text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
141. The applicants further complained that the refusal to recognise the applicant Church was preventing it from acquiring legal personality, thus depriving it of its right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, so that any complaint relating to its rights, and in particular its prope... | 9 |
26. The Government contended that Article 6 did not apply in the present case. Relying on the Court’s reasoning in its decision in the case of Pitkevich (Pitkevich v. Russia, no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001), they maintained that disputes relating to dismissal from the judiciary fall outside the scope of Article <mask> ... | 9 |
44. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Firstly, they claimed that the applicant should have complained under Articles 73 and 234 of the CCP to the responsible investigator or prosecutor about the alleg... | 9 |
42. The Government maintained that if the offence had been committed after 1 June 2005, that is to say, after the entry into force of the Misdemeanours Act and the recent Code of Criminal Procedure, the fine would have been imposed directly by the relevant official authority, without any court proceedings. They stated... | 9 |
95. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their conviction had been based on evidence obtained as a result of ill-treatment and in the absence of any real evidence of their guilt. They added that they had not been allowed to see a lawyer for 24 hours following their placement in detenti... | 9 |
43. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, in so far as it concerned the charge involving OZ, he had been convicted of an offence which had been incited by the police and that his conviction was based on evidence from the police officers involved and from OZ, an individual acting on thei... | 9 |
74. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article <mask> of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptl... | 9 |
82. The applicant also rejected the Government’s argument that the flaws in the appointment procedure of A.E. had not amounted to a flagrant breach of domestic law and thus the Supreme Court’s interpretation of domestic law should not be questioned by the Court. The applicant submitted, firstly, that the Supreme Court... | 9 |
91. The applicant submitted that the present case reflected both subjective and objective bias on the part of the Chief Justice, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. The Chief Justice had been biased on account of the fact that his brother had been the lawyer of the opposing party during the injunction procee... | 9 |
103. The Government submitted that the application did not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular having regard to the time elapsed after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia. They submitted further that the subject matter of the applicant's ca... | 9 |
24. The Government rejected that argument. In their submission, Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply to the procedure followed by the applicant to obtain legal aid. They pointed out, firstly, that the relevant procedure, which was governed by the Legal Aid Act of 10 July 1991, enabled any litigant to apply f... | 9 |
71. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the remaining two sets of proceedings in cases in which he was involved had been excessively long. In so far as this complaint relates to the civil proceedings in which he sought compensation for damage arising out of another part of the 1961 dec... | 9 |
59. The applicant complained that on the first two occasions when he had been questioned by the prosecutor, he had been subjected to ill-treatment and denied the assistance of his own chosen counsel, being allocated against his will a counsel who was already representing one of the co-accused. He further complained th... | 9 |
37. The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable to the proceedings against the Central Bank and the ARKO as the proceedings did not concern the applicant’s civil rights or obligations. In the Government’s view, the proceedings merely pertained to the enforcement of the judgment issued ... | 9 |
47. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the judgments given in her civil cases had been erroneous, that the courts had wrongly applied substantive law and that, as a result, her rights had been breached. She further argued that the courts had committed errors in the assessment ... | 9 |
78. The Government submitted that the fairness of proceedings held by the Supreme Court in the context of a cassation appeal had been examined by the Court in the case of Walczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 77395/01, 7 May 2002. The Court had declared the case inadmissible, finding that the proceedings complied with the req... | 9 |
97. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the Vienna Court of Appeal, in its decision of 24 May 2006, had wrongly assessed the evidence before it and in particular the information conveyed by the photograph published in Profil on 12 July 2004. In particular, he alleged that the c... | 9 |
44. The Government of Serbia and Montenegro submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was not incompatible ratione loci with the provisions of the Convention. They noted that the acts had been committed either on the territory of Serbia and Montenegro or on the territory of Italy, while the c... | 9 |
53. The Government argued that the applicant's case had been examined at two levels of jurisdiction. Neither the Convention nor domestic law guaranteed a right to have a civil case heard at three levels of jurisdiction. The right to a court was not absolute and could therefore be subject to certain limitations, in so ... | 9 |
85. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. He alleged that the domestic courts had violated his right not to incriminate himself and in convicting him had had regard to a confession given under duress. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, ... | 9 |
47. The Government considered that the applicant had relied on Article 13 in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. In view of the lack of any reason to believe that Article 6 had been breached in the present case, the Government considered that Article 13 could not be relied on, since the applicant had no... | 9 |
62. The applicant also complained that the proceedings related to the determination of his nationality had been unfair. He invoked Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant also complained about the conditions of his detention in Russia pending extradition, relying on Article 3. However, having regard to all the... | 9 |
87. The applicants submitted that a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention had been exceeded. They pointed out that the second applicant's tax assessment had been examined by the County Administrative Court on 29 March 2000 and had only recently been finally determined by the courts a... | 9 |
40. The applicant further complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the civil proceedings instituted against him had been unfair because the domestic courts had not considered the testimony of his fiancée to be credible and had allowed the plaintiff's action. He further submitted that the medica... | 10 |
56. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that in the decisions of the national courts in the civil proceedings he was treated as having committed a criminal offence. He further complained, under Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 of the Convention, that his pre-trial detention had exceeded a reasonabl... | 10 |
30. The applicant alleged that the proceedings on 21 February 2001 and the ensuing criminal proceedings before the national courts, taken together, had violated his rights under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d), Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7. The Court has examined the applicant's co... | 10 |
106. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Serie... | 10 |
49. The applicant alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been convicted of an act which had not constituted a criminal offence when it had been committed. He submitted that offshore banking activities had not been regulated under national law at the material time. He therefore concluded that the ac... | 10 |
83. The Government rejected that argument, observing that Article <mask> of the Convention did no more than prohibit any retrospective application of criminal law in relation to “the time the criminal offence was committed”. They observed that the provisions of the Criminal Code which established penalties for the off... | 10 |
147. The Government submitted in the alternative that the applicant's conduct during the attack on Mazie Bati “was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations”, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention. In that connection, the Court notes th... | 10 |
80. The applicant noted in the first place that, according to the case-law of the Italian courts (Court of Cassation, combined divisions, judgment of 6 March 1992 in the Merletti case), Article 442 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which sets out the penalty to be imposed when the summary procedure has been adopted i... | 10 |
34. The Government observed that the applicant had been sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment for an offence committed in 1995. His sentence had indisputably been provided for in the legislation applicable on that date, namely Article 222-37 of the Criminal Code, concerning drug offences, and Article 132-9 of the sa... | 10 |
55. The applicants maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been arrested and the criminal proceedings had been brought against them on account of an act which did not constitute a criminal offence under domestic law. The applicants also complained that the unlawful restrictions placed on their ... | 10 |
95. The applicant considered his conviction contrary to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention as it did not fall into any of the three exceptions laid down therein. His conduct towards the villagers of Mazie Bati did not constitute an offence under either international or national law at the time, nor w... | 10 |
124. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as regards the applicants, both of whom had been convicted of large-scale embezzlement, a criminal offence under Article 160 § 4 of the Criminal Code. They maintained that the relevant domestic courts had correctly decid... | 10 |
15. The applicant complained under Article 3 that he had been subjected to psychological torture in police custody. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, he further complained that he had been held in police custody for a long time. Under Article 6, the applicant alleged that the State Security Court which had t... | 10 |
110. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Serie... | 10 |
92. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series... | 10 |
21. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been dismissed from his post on the basis of his criminal conviction for having disseminated communist propaganda under the provisions of the former Criminal Code, which had been repealed in 1991, and despite the fact that his criminal rec... | 10 |
166. The applicant submitted that the commutation of the death penalty into life imprisonment without parole infringed Article <mask> of the Convention, such commutation having resulted from a legislative amendment made subsequently to his conviction (under Law no. 4771, which came into force on 9 August 2002). Prior ... | 10 |
39. The applicant pointed out that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as the essential elements of the crime in the present case had not been fulfilled. The applicant had been charged with having concealed property which Mr A. had obtained by a criminal act, namely property which Mr A. had ... | 10 |
194. The applicant maintained that because of a close association between the enactment of the 2005 Amendment and the criminal case against him, no comparison could be made with the case of Coëme and Others v. Belgium. Furthermore, the Court’s findings in that judgment with regard to the extension of limitation period... | 10 |
86. The applicant submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention guaranteed not only the non-retrospectiveness of the criminal law but also the principle – set forth explicitly in Article 15 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by Article 49 of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental righ... | 10 |
41. The applicant complained that the Criminal Code had been applied retroactively in his case, pointing out that he had been convicted of a continuous offence of abusing a person living under the same roof which, according to the courts, encompassed his conduct even before that offence had been introduced into the la... | 10 |
37. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conduct leading to her conviction did not constitute a criminal offence under national law as S.K. had voluntarily transferred the money to her account. From that moment on the money had no longer formed a part of his, and subsequentl... | 10 |
37. The applicant submitted, in particular, that, while increasing the sentences applicable to recidivists was justified by the greater danger they posed on account of their persistence despite warnings from the courts, the concept of recidivism was considered above all to be a means of ensuring exemplary conduct on t... | 10 |
92. The Government submitted that the interpretation of the notion of “official document” was consistent throughout both criminal codes and that the courts had rightly applied Article 325 of the new CC. There was therefore no issue of legal certainty under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government submitted a n... | 10 |
107. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in relation to his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. He had failed to complain either expressly or in substance about a breach of his right not to have a heavier penalty im... | 10 |
40. The applicant further pointed out that even if there existed a legal basis in Finnish law for the applicant’s conviction, the quality of that law was not in accordance with Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Finnish system, the dismissal of a charge did not automatically mean that claims for damages arising ... | 10 |
202. The applicant complained, invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, that he had been convicted in the absence of criminal intent, as one of the constituent elements of the offence of espionage, and that he should instead have been acquitted. Thus, he had not realised that he was dealing with information containi... | 10 |
105. The Government submitted that any possible interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly had been prescribed by law. The applicants had been convicted under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code, prescribing punishment for serious breaches of public order. Referring to the Court’s judgmen... | 10 |
238. The Government observed that, in the Sud Fondi S.r.l. and Others judgment (merits, cited above), the Court had found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the ground that confiscation was not a foreseeable consequence of the applicant companies’ conduct (they had been acquitted as the courts had not ... | 10 |
48. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that it had not been clear from the Penal Code provision applied that their conduct might be punishable, as the provision had not defined the scope of private life. The convictions of A. and B. had been public information that could not have fallen w... | 10 |
87. The Government pointed out that in the judgment of Vasiliauskas (cited above, § 159) the Court did not deny the right of the State to take action against the perpetrators of the repressions committed during the Soviet occupation regime. What led the Court to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in ... | 10 |
60. The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive and that he had not had any domestic remedy whereby he could challenge the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention. He also complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that h... | 10 |
66. The Government argued that neither during the administrative offence proceedings nor in his constitutional complaint had the applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, in his constitutional complaint the applicant had alleged violations of his constitutional rights to e... | 10 |
98. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series... | 10 |
36. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that it had not been clear from the Penal Code provision applied that their conduct would have been punishable as the provision had not defined the scope of private life. Moreover, the conviction of B. could not have fallen within the scope of privat... | 10 |
18. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and that it had acted as a first and only instance court, which had also infringed... | 10 |
122. The applicants complained that the legal provision on the basis of which they had been convicted of embezzlement had not been applicable to their acts. They claimed that the authorities extended the interpretation of the offence to such broad and ambiguous terms that it did not satisfy the requirements of foresee... | 10 |
38. The applicant noted that Article 132-9 of the new Criminal Code had doubled the period between the two components of recidivism and that in order to apply these new, harsher, provisions to him, the Court of Cassation had laid down a rule which, albeit simple, was extremely questionable in the light of Article <mas... | 10 |
127. The applicant submitted that the circumstances that had led to the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention had also breached the principles of fair trial. In February 2000 he had opted for the summary procedure, and in doing so had waived a number of procedural safeguards, because he knew, on the basis of t... | 10 |
19. The applicant complained that the domestic courts examining the charges against him had failed to respond to his argument that it had not been shown that he had acquired the counterfeit bank notes after 26 March 2005, namely at a time when acquiring such notes had been an offence. He relied generally on Article 6 ... | 10 |
18. The applicants complain about the legality and proportionality of pecuniary and non-pecuniary penalties. According to Article 187 ter of the TUF, the pecuniary sanctions applicable to the administrative offence of market manipulation could reach five million euros[28], and be increased up to three times or even te... | 10 |
62. The applicants raised certain additional complaints with reference to Article 6 and Article <mask> of the Convention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and f... | 10 |
37. The Government pointed out that the Supreme Court had confirmed in its judgment of 22 October 2009 that attributing the aggravated receiving offence to the applicant did not violate the legality principle laid down in Article <mask> of the Convention. It was clear that, after a person was declared bankrupt, that p... | 10 |
78. The applicant complained that his conviction under Article 99 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code had been retroactive and therefore amounted to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also pointed out that the crime of genocide, as described in that provision of the Criminal Code, did not have a basis in the... | 10 |
48. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic courts had retrospectively applied and extensively construed the State Secrets Act in his case. He further complained under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of his freedom of expression. The applicant claimed that he had b... | 10 |
137. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, according to legal opinions produced by him, the first set of proceedings should have been discontinued, as no offence had been committed. The applicant also complained that he had not been able to initiate criminal proceedings against a prosec... | 10 |
37. The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention had not been breached. Although the applicant's company lacked any bookkeeping as from 5 May 1993, this state of affairs continued after the entry into force of Article 148-4 of the Criminal Code on 20 July 1993. Moreover, the applicant had the obligation... | 10 |
76. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been the victim of the retrospective application of a criminal statute. He submitted, in particular, that the acts of which he was accused did not, at the time of their commission, constitute an offence under either domestic or internation... | 10 |
144. The Government submitted that an award of compensation by the Court to a person convicted of acts as murderous as those committed by the applicant – who had been found guilty in judicial proceedings that met all the requirements of a fair trial – would be difficult to understand. They argued that in the Kafkaris ... | 10 |
28. The Government argued that the compulsory hospitalisation and the measures ordered pursuant to Articles 706-135 and 706-136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not constitute penalties within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention because they did not follow a criminal conviction. The declaration of cri... | 10 |
29. The applicants complained that the law had been applied retroactively to their disadvantage, as they had been found guilty of bribery in accordance with the wording of a criminal provision that had not yet been in force at the time of the facts. They pointed out that the present case had been the first criminal pr... | 10 |
100. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Serie... | 10 |
25. The Government took the view that the measures imposed on the applicant pursuant to sections 706-135 and 706-136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not constitute “penalties” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and that the application should be declared inadmissible for being incompatible ra... | 10 |
65. The Government submitted in reply that the institutional therapeutic measure had been ordered following a review of the judgment to the applicant’s detriment. In such circumstances, Article 65 § 2 of the Criminal Code referred to the rules applicable to the reopening of proceedings, namely – prior to the entry int... | 10 |
8. The applicant’s conviction was therefore based upon legal provisions that were not in force in 1953 and, most importantly, could not have been in force at the relevant time, given that Lithuania was under occupation. Such provisions were applied retroactively. It follows that this would constitute a violation of Ar... | 10 |
44. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been convicted in criminal proceedings of acts that had been lawful at the material time. They argued that the authorities had extended the interpretation of the criminal law applied in their case in such broad and ambiguous terms that ... | 10 |
31. The applicant maintained that in his case the courts should have applied the most favourable wording of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, which was that which had been in place between 29 December 1999 and 29 March 2000, when the death penalty had already been abolished and life imprisonment had not ye... | 10 |
109. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Serie... | 10 |
46. The Government contested the assertion that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. They stated that the acts imputed to the applicants had constituted criminal offences at the material time. They referred to a ruling by the Constitutional Court of 27 May 2008, no. 8-P, whi... | 10 |
59. The applicants argued, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that Finnish law contained no provision which defined reporting of a public trial as a punishable offence. At the time of the publication of the articles, it had been unforeseeable and surprising to the applicants that penal sanctions could be imposed ... | 10 |
41. The applicant challenged the applicability of the Customs Code provisions to the confiscation procedure and claimed, accordingly, that the confiscation could not be imposed on him outside a two-month statutory limitation provided for in section 38 of the Code on Administrative Offences. The Court, however, in view... | 10 |
52. The Government submitted that the applicant’s conviction under Article 325 of the new CC was compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, falsification of documents was an offence prohibited by Article 213 of the former CC at the time when the applicant committed the crime. ... | 10 |
50. The applicant further complained that Article 325 of the new CC under which he was convicted lacked legal certainty as opposed to its predecessor in the former CC, namely Article 213 which contained the words “State and societal organisations”. Therefore, the interpretation and application of Article 325 to his ca... | 10 |
133. The applicant complained that the professional regulations of 12 July 2007 did not define with sufficient clarity the obligations imposed on lawyers, subject to disciplinary action, in so far as they used such vague and general terms as “report suspicions” and “due diligence”. He alleged that this was in breach o... | 10 |
36. The applicant submitted that he could not be held responsible under Article 148-4 of the Criminal Code for the period prior to its entry into force on 20 July 1993. The application by the courts of the concept of a continuing offence allowed them to evade the prohibition of retrospective application of criminal la... | 10 |
95. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series... | 10 |
126. The applicant submitted that when he had been sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment on 10 March 1989 by the Limassol Assize Court, under the Prison Regulations applicable at the time, “life imprisonment” had been tantamount to imprisonment for a period of twenty years. As a result of the repeal of the Regulati... | 10 |
40. The Government said that the applicant had been sentenced to both a custodial sentence and a customs fine, the latter being a hybrid penalty. Imprisonment in default only took effect if the convicted person failed to pay all or part of the fine. Its role was thus purely subsidiary. Moreover, in Jamil, cited above ... | 10 |
72. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that they had not had a right to compensation in respect of the length of their detention in police custody and pending trial. They further alleged under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 2 that the İzmir State Security Court had not been an independent and impart... | 10 |
81. The applicant raised a number of other complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: (a) that she had been sanctioned for actions which had not formed part of her duties as a liquidator (in this respect the applicant also relied on Article <mask> of the Convention); (b) that the Supreme Administrative Court ... | 10 |
38. The applicant, once more relying on Article 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, also complained that the Hannover Regional Court had not taken a formal decision on her request for a subsequent hearing, as foreseen in section 33(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She also complained under Article <mask> of the Conve... | 10 |
20. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that it had not been clear from the Penal Code provision applied that their conduct would be punishable as the provision had not defined the scope of private life. Moreover, the convictions of A. and B. had been public information that could not have... | 10 |
123. The applicant observed that social and political groups were added to the Lithuanian definition of genocide by the Criminal Code amendments of 21 April 1998. In the light of Article <mask> of the Convention, he claimed that criminal liability for genocide in respect of those two groups was thus not applicable at ... | 10 |
103. The applicant complained that the failure of the Russian authorities to enforce the judgment of the Rîșcani District Court of Chisinau of 28 October 2009, whereby he had been awarded a residence order in respect of his son, A.P., had violated his right to family life under Article <mask> of the Convention, which,... | 11 |
50. The applicant complained that the Hungarian authorities had failed to take timely and adequate measures to ensure that he was reunited with his daughter following her abduction. In particular, he argued that they had not made sufficient attempts to locate K.S. and the child. He relied on Article <mask> of the Conv... | 11 |
103. The applicants complained, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that their eviction from the land where they had been settled for a long time constituted a violation of their right to respect for their private and family life and their home. They further relied on Article 3 of the Convention, taken alone ... | 11 |
82. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to family life had been violated by the Swedish authorities and courts by taking the children into public care, and keeping them there, as well as by refusing to allow the parents to have any contact with their children for prolonged... | 11 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.