text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
101. The applicant argued that Article 8 was clearly engaged by the covert surveillance of consultations with his legal advisor. Although he accepted that the purposes identified in the legislation permitting covert surveillance amounted to a legitimate aim, he maintained that the relevant legal framework failed both t... | 11 |
86. The applicant companies, disputing the Government’s contention, maintained that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention had been fulfilled. The core issue in the domestic proceedings had been whether the tax authorities had had the necessary statutory authority to ... | 11 |
158. The applicants complained that the searches of their premises violated their right to respect for their private lives and homes because: (i) the warrants permitted entry and search “on one occasion” only which could not be equated with continuous occupation; (ii) the warrants were drawn too widely, thereby permit... | 11 |
29. The applicant company argued that the images recorded by the use of a hidden camera concerned the behaviour of a public figure who had been at the time a member of the Hellenic Parliament and chairman of the inter-party committee on the widespread use of electronic gambling. Therefore his participation in gambling... | 11 |
51. The applicants contended that there was no opportunity before the County Court to test the proportionality of the interference with their Article 8 rights because the gateway (b) defence (see paragraph 20 above) was insufficiently broad to permit the issue of proportionality to be considered by the county court an... | 11 |
49. The applicant complained that the Swedish courts’ protracted custody proceedings, including their handling of his request under the Hague Convention, and the Tax Authority’s decision to remove N. from the population register, constituted a violation of his and his daughter’s right to family life as provided in Art... | 11 |
32. The Government submitted that, to the extent that the drafting of the report was to be regarded as an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, it had been in accordance with the domestic legislation in force at the material time. Furthermore, it had been necessary in a democ... | 11 |
23. The applicant maintained that the domestic courts’ decision not to grant him compensation and legal costs violated his right under Article <mask> of the Convention. He submitted that he should not have to accept being called a rapist without having been convicted of such a crime. In the applicant’s opinion, the do... | 11 |
37. The Government emphasised that even supposing that there had been interference, the German legal system guaranteed sufficient protection. They observed that the present application did not concern the applicant’s right to seek an injunction against the advertisement (Unterlassungsansruch), which the Regional Court... | 11 |
66. The applicant complained that during his detention he had been deprived of personal contact with his family. He complained that the prosecutor’s decision of 4 July 2008 refusing a visit by his wife and sons had been arbitrary and that the domestic law had not indicated with reasonable clarity the scope of the pros... | 11 |
79. The Government admitted that the national courts’ decisions to order the applicant’s eviction had constituted an inference with her rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered, however, that such interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of person... | 11 |
30. The applicant complained that his allegations in respect of Article 3 also gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he complained about restrictions on telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicant submitted that he had often been under pressure from other inmates to termi... | 11 |
46. The applicant complained that the adoption of K.O.S. had adversely affected her family life and had completely blocked her attempt to become his legal tutor. Allegedly, this interference with her right to respect for her family life had been unlawful, disproportionate and arbitrary. The applicant also stated that ... | 11 |
33. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaint did not fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention because the impugned advertisement only mentioned his forename, which was very common and could not on its own have suggested any connection with him. Only the allusion to the circumstances sur... | 11 |
137. The applicant claimed that in substance she had also complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention with regard to the restrictions on her liberty, her immobilisation and the medical treatment she had received against her will during her stays in Dr Heines’s clinic both from 1977 to 1979 and in 198... | 11 |
43. The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. While they accepted that matters such as dignity and personal autonomy fell within the ambit of Article 8, they argued that the care provided to the applicant during the relevant period ... | 11 |
42. The Government admitted that the refusal to return of the child to the USA had constituted an interference with the applicant’s right under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of the child, and had been necessary in th... | 11 |
23. The Government admitted that the applicant’s eviction had constituted an inference with her right set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered, however, that such interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and had been... | 11 |
59. The applicant further contended that the relationship he enjoyed with his children belonged to the sphere of family life protected by Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he contested the Government’s argument that the interference with his family life had been lawful under Article 13 § 2 of the Hague Co... | 11 |
55. The applicant submitted that his dismissal by his employer had been based on a breach of his right to respect for his private life and correspondence and that, by not revoking that measure, the domestic courts had failed to comply with their obligation to protect the right in question. He relied on Article <mask> ... | 11 |
27. The Government accepted that the residence prohibition interfered with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life. In the Government’s view, the measure at issue was justified under paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention as being in accordance with the law, namely the relevant provis... | 11 |
158. The applicant also stated that the impugned refusals affected her adversely as she felt Austrian and did not want to have Bulgarian identity papers. In the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court cannot accept that the alleged emotional distress resulting from the applicant’s being “forced” to rem... | 11 |
31. The Government further considered that the applicant could not plead that a decision on the application was in the public interest, because the Court had already clarified the relevant issues regarding Article <mask> of the Convention in its Pretty judgment (cited above), and Article 37 § 1 of the Convention was n... | 11 |
114. The applicants claimed that the intrusion by the Russian military into their house on 10 December 2002 and the ensuing search had been unlawful and had infringed their right to respect for their home, private and family life, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicants further complained tha... | 11 |
35. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the withdrawal of night-time care disproportionately interfered with her right to respect for her private life. In the alternative, she complained that by withdrawing the service the respondent State was in breach of its positive obligation to pr... | 11 |
39. The Government argued before the Court that Chapter 25 of the CCP constituted an effective remedy in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention (see paragraph 21 above). The applicant, in turn, insisted that the suggested remedy was ineffective and that there had been a violation o... | 11 |
32. The Government accepted that the exercise of the right to enter the applicant’s home by the investigating officer had amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered however that the interference had been justifi... | 11 |
66. The applicant also complained that (i) the decisions to order her to undergo a psychiatric examination and to arrest her, (ii) her detention for a total period of eighty-three days, and (iii) the restriction on her right to see members of her family to one visit every month while in detention, were in breach of Ar... | 11 |
428. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, given that they had been at an advanced stage of the adoption procedure and a bond had already been formed between the prospective adoptive parents and the children, the introduction and application to them of the ban on the adoption of Russia... | 11 |
157. The Government concluded, in view of the above, that the present case was different from Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria (no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007) where the Court had refused to apply the “reasonable likelihood” test because of the absence of any safeguards agai... | 11 |
62. The Government referred to the Court’s conclusions in Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev, cited above, and acknowledged that before 2008 the first applicant had had no domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in 2009 the SSMA h... | 11 |
30. The applicant contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that his privacy had not been respected during the strip search in the stairwell, because the doors leading to the stairwell had transparent glass windows. His search could therefore have been seen by other prisoners who had been waiting behind the doo... | 11 |
147. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, as he had never raised any of the specific allegations in the present complaint before any domestic authority and had never relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, or provisions of domestic law of the same or a similar na... | 11 |
82. The Government highlighted the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State in the present case. That margin depended on the nature of the activities in question and the aim pursued by the restrictions. In its recent case-law, the Court had moreover left the State a broad margin of appreciation in cases concerning ... | 11 |
47. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the enforcement order issued in the administrative proceedings instituted in 1988 had never been carried out. He further complained that the courts had taken no action about the length of the civil proceedings he instituted in April 2002 in t... | 11 |
40. The Government maintained that Article 8 was not applicable to the case since the issue at stake was only the personal comfort of the applicant, who had wanted to give birth at home, which could not be part of her right to respect for her private life. There was no scientific proof that giving birth in a medical f... | 11 |
99. The Government further submitted that the interference in issue had been “prescribed by law”. Not only had the legal provisions on which the domestic courts had based their decisions been accessible, but the Court of Cassation’s position had been entirely foreseeable. Its case-law concerning preventive and restric... | 11 |
31. The Government agreed that the search and seizure at the applicant's home constituted an interference within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Because of the urgency of the matter, the search had been conducted on the basis of an order given orally by an officer with power of arrest only a few hours... | 11 |
61. The Government accepted that the domestic authorities had been unable to organise a meeting between the applicant and his daughter until February 2017. However, they had taken all the necessary steps that could have reasonably been required to secure the applicant’s contact with the child. There had been no omissi... | 11 |
37. The applicants contended that the secret surveillance carried out in respect of them had been unlawful because it had not been based on orders by the investigating judge containing proper reasoning. They also argued that the domestic authorities had failed to demonstrate that the interference with their right to r... | 11 |
93. The Government contested the applicants’ arguments and argued that the restrictions provided for in the domestic regulations were necessary to maintain order and were completely reasonable. According to the Government, the applicants had been able to receive visits twice a week for two hours and use the telephone ... | 11 |
14. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings. The Court notes, however, that the proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts, rendering this complaint premature. It follows that this part of ... | 11 |
63. The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable in the absence of a registered marriage between the applicant and Ms A. An unregistered partnership (“common-law marriage”) is not recognised and does not confer any specific rights under Russian law, in particular as regards mutual pecun... | 11 |
53. The Government took the view that the domestic courts’ decisions had not interfered with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life. They noted, at the outset, that it had not been proved that the applicant was indeed the biological father of the child M. Even assuming biological kinship, this would not ... | 11 |
33. The Government admitted that the applicants’ eviction had constituted an inference with their right set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered, however, that such interference had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible to social housing and had be... | 11 |
61. The applicant complained that his employer had arbitrarily collected, retained, and used sensitive, obsolete and irrelevant data concerning his mental health in considering his application for promotion, and had unlawfully and unfairly disclosed this data to the applicant’s colleagues and to a civil court during a... | 11 |
40. The applicant complained of an unjustified interference with her right to respect for her family life as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention due to the refusal of the Netherlands Government to grant her a residence permit, based primarily on an old conviction of a narcotics offence committed in Germany.... | 11 |
33. The Government accepted that the impossibility for the applicant to have his father’s paternity established after the expiry of the five-year time-limit had constituted an interference with his private life under Article <mask> of the Convention. The impugned measures had had a basis in Finnish legislation, namely... | 11 |
43. The Government then submitted that, while acknowledging that the States enjoyed a margin of appreciation regarding the protection of the traditional family, in 2010 the Court had started examining under Article <mask> of the Convention forms of cohabitation between same-sex couples (see, inter alia, Kozak v. Polan... | 11 |
36. The applicant complained that the respondent State had failed to discharge its positive obligation to ensure respect for his private and family life, and in particular in that it had not provided him with any legal means to challenge the declaration of paternity after he discovered in 2004 that he was not I.'s bio... | 11 |
19. The applicants further submitted that although male and female life prisoners had been in a similar situation (namely serving a sentence in a correctional colony for a particularly serious crime), they had been treated differently as regards their entitlement to long visits from family members. Such a difference i... | 11 |
115. The applicants alleged that the search carried out in their houses on 14 January 2003 was illegal and constituted a violation of their right to respect for home. Under the same heading they complained that the disappearance of their relatives after their detention by the State authorities caused them distress and... | 11 |
23. The applicants complained that their right to respect for their family life, protected by Article <mask> of the Convention, had been infringed, in so far as the courts ordering the return of the second and third applicants to Italy had failed to take into account the grave risk that they would be subject to physic... | 11 |
31. The Government did not contest that the flat in question had been the applicant’s “home” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and that her eviction from that flat had amounted to an interference with her right to respect for her home. The Court accepts that that interference was in accordance wit... | 11 |
61. The Government agreed that the refusal to grant the applicant prison leave in order for him to attend his father’s funeral had interfered with his right to family life, as guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. This interference had, nonetheless, been based on law and had pursued the aim of furthering ... | 11 |
61. The Government highlighted the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State in the present case. That margin depended on the nature of the activities in question and the aim pursued by the restrictions. In its recent case-law, the Court had moreover left the State a broad margin of appreciation in cases concerning ... | 11 |
57. The applicants complained that the Migration Court of Appeal’s decision not to grant the first, second and fourth applicants residence permits was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that although the third applicant was to be considered legally an adult, his health and development were at s... | 11 |
119. The Government also referred to the case of Guichard v. France ((dec.), no. 56838/00, 2 September 2003) where the removal of the child by the mother had not been considered to be “wrongful” within the meaning of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and where the Court had fou... | 11 |
47. The applicant complained about the content of the programme broadcast on 24 June 1997 and the courts’ dismissal of his claim for damages. He considered that the making of a video recording without his consent during a meeting organised without his knowledge by the journalists and the transmission of that video rec... | 11 |
78. The Government did not contest that the domestic court decisions establishing the girls’ place of residence with their father constituted an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Notwithstanding this, the decisions had basis in domestic law, namely Article 3.174 of the Ci... | 11 |
115. The applicants alleged that the search carried out in the house of the first applicant family on 10 December 2002 was unlawful and constituted a violation of their right to respect of their home. They further complained that the disappearance of their close relatives after their detention by the State authorities... | 11 |
152. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and that there had been no interference with his rights. He had not complained that his communications had been intercepted. The gist of his complaint before the domestic courts ... | 11 |
98. The applicant also complained that Z. had unlawfully moved into the house which she had constructed and that the authorities had failed to evict and prosecute Z. for the alleged fraud. She also complained about the supervisory review proceedings of 13 September 2001, arguing that they breached her rights to respec... | 11 |
51. The Government maintained that Article <mask> of the Convention could not be interpreted as stipulating the right to give birth at home and the corresponding obligation of the State to provide related healthcare services. In their view, the right to choose the circumstances of giving birth, although acknowledged b... | 11 |
137. The applicant argued that the disclosure of the above-mentioned information constituted interference by the State authorities, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office, with her right to private and family life. She argued that the interference had not been in accordance with the law:... | 11 |
104. The applicants highlighted the similarities and differences between their case and previous cases in which the Court had dealt with similar issues under Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that they were not trying to derive from that provision a right to die, but on the contrary a right to try to ... | 11 |
17. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, which had been based on Article 823 § 1 in conjunction with Article 1004 § 1 of the Civil Code, had been necessary to safeguard Dr St.’s personality rights, as enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. By calling aborti... | 11 |
61. The applicant’s complaint concerned the respondent States’ alleged failure to secure contact with her estranged daughter. It is not disputed that these matters pertain to “family life” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and that this provision is applicable. On the facts of the present case, th... | 11 |
70. The applicant maintained that the case should be examined under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Relying on the Court’s judgment in the case of M.C. v. Bulgaria (no. 39272/98, ECHR 2003‑XII), and Aydin v. Turkey (25 September 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑VI,) she argued that the act of rape rea... | 11 |
43. The applicant complained of a breach of his right to respect for his family life under Article <mask> of the Convention because of the dismissal of his Hague Convention request. The applicant elaborated on this complaint, indicating that the unfavourable outcome of the impugned proceedings resulted from the misapp... | 11 |
68. The Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the system operated as follows: (i) prisoners would submit their correspondence in two copies; (ii) the second copy would then be stamped and dated, in response to their own requests, and returned to them... | 11 |
37. The applicant specified that he was not complaining regarding the issuance of the ban prohibiting his return to Austria. His complaint to the Court solely concerned the withdrawal of his subsidiary protection status and his subsequent expulsion to Kosovo, which, in his view, had violated his right to respect for h... | 11 |
42. The Government filed comments on the applicant’s son’s updated claims for just satisfaction on 30 June 2008 and 15 October 2008. They pointed out that the present application was part of a cluster of similar cases raising a number of problematic issues and maintained that the claims for just satisfaction were not ... | 11 |
208. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their property had been destroyed in the federal attack on Urus-Martan on 19 October 1999. The third applicant also complained that her right to respect for her home secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been infringed as a result of that ... | 11 |
52. The applicant complained that whenever he was outside a prison he wore hand-cuffs joined by chains with fetters. He further complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention about the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest. Invoking Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant also complained that his extended d... | 11 |
41. The Government submitted that there had been no breach of Article <mask> of the Convention because, at the material time, the applicant had been the owner of another flat in Lipetsk. The applicant replied that she lived, together with her husband and children, in the flat she had purchased from E.M.T., while the o... | 11 |
56. The Government submitted that there was no causal link between the amount claimed in respect of the domestic proceedings and the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, the applicant had not produced any documentary evidence of the costs and expenses incurred before the Greek courts an... | 11 |
76. The applicant complained that the domestic authorities violated her rights under Article <mask> of the Convention in that they did not enforce the 2001 judicial order granting her the custody of her minor daughter and eventually transferred the custody to the father. The applicant also complained that her daughter... | 11 |
60. The Government of the Russian Federation also stated that the judgment of 2 October 2012 had been given in violation of Article 167 of the Family Code of Ukraine (see paragraphs 36 above), and with no regard having been made to the opinion of the child’s relatives, including the applicant and his half-sister, whic... | 11 |
38. The Government emphasised that even supposing that there had been interference, the German legal system guaranteed sufficient protection. They observed that the present application did not concern the applicant’s right to seek an injunction against the advertisement (Unterlassungsansruch), which the company had re... | 11 |
33. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the legislation authorising secret surveillance in Bulgaria did not provide sufficient safeguards against abuse and barred the authorities from giving out any information as to whether a person had been subjected to such surveillance. He further ... | 11 |
38. The Government conceded that there had been an interference with the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, but considered that the interference was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim and was “necessary in a democratic society”. A number of Articles in the CCP clearly ... | 11 |
36. The applicants submitted that Mrs Y.B.'s flat had been their only home and that prior to their eviction they had occupied it lawfully for some ten years. The retrospective annulment of their tenancy registration and their eviction had constituted a serious, unlawful and disproportionate interference with their rig... | 11 |
93. The Government conceded that at the material time some of the applicant’s confidential correspondence would have been restricted in accordance with the domestic law (Article 15 of the Law on Pre-trial Detention and Article 41 of the Prison Code; paragraph 60 above). However, such restrictions had been compatible w... | 11 |
54. The applicant did not submit a claim for pecuniary damage. As for non-pecuniary damage, she submitted that as a result of a violation of her right under Article <mask> of the Convention, she had suffered from anguish and distress caused by the disruption to her family life with her husband and child and by the lac... | 11 |
19. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to freedom of correspondence had not been respected since the domestic law governing telephone tapping did not contain sufficient guarantees against abuse by the national authorities. They did not claim to have been victims of any sp... | 11 |
47. The applicant complained that because lawyers were under obligation to report suspicious operations, as a lawyer he was required, subject to disciplinary action, to report people who came to him for advice. He considered this to be incompatible with the principles of lawyer-client privilege and professional confid... | 11 |
20. The applicants submitted that they had victim status and that there had therefore been interference with their rights guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Even though they did not all possess licences to practise issued by the Ministry of Justice, they all represented applicants before the European Cour... | 11 |
40. The applicant further argued that in holding that the pecuniary components were only protected by ordinary law, the Federal Court of Justice had disregarded the fact that Article <mask> of the Convention conferred on an individual the right to decide in person to whom and to what extent he or she wished to disclos... | 11 |
210. The Government acknowledged that during the applicant’s detention his right to family visits had been limited and that the restrictions imposed had amounted to an interference with his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in their view, the measures applied were in accordance with the law, name... | 11 |
79. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been denied access to environmental information. The Court observes that this complaint was not included in the initial application but was raised in the applicants’ observations of 26 November 2007 and refers to correspondence with the... | 11 |
49. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, following his decision to move to the North of Finland in order to live with his former foster parents, the powers of his mentor had been enlarged to encompass matters pertaining to his person. His wishes had not been respected and it had been i... | 11 |
46. The applicant asserted that the restrictions placed on his personal contact with his family amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He pointed out that neither his wife nor his son were witnesses in the proceedings in question, that the authorities have never explained the reasons for the refu... | 11 |
65. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom had violated its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, taken alone and taken together with Article 13, by failing to impose a legal duty on the News of the World to notify him in advance in order to allow him the opportunity to seek an interim... | 11 |
149. The applicant complained that the measure by which he was prohibited from entering or passing through Switzerland had breached his right to respect for his private life, including his professional life, and his family life. He contended that this ban had prevented him from seeing his doctors in Italy or in Switze... | 11 |
129. The Government admitted that while there were sufficient grounds for instituting administrative proceedings against O.H. under Article 5.35 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences for breaching the rights and the interests of her daughter by interfering with the latter’s right to communicate with her father an... | 11 |
42. The Government admitted that the national courts’ decision to order the applicant’s eviction had constituted an inference with her rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered that such an interference had been lawful, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible f... | 11 |
78. The applicant mentioned one tangible consequence of the refusal of naturalisation: he could not vote or stand for municipal and parliamentary elections, or elections to the European Parliament. However, the Court observes that the applicant’s complaint in the present case does not concern the rights laid down in A... | 11 |
35. The Government asserted that the application should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on the grounds, among others, that the Spanish courts had acted in order to protect the rights of the two police officers established by Article <mask> of the Convention, as well as citizens’ right to receive acc... | 11 |
54. The applicants argued that the admissibility of their complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention had already been examined and there was no reason to reconsider this matter. According to them, the situation in the case of Babjak and Others (cited above) was substantially different from the... | 11 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.