]

read more

Life-long deportation of a drug dealer father of six children. The right to respect for family life in the prevention of crime

JUDGMENT Assem Hassan Ali v. Denmark 23.10.2018 (no. 25593/14) see here   SUMMARY Life deportation. Family life. A Jordanian lived in Denmark and had originally married a stateless Palestinian woman with Danish citizenship and afterwards he was married to an Iraqi woman. He had a total of 6 children, all of whom were Danish citizens. He […]

read more

The non-exhaustive judicial inquiry into the custody of the child has violated the right of the father and the child to family life.

JUDGMENT Petrov and X v. Russia 23.10.2018 (no. 23608/16) see here SUMMARY Child custody. Unreasonable and sufficient reasons that establish the custody of the child, and not to the father. No expert opinion was sought, nor was the father’s request examined, nor were the medical documents taken into account as evidence. The ECtHR held that the […]

read more

The re-seizure of business related items which were handed over to the applicant’s lawyer before the latter could communicate with him did not provide sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT Visy v. Slovakia 16.10.2018 (no.  70288/13) see here SUMMARY Investigation and confiscation of items without a legal warrant. The items were returned to the applicant’s lawyer and subsequently confiscated with a new warrant. The re-seizure of business objects, including legal documents protected by the client-client privacy relationship, which were returned to the lawyer rather […]

read more
ECHRCaseLaw

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

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.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Decline all Services
Accept all Services