text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
31. The Government submitted that, under Netherlands law, access arrangements could be made under Article 1:377a of the Civil Code between the child and a legal parent, and under Article 1:377f of the Civil Code between the child and a third person who had a close personal relationship with the child. The biological f... | 11 |
30. 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 |
119. The applicant replied that the main reason why the interference had amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was because it had been unlawful. According to the criminal procedural law, the precondition for declaring a person “wanted” by the investigative authorities was the initiation of crimin... | 11 |
48. The Government contended that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the present case, arguing that the reasons for the applicant’s dismissal from his job of religious education teacher were not pertinent to his private or family life. The Government pointed out that, when dismissing the applicant ... | 11 |
74. The applicants complained of the refusal by the German courts to grant an injunction against any further publication of the photo that had appeared on 20 February 2002 in the magazines Frau im Spiegel, issue no. 9/02, and Frau aktuell, issue no. 9/02. They alleged that there had been a violation of their right to ... | 11 |
51. The applicant disagreed and maintained that she had raised the complaint on her own behalf. She had indicated her name in “the applicant” field in the application form and it was evident that, in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary, she had complained of a violation of her rights under the Conve... | 11 |
154. The applicants complained that they had had no access to a court, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as under domestic law they were barred from bringing a civil claim to obtain compensation for the deaths of their relatives in the absence of any tangible results from the criminal investigation, and tha... | 11 |
53. The applicant’s first complaint was that the authorities had not done enough to enable him to inform his family of his arrest and placement in detention. This raises an issue under the authorities’ positive obligations flowing from Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court has had occasion to hold that in view o... | 11 |
105. The Government submitted, among other arguments, that during the whole period at issue the applicant was afforded the opportunity to lead his normal and family life. Most importantly, the administrative proceedings in connection with the decision to expel the applicant from Lithuania had come to an end. The appli... | 11 |
249. The applicant alleged that the restrictive guardianship regime, including his placement in the Pastra social care home and the physical living conditions there, had amounted to unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private life and home. He submitted that Bulgarian law had not afforded him a ... | 11 |
72. The applicant firstly complained that (i) the decisions to order her to undergo a psychiatric examination and to arrest her and (ii) her detention for a total period of eighty-three days were in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court considers that these complaints do not raise any separate... | 11 |
101. The applicant argued that the domestic courts had violated Article 14 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. He maintained that in a similar case involving a fully-bodied father the courts would have not set contact at two hours per visit and four visits a month and without the possibility of ... | 11 |
51. The Government also noted that in the Marzari case (see Marzari v. Italy (dec.) no. 36448/97, 4 May 1999) the Court held that, although Article 8 did not guarantee the right to have one’s housing problem solved by the authorities, a refusal of the authorities to provide assistance in this respect to an individual ... | 11 |
37. The applicants claimed that the Swiss authorities had not complied with their obligations, inherent in Article <mask> of the Convention, to allow R., L. and B. to reside legally in Switzerland, thereby enabling them to enjoy family life in that country. They submitted that their interest in their children being all... | 11 |
97. The applicant further complained about the fact that on the night of 19 September 1999 the police officers had invited reporters from the “Antena 1” television channel to film him handcuffed, covered in blood and with his clothes torn. He also claimed that the footage taken on this occasion had been repeatedly bro... | 11 |
71. The applicant submitted that the authorities’ refusals to transfer him to a prison closer to his home address had amounted to an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his family life guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. He emphasised that he had in fact been denied any opportunity of se... | 11 |
36. The applicant complained that his right to freedom of movement had been infringed and his private life affected as a result of the authorities’ refusal to issue him a passport. While the applicant himself expressly referred to Article <mask> of the Convention in this regard, the Court considers that the substance ... | 11 |
36. The applicant also complained about the same facts under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of association) of the Convention. However, in the light of the considerations and conclusion above (paragraphs 30-35) in relation to the applicant’s complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, the C... | 11 |
17. The Government argued that the application was inadmissible for two reasons. First, as in the case of Abulail and Ludneva v. Bulgaria ((dec.), no. 21341/07, 13 November 2014), the first applicant had not raised in the domestic judicial proceedings a complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. Second, he coul... | 11 |
88. The applicants alleged that the failure to treat their daughter correctly and in time, which had led to the deterioration in her health and her subsequent death, and the manner in which the District Court had dealt with their action were in breach of their right to respect for their private and family life under A... | 11 |
23. The applicant complained that the disclosure of information of a medical nature by the CFD to her employer constituted a violation of her right to respect for private life as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention. She also alleged that the proceedings in which her action against the CFD had been examined ha... | 11 |
73. The Government submitted that in his initial application to the Court and in his subsequent written submissions before the Chamber, the applicant had not alleged any failure on the part of the State to adopt sufficient legal rules and measures to regulate motor vehicle traffic on public roads. Nor had he mentioned... | 11 |
31. The applicants submitted that the District Court had not rejected the petition for visiting rights on the ground that the visiting rights would endanger the child’s welfare. The request had instead been rejected on the ground that not granting visiting rights to the foster parents would not endanger the welfare of... | 11 |
61. The applicants complained, alleging a violation of their respective rights to respect for family life on account of the lack of practical opportunities for prison visits stemming from decisions to allocate prisoners to remote penal facilities and their subsequent inability to obtain transfers to other facilities. ... | 11 |
29. The applicants further complained that there had been an unlawful interference with their child’s right to respect for his private life in view of the dismissal of their action for damages by the lower domestic courts. In particular, they disputed the reasoning given by those courts, namely that the mental maturit... | 11 |
79. The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his deportation to Israel or the Gaza Strip, directly or indirectly, would expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment and/or death, bearing in mind that he and his family had been targeted by Israeli forces before and that he was wanted in Isra... | 11 |
21. The Government alleged that there had been no violation of the applicant’s Article 13 rights, submitting that under section 78 of PACE the judge could have regard to Article <mask> of the Convention when exercising his discretion to exclude evidence from trial proceedings. However, it did not appear that the appli... | 11 |
108. The applicant companies asserted that they had been directly and personally affected by the secret surveillance of the third applicant, who had been a member of their supervisory boards. They had thus been de facto victims of the violation of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. It was impossible ... | 11 |
40. The applicant argued that she had properly exhausted available remedies and that any other remedies would have been redundant. She further argued that the level of noise had been such as to fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. The exposure of the applicant and her family to the excessive nois... | 11 |
72. The applicant argued that V.L.‑Ž. had not been entitled to protection of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention because of his alleged collaboration with the Nazi regime (see paragraph 55 above). However, the domestic courts found those allegations to be unsubstantiated by any available facts, and the C... | 11 |
118. The applicants' complaint concerning their inability to enjoy family life with Aslambek Ismailov, Aslan Ismailov, Yaragi Ismailov, Khizir Ismailov and Yusi Daydayev concerns the same matters as those examined above under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its above findings under these provision... | 11 |
18. The applicant complained that he had been dismissed from his position of Vice-President, three years and ten months before the statutory date of his term’s expiry, by means of an ad hominem legislative measure. In the initial application of 20 June 2012 he invoked Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention, as well a... | 11 |
52. The applicant furthermore underlined that the mani pulite campaign had been conducted in an unfair way and pursuing a political aim. In particular, a number of violations of the secrecy covering the investigations were committed in order to attract the attention of the media. He concluded that by releasing the int... | 11 |
48. The Government noted that the necessity of the measure had been assessed twice, with a possibility of rejection – first by the Attorney General and subsequently by the Vilnius Regional Court. The contested operational measure had been necessary and had been applied in the interests of national security, public saf... | 11 |
75. The applicants replied that they had used the remedies which could directly provide them with adequate redress. Those that they had left unexplored were neither adequate nor effective. The eviction procedure under section 45 of the 1951 Property Act was only applicable to a flat’s owner, whereas in the present cas... | 11 |
14. The Government submitted that the domestic courts had in essence established a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, they had decided the amount of compensation based on their direct knowledge of the case and on the basis of the parties’ arguments and evidence. The a... | 11 |
78. The Government argued that that the applicant had failed to bring his complaint before the Court within the six-month time-limit. In the Government’s view, the final domestic decision had been the judgment of the Dubrovnik County Court of 28 May 2009 and not the decision of the Constitutional Court of 26 November ... | 11 |
23. The Government submitted that it had not been confirmed that the impugned letter was indeed intercepted, and if so, whether it was intercepted and opened by the authorities. They referred to the fact that the notice on the envelope which indicated that the letter had been opened and read was not signed. Should the... | 11 |
120. The applicants alleged that the disappearance of their relative had amounted to a violation of their right to respect for family life. They also complained that the search carried out at their house on 4 February 2003 had been illegal and constituted a violation of their right to respect for their home. It thus d... | 11 |
38. The Government noted that the respondent State's positive obligation, which was inherent in the effective respect for family life, was not absolute. Referring to the Court's case-law, they admitted that domestic measures hindering the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company amounted to an inte... | 11 |
28. The applicant submitted, relying on the Court’s findings as to the existence of family life for the purposes of Article 8 in Boughanemi v. France (judgment of 24 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, pp. 607-08, § 35) and C. v. Belgium (judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp. 922-23, § 2... | 11 |
31. The Government accepted that the ruling by which the applicant was partly deprived of her legal capacity had amounted to an interference with her right to respect for her private life under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in their view the interference had been based in law, had pursued a legitimate aim... | 11 |
28. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to prove any non-pecuniary damage beyond that for which the domestic courts had already awarded compensation. In their submissions to the domestic courts the applicants had never referred to any case-law of the European Court to prove that the award needed to... | 11 |
64. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They firstly pointed out that he had failed to submit his complaints about the insufficient contacts with his child to the social services which could have taken necessary measures to remedy his situation. Secondly, they stressed tha... | 11 |
63. The Government pointed out that for both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, the point of departure had been that, while establishing a family-law relationship between the applicant and S. through recognition might serve interests protected by Article <mask> of the Convention, it might also harm S.’s intere... | 11 |
40. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been allocated a replacement flat in lieu of the one over which he had had an occupancy right and which had been destroyed during the war. However, the Convention does not guarantee a right to be provided with a home (see Chapman ... | 11 |
40. The applicant originally complained under Article 10 about the refusal of the domestic courts to issue him with copies of the minutes of the hearings in the criminal proceedings against him and of the video of his arrest. The Court considered that it was more appropriate to examine this complaint under Article <ma... | 11 |
24. The applicant complained about the search of his house. As in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, he alleged a breach of his rights as a result of (i) the court's decision to order the search and the search as such, and (ii) procedural shortcomings in the way in which the police had proceeded. He reli... | 11 |
34. The applicant submitted in reply that a person’s name was part of his private life. Article <mask> of the Convention conferred on an individual the right to decide whether and under what conditions third parties could use his name for advertising purposes. He emphasised that such protection also covered an individ... | 11 |
125. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home. However, they considered it to have been in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government observed that the search of the applicant’s home had been ... | 11 |
66. The applicant argued that the administrative removal order and its possible enforcement constituted an interference with his “family life”. The applicant was living with his common-law wife Ms A. and had fathered two of her children; both had his patronymic; the son also had his family name on his birth certificat... | 11 |
32. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that on 30 December 2001 police officers had entered the front garden of her house by climbing over the fence without any proper authorisation and had accordingly violated her right to respect for her home. She also complained that on an unspe... | 11 |
51. The Government maintained that the application was inadmissible because the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies in respect of claiming damages from the state due to the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to, inter alia, the Swedish Supreme Court’s decisions and judgm... | 11 |
174. The applicant alleged that her right to respect for her private life had been breached, as on 28 May 2003 the State authorities had called the press, who took photographs of her when she was being transferred by force to the Socola hospital and published them in various newspapers. She relied on Article <mask> of... | 11 |
42. The Government referred to the Constitutional Court's judgment of 3 October 1989 and to the case-law of the Commission (see Zukrigl, decision cited above, and H.F. v. Austria, no. 22646/93, Commission decision of 26 June 1995, unreported), pointing out that the Commission had found no indication of a violation of ... | 11 |
51. The Government requested that the case be “struck out”, as the applicants could no longer claim to be “victims” of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, given that they had obtained the visas. They explained that the French authorities had agreed in principle to family reunification (see paragraph 9 abo... | 11 |
61. The applicant further expressed doubts as to the “lawfulness” of the interference. Firstly, in her view, section 38 of the Aliens Act was to be read in conjunction with section 49, which stated that international treaties took precedence over domestic legislation. The Latvian authorities should therefore take acco... | 11 |
44. The Government accepted that A. had not been detained for psychiatric treatment after his conviction on 7 January 2002. They further recognised that despite the District Court having been notified by a letter dated 15 January 2002 that A. had been released from hospital on 14 January 2002 the District Court had on... | 11 |
48. The applicant claimed that he had been discriminated against in the enjoyment of his right to respect for his private life when compared both to fathers whose paternity had been established on other grounds and to mothers because, unlike him, they were entitled to request the Prosecutor General to challenge patern... | 11 |
118. The applicants alleged that the intrusion by Russian servicemen into their house on 9 April 2003 had infringed their right to respect for their home. They also complained under the same head that their right to respect for family life had been breached as a result of Akhmed Shaipov’s abduction. They relied in thi... | 11 |
105. The applicant alleged that the authorities had allowed the so-called “Wildstein list”, containing names of persons whose files had been collected by the Institute, to be leaked and made public. In addition, she averred that the State had failed to take adequate steps to inform the public about the actual characte... | 11 |
171. The Government further argued that the alleged interference with the applicants’ rights secured by Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been lawful, as the counter-terrorist operations in the territory of the Chechen Republic, in the context of which the strike of 12 September 1999... | 11 |
85. The Government maintained that the cemetery had been built in the interests of the villagers of Tatariv, as there had been absolutely no other place in the mountainous region near the village that could be used for a cemetery. They further stated that while it was true that the cemetery had been built in breach of... | 11 |
49. The Government submitted that the authorities had taken all the necessary steps that could reasonably be demanded of them. They stressed the complexity of the matter and the fact that the parties were in conflict. They submitted that the courts concerned had held many lengthy hearings and heard witnesses. The Gove... | 11 |
41. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings and of an infringement of their right to private life. They argued that the domestic courts had erred in finding that the land had been assigned and sold to them unlawfully. They also submitte... | 11 |
58. The applicant submitted that, under the Court’s case-law, she should not be required to have recourse both to civil and criminal remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. If there was more than one remedy available, the applicant need not exhaust more than one (see Yağcı and... | 11 |
233. The Government stressed that Article <mask> of the Convention did not include the right to buy a home, but only protected a person’s right to respect for his or her present home (see Sorić, decision cited above). As the SZ protected the legal status of former holders of occupancy rights, by guaranteeing them tena... | 11 |
32. 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 |
102. The applicants stated at the outset that the Court was required to rule solely on the disputed measures taken by the Italian authorities in respect of the child, and then only on the basis of Article <mask> of the Convention, for the purpose of determining whether there had been a violation of the applicants’ pri... | 11 |
42. The applicant complained of a violation of her private and family life on the ground that, firstly, the body of her stillborn child had been taken from her and buried without her knowledge in a communal grave in the cemetery and, secondly, that it had been transported from the hospital to the cemetery in an inappr... | 11 |
230. 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 |
99. The Government contested that claim. In particular, they submitted that the Court, when deciding on his earlier application in respect of the same return proceedings, had already awarded the applicant EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage for the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Adžić, cited above, ... | 11 |
85. The applicant also alleged a breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention since the criminal proceedings against him had not established his guilt. He lastly complained under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of his separation from his family as a result of his detention and the adverse effects it had on hi... | 11 |
25. 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 |
69. The Government accepted that Article <mask> of the Convention protected legal professional privilege. They submitted, however, that there had been no “interference” by the authorities with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, home or correspondence within the meaning of the second paragraph of th... | 11 |
81. The Government conceded that Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable. The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. It is well‑established in its case-law that the storing of information relating to an individual’s private life in a secret register and the release of such information comes within the scope o... | 11 |
69. The applicants claimed that their removal from Latvia had violated their right to respect for their “private life”, their “family life” and their “home” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They considered that their removal had not been required by Latvian law or by the Latvian-Russian treaty o... | 11 |
98. The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply in this case because the applicant had not been directly affected by the contested measure and because even if he had been affected, he had willingly renounced his right to privacy by publicly exchanging the files in question (see paragraphs... | 11 |
46. The applicant complained that the neighbour who had converted the attic above her flat into another flat had failed to carry out the necessary soundproofing work and that she had therefore been disturbed by the noise coming from the flat above her. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far a... | 11 |
87. The Government challenged the sums claimed by the applicant. In particular, they considered that there were no grounds for her request for reimbursement of the costs incurred during the second set of proceedings before the Latvian courts, as the effective aim of those proceedings had been to challenge a final deci... | 11 |
108. The applicants stated that they could no longer enjoy family life with their sons following their abduction by the State authorities. They also claimed that the search carried out at their house on 26 April 2003 had been illegal, which constituted a violation of their right to respect for their home. It thus disc... | 11 |
465. The applicants complained that they could not correspond freely with their families and with the Court. In particular, they asserted that they had not been able to apply to the Court freely, and that in order to do so they had had to call on the assistance of their wives. They further complained that they could n... | 11 |
823. The Government maintained that there had been no interference with the applicants’ rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government emphasised that any limitation of the applicants’ rights under Article 8 was related to their criminal conviction and was inherent in the very concept of criminal punish... | 11 |
822. The applicants complained that they had been sent to serve their prison terms in very remote colonies situated thousands of kilometres from their homes. In their words, this had seriously hindered their contacts with the outside world, and, in particular, with their families and their lawyers. The applicants refe... | 11 |
32. The Government argued that, while the adoption of M. constituted interference with the applicant's right to respect for his family life under Article <mask> of the Convention, the interference was justified under paragraph 2 of that Article. It had a legal basis, namely Article 181 § 3 of the Civil Code, and pursu... | 11 |
92. The applicant further submitted that the monitoring of the correspondence sent to him by the Court on 23 February 1999 was in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He pointed out that under Article 103 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences 1997, which entered into force on 1 September 1998, the ... | 11 |
56. The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention that the decision on his administrative removal from Russia had violated his right to respect for his private and family life. He argued, in particular, that the severity of the punishment, which had disrupted his family life, had been disproportio... | 11 |
59. The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest in 1996 and that the length of his detention in police custody in 1996 and 2002 had been excessive. The applicant further complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3, Article 6 § 2 and Articl... | 11 |
22. The Government first contended that, taking into account the young age of the girls when they were placed with the applicants’ family, it was not possible to state unambiguously that the ties between the girls and the applicants were strong enough to be qualified as “family life” within the meaning of Article <mask... | 11 |
25. The Government contended that the applicant had not expressly complained of a violation of his right to respect for his private life guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. His complaint had only concerned the alleged unlawfulness of the recordings, the lack of proper authorisation and the procedure follow... | 11 |
102. The Government argued that the present case did not disclose a violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that that the domestic courts had underlined on numerous occasions that the applicant’s disability was not, per se, a motive for the dismissal of his app... | 11 |
108. The applicant further alleged that the authorities had failed to take adequate measures to secure her rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. Firstly, the Government had not sought to justify the interference with her Article 8 rights with any valid reason. Secondly, they had failed to implement effective ... | 11 |
115. The applicants contended under Article <mask> of the Convention that their right to respect for their family life and home had been violated as they had been forcibly displaced from their village and had been prevented from returning. They maintained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had lost the possib... | 11 |
22. The applicant submitted that prior to his deportation he enjoyed family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention with his spouse, his three children and with his grandchild. He had co-habited with his spouse since 1980 and they have been married for twenty-two years. Their three children were bo... | 11 |
53. The Government further asserted that, if the complaints made under Article 6 § 1 and Article <mask> of the Convention were to be considered together under Article 8 of the Convention alone, the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in that they had not sough... | 11 |
48. The applicants did not dispute that the interference in question had had a lawful basis, namely Article 9 of the Civil Code, nor that it pursued a legitimate aim, namely “protection of the rights of others” with regard to the Prince’s right to private life and to his own image. Nonetheless, they expressed a reserv... | 11 |
66. The applicants also complained that the way in which the domestic courts had dealt with the actions of 27 May 1996 and 14 January 1997 for the deprivation of Mr P.’s parental rights over the second applicant and the action of 27 March 1997 relating to the second applicant’s adoption and, in particular, their failu... | 11 |
63. The Government admitted that the national courts’ decisions to order the applicants’ eviction had constituted an inference with their 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 pers... | 11 |
22. The Government argued that the censorship of the applicant's letters related only to his correspondence with private persons, the censorship being allowed by the valid decisions of a prosecutor in accordance with the applicable domestic law. The decisions had been taken in order to protect the witnesses and victim... | 11 |
60. The Government submitted that the relationship between the applicant and the child, P., did not constitute a family life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They noted, in particular, that the applicant and the child’s mother had ceased living together when the latter had become pregnant, and t... | 11 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.