text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
45. The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that their family life had been compromised by the prosecutor’s order to deport the first applicant and to ban him from Romania for ten years; they had been forced to leave Romania in order to be able to continue a family life and had had to leave ... | 11 |
83. The Government submitted that the first applicant had had an effective remedy to raise his complaint about the alleged violation of his right to a family life, as required by Article 13. He could have challenged the deportation and detention orders and the revocation of his residence permit before the Supreme Cour... | 11 |
59. The Government objected that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as he had not formally requested, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitutional Court Act, that the Constitutional Court determine whether or not there had been a violation of Article 8 as a result of the length of th... | 11 |
53. The Government observed that detention entailed inherent limitations on private and family life. They did not contest that the second applicant’s inability to receive an MP3 player from J.G. had interfered with his right to respect for private life under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Government wa... | 11 |
46. The Government asserted that the domestic authorities had taken all the necessary steps that they could reasonably have been expected to take to enforce the judgment of 25 June 2014. However, their efforts had been unsuccessful. They considered that the applicant had prevented the enforcement herself as, despite h... | 11 |
43. The applicants complained that, to the detriment of the children’s best interests, they were unable to obtain recognition in France of the legal parent-child relationship lawfully established abroad between the first two applicants and the third and fourth applicants born abroad as the result of a surrogacy agreem... | 11 |
90. The Government submitted that decisions concerning the carrying out of abortions belonged to the sphere of private, not family, life. Hence, solely women were able to make the relevant decisions, within the limits set by the national legal framework. They referred to the case of Boso v. Italy, where the Court had ... | 11 |
43. The Government argued that the present case concerned a dispute between two private parties and not an interference by the State authorities with any of the applicant's rights protected under Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant herself had agreed to conversion of a part of the house to a bar and theref... | 11 |
38. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They argued, firstly, that the applicant could have claimed redress in the ordinary courts under the Civil Code by way of an action for the protection of her personal integrity, but had fai... | 11 |
82. The Government argued that the domestic decisions and judgments, while interfering with the applicant’s family life, were in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim – the protection of the health and development of the children – and had been proportionate to the aim pursued. There had thus been no viola... | 11 |
45. The Government indicated that fourteen families had lived in the hostel. They had all belonged to socially unprotected groups of the population, for example, G., a single mother. The Government noted that Article <mask> of the Convention imposed positive obligations on the State, that is to say to take measures to... | 11 |
40. The applicant complained of his personal and family situation since 26 September 1997, the date of the judgment in which the Court had found that there had been a disproportionate interference with his right to private and family life as a result of both the permanent exclusion order made against him on 4 July 199... | 11 |
33. The applicant submitted in reply that the right to respect for private life also covered the right to one’s surname and forename (referring to, among other authorities, Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, ECHR 2004‑VI; Mentzen v. Latvia (dec.), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004‑XII; and Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 Febru... | 11 |
55. The Government maintained that the Chamber, in applying the necessity test under Article <mask> of the Convention, had exceeded its power of review and had substituted its own evaluation for that of the domestic courts. Although stricter scrutiny was called for as regards restrictions placed by those authorities on... | 11 |
30. The applicants submitted that they were treated differently in respect of their enjoyment of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention from other persons – and the spouses of those persons – with temporary leave to remain in the United Kingdom. In particular, they relied on the example of students and wo... | 11 |
270. The Government submitted that Mr Tolumov’s correspondence was not being monitored by the prison authorities. The applicable rule – regulation 75 of the implementing regulations of the 2009 Act – was fully in line with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The prison stamps on the envelopes submitt... | 11 |
164. The Government argued that the applicant could have brought legal proceedings to challenge the police retention of the caution or its inclusion in any criminal record certificate. Such an action could have proceeded by way of judicial review or by way of a complaint to the Information Commissioner under the Data ... | 11 |
35. The applicant took the view that the interference with the exercise of his freedom to manifest his religion did not correspond to any of the aims listed in Article 9 § 2. The Government maintained, for their part, that the impugned measure pursued two legitimate aims: to protect the rights and freedoms of others; ... | 12 |
34. The applicant submitted that under Article <mask> of the Convention the State was obliged to respect and support the individual's freedom to practice his or her religion. Any limitations could be set only in the interest of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection ... | 12 |
2. The Government submitted that section 16 § 5 of the Religions Act, interpreted in conjunction with section 7 § 1 of the Public Gatherings Act, required the organisers of religious assemblies in non-residential premises to notify the local authorities, in writing and in advance. Moreover, the Government claimed that... | 12 |
84. The applicants submitted that the status of a registered religious community was inferior to that of a religious society and insufficient. They contended that the first applicant was subject to State control in respect of its religious doctrine, its rules on membership and the administration of its assets pursuant... | 12 |
150. The Government did not contest that there had been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained however that the measure was prescribed by law and served a legitimate aim, that is, the protection of public order and the rights of others. It was also proportio... | 12 |
60. The Government further maintained that freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs under Article 9 did not confer on the applicant communities or their members any entitlement to secure additional funding from the State budget. Nor did it entail a right to receive the State subsidies that were due to Churches as... | 12 |
67. The Government also stressed that religious autonomy enjoyed special protection under Article <mask> of the Convention and that the States had a wide margin of appreciation in regulating matters concerning their relationship with religious communities. The Catholic Church’s autonomy in its relationship with the St... | 12 |
148. The Government maintained, in line with their arguments under Article 3, that there had been no interference on the part of the State authorities in the exercise by the applicants of their various rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention. The alleged incidents of violence had been committed by pri... | 12 |
42. The Government submitted further that, as the Contracting States were under no obligation to accept a refusal to perform military service for religious reasons, non-exemption of a person from military or alternative civilian service did not raise any concerns under Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, t... | 12 |
26. The applicants complained of a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of the failure to issue them with a document necessary for the registration of their religious denomination. They submitted, inter alia, that the interference with their rights had not been prescr... | 12 |
74. The applicant organisation was the official body representing and managing the Muslim religious community in Bulgaria between February 1995 and October 1997. It complained about alleged arbitrary interference by the State with the organisation and leadership of that community. An ecclesiastical or religious body m... | 12 |
74. The Government disagreed with the view implied by the applicants that the alleged lack of proportion could give rise to an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. First of all, teaching pupils knowledge of Christianity could not in itself raise an issue under the Convention, as... | 12 |
25. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the measures taken against her, namely her questioning by the police, the search and seizure and the warning order, interfered with her right to worship collectively with like-minded adherents of the Evangelical faith in a home environment. In ad... | 12 |
41. The Government referred to their observations in the case of Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria ((dec.), no. 40825/98 5 July 2005). They maintained in particular that the first applicant, even before it had become a publicly registered religious community on 11 July 1998, had had legal ... | 12 |
63. The Government submitted that the first applicant could not claim to be a direct victim of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as he had neither personally been charged the special church fee nor been liable to pay it. It had only been his wife who had been liable to pay the special church fee as she h... | 12 |
59. The Government further submitted that the present case was to be distinguished from the Bayatyan case, since the applicants in the present case had had the possibility of substituting military service with alternative service of a civilian nature. Nevertheless, taking into account the shift in the case-law brought... | 12 |
30. The applicant’s complaint concerns the rating status of its temple in Preston. This building is considered by the members of the applicant Church to constitute its most sacred centre. It is used as a place of congregational religious worship by those who have established their devotion and been accorded a “recomme... | 12 |
78. The applicant further complained that the failure of the domestic authorities adequately to protect him from the demonstrators and properly to investigate the incident amounted to a violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. This was because, in his submission, the domestic authorities’ failur... | 12 |
35. The applicant further submitted that religious groups had to be regarded as public institutions and therefore had to tolerate even severe criticism. Referring, inter alia, to the Court’s judgments in Aydın Tatlav, Giniewski (both cited above) and Gündüz v. Turkey (no. 35071/97, ECHR 2003‑XI), the applicant alleged... | 12 |
65. The Government argued that their approach was in conformity with the case-law of the Convention, notably in cases where the Court had relied on the position of the domestic authorities in defining “religion” for the purposes of registration (they referred to Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03,... | 12 |
188. The applicant failed to make submissions as to the applicability of Article 9 to the case. On the basis of the material before it, the Court finds that he has not shown that his belief met the necessary requirements of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the... | 12 |
27. The Government submitted further that, as the Contracting States were under no obligation to accept a refusal to perform military service for religious reasons, non-exemption of a person from military or alternative civilian service did not raise any concerns under Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, t... | 12 |
59. The applicant has complained that the events at the Banya Bashi mosque 20 May 2011 and the domestic authorities’ response to those events amounted to violations of Articles 3 and Article <mask> of the Convention, in each case either taken alone or taken in conjunction of the Article 14. He has further complained t... | 12 |
30. The Government conceded that an assembly could not be prohibited solely on the ground of a certain likelihood of tensions and confrontations between opposing groups. However, in the particular circumstances of the case, the prohibition had been justified in order to protect the rights of others as guaranteed by Ar... | 12 |
108. The applicants complained that their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated as the Certificate of Approval scheme prevented them from marrying unless they married in the Anglican Church. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, read together with Article 9, they further complained that th... | 12 |
37. The applicant in the present case brought a claim for damages in respect of the actions of the police which she claimed breached her right to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Her claim was finally dismissed on the ground that the police had acted in implementation of the orders of the prosecution autho... | 12 |
58. The Government contested that there had been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion. Since the entry into force of the 1919 Treaty of St Germain, all Austrian inhabitants had been allowed to practise publicly and privately their thought, religion and beliefs, irrespective of whether thei... | 12 |
40. The Government further observed that in any event the requirements laid down in the second paragraph of Article <mask> of the Convention were met. In particular, under Article 109 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences it was not obligatory to grant a special diet in accordance with a prisoner's religi... | 12 |
32. The applicants complained under Articles 6, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention about the refusal to register the applicant group as a legal entity. The Court reiterates that, in the absence of a European consensus on the religious nature of Scientology teachings, and being mindful of the subsidiary nature of its r... | 12 |
184. The applicant, by deliberately and consistently appearing naked in very public places such as urban centres, courtrooms and the communal parts of prisons, was intent on making a public statement of his belief in the inoffensive nature of the human body. The Court has found that his conduct amounted to a form of e... | 12 |
56. The applicants complained that the refusal of the Austrian authorities to grant legal personality to the first applicant by conferring on it the status of a religious society under the Recognition Act violated their right to freedom of religion. They further submitted that the legal personality conferred on the fi... | 12 |
75. The Government maintained their position that no agent of the State had taken part in the incidents alleged by the applicants. That had been unambiguously established by the domestic courts in the course of the examination of the relevant complaints. They noted in that respect that the applicants had failed to fur... | 12 |
42. The applicant organisation complained under Articles 9, 11 and 14 of the Convention about the restriction on its right to teach its followers and the decision on its dissolution. The Court considers that the complaint about the dissolution of a religious organisation must be examined from the standpoint of Article... | 12 |
84. The applicants complained that in 2003 and the following years the State had interfered in an arbitrary fashion in the internal dispute in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church with the aim of forcing all clergy and believers under the leadership of the person favoured by the authorities, Patriarch Maxim. They relied on A... | 12 |
15. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 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 officers. He further maintained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the decisi... | 12 |
2. The applicant assumed the function of a preacher and an elder in the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He was called up to perform military service, as the authorities found that exemption from the obligation to perform military service applied only to members of recognized religious societies and not to members o... | 12 |
94. The applicant churches also complained that the fact that they had not been allowed to provide religious education in public schools and nurseries, to provide pastoral care to their members in hospitals, social-welfare institutions, prisons and penitentiaries, or to have religious marriages they celebrated recogni... | 12 |
76. The applicants rejected the Government’s arguments. They claimed that the domestic courts had simply ignored the extensive witness and documentary evidence concerning various violations of their religious rights. They noted the case of Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, (no. 184/02, 11 January 2007), where the Court,... | 12 |
59. The Government maintained that the status conferred on the first applicant as a registered religious community under the 1998 Religious Communities Act complied with the requirements of Article 9; it only provided a legal status and in no way restricted the exercise or enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion... | 12 |
54. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the authorities' refusal to grant Glas Nadezhda EOOD a broadcasting licence had substantially restricted their possibility to communicate their religious ideas to others and had thus infringed their freedom to manifest their religion. In their v... | 12 |
85. The applicants stated that the Religious Denominations Act 2002 in itself constituted an arbitrary interference with their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. They characterised as misleading and inappropriate the Government’s argument that the new legal regime resembled the rules governing the status o... | 12 |
22. The applicant alleged that she had been subjected to unjustified treatment on account of her religion, in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of her allegation she submitted that she had been expelled from Turkey after having protested against the film The Last Temptation of Christ and after ... | 12 |
22. The Government further submitted that, as the Contracting States were under no obligation to accept a refusal to perform military service for religious reasons, non-exemption of a person from military or alternative civilian service did not raise any concerns under Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, t... | 12 |
120. The applicant association stated that its right to change religious orientation, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention, had been interfered with. There had been interference with its freedom of religion as the State had refused to register the changes and amendments to its statute for no legitimate re... | 12 |
34. The Government acknowledged that the restrictions imposed on the applicant regarding wearing the Islamic headscarf at school amounted to an interference with the exercise of her right to manifest her religion. They submitted, however, that as in the case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey ([GC], no. 44774/98, ECHR 2005-XI) ... | 12 |
169. The Government pointed out firstly that the Constitution of Georgia condemned any kind of discrimination (Article 14). They maintained that there had been no violation of the applicants’ rights under Articles 3 and 9 of the Convention on grounds of their faith. The Georgian authorities and senior civil servants h... | 12 |
28. The Government contended that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable in the present case. In their view, the fact that the premises of a political party had been chosen for a ceremony held following the death of members of a terrorist organisation and the decision to display symbols of that organisati... | 12 |
79. The Government agreed that the Convention was a “living instrument”. However, the question of whether Article <mask> of the Convention was applicable to the present case was to be considered from the point of view of the interpretation of the Convention existing at the material time. The applicant had been convict... | 12 |
28. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly was prescribed by law, namely by section 6 of the Assembly Act. It served a legitimate aim, as its purpose was to maintain public order and to protect the rights and freedoms of others, namely the undisturbed worship o... | 12 |
113. The Government acknowledged that the right to practise a religion in accordance with the Osho teaching fell within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also did not deny that from 8 May 2003 the applicant had been held at Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital unlawfully, as established by both the Vilnius R... | 12 |
187. The Government noted that the applicant had not elaborated on his claim under Article <mask> of the Convention and contended in particular that he had not presented his views as a “belief” which attracted Article 9 protection. They challenged whether his views satisfied the requirements of cogency and seriousness... | 12 |
42. The applicants alleged that their beliefs prohibited them from permitting their children to take part in mixed swimming lessons. They added that, although the Koran laid down the precept that the female body was to be covered only from puberty, their faith instructed them to prepare their daughters for the precept... | 12 |
30. The Government argued that Article <mask> of the Convention did not cover any dietary prescriptions and asked the Court to declare the application incompatible ratione materiae. As a subsidiary contention, relying on the case of Ionescu v. Romania ((dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010), they asserted that the applica... | 12 |
79. The applicants submitted that because the second and third applicants had been exposed to the crucifixes displayed in the classrooms of the State school they attended, all three of them, not being Catholics, had suffered a discriminatory difference in treatment in relation to Catholic parents and their children. A... | 12 |
123. The applicants also alleged that their conviction amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention (freedom of conscience), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of association) and Article 14 (the prohibition on discrimination). After the events in Moscow in August 1991, the CPL/CPSU... | 12 |
68. The Government submitted that the circumstances of the case gave no indication of any interference with the third applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the fact that no ethics class had been organised for him in State schools. There were no indications that the third applicant had... | 12 |
177. The applicants’ grievance under Article <mask> of the Convention being arguable, the Court finds that Article 13 is applicable in the present case. It reiterates, however, that this provision does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State’s laws as such to be challenged before a nationa... | 12 |
23. The applicant community complained under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article <mask> of the Convention that the domestic authorities’ refusal to issue a declaratory decision under the Employment of Aliens Act (“the EA Act”) that the employment of G.V. and V.T. by the applicant community was exempt from the ... | 12 |
94. The applicants alleged that the Moldovan authorities’ refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia infringed their freedom of religion, since only religions recognised by the government could be practised in Moldova. They asserted in particular that their freedom to manifest their religion in communi... | 12 |
36. The Government contended that Article 11 did not impose any positive obligation to enact legislation of the kind suggested by the applicant. They submitted that in assessing the extent, if any, of the State’s positive obligation, the Court should consider whether the nature of the interference struck at the “very ... | 12 |
25. The Government argued that according to the “quotation case-law” of the Austrian courts, the publication of a statement which satisfies the definition of an offence may lead to sanctions against the medium concerned unless there is any objective reason, such as e.g. the protection by a basic right, justifying such... | 0 |
25. The applicant also complained of the following: under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been informed promptly about the charges against him, under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 that the police had seized some of his possessions, under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 that he had been convicted twice for t... | 0 |
50. The applicant firstly submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention provided that everyone had the right to receive and impart information. Notwithstanding that general right, the applicant argued that he had acted in his capacity as a journalist with the intention of publishing information which he believed was... | 0 |
63. The applicant complained under Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the Convention that each of his criminal convictions for the statements he had made in the newspaper articles and Internet forums had amounted to an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression and that, in this connection, his rights to a... | 0 |
26. The applicant complained under Articles 6, 7, 10 and 13 of the Convention that his conviction by the domestic courts for aggravated defamation had infringed his right to freedom of expression. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will consider this complaint ... | 0 |
38. The applicant rejoined that B. was a company that had been going through denationalisation (see paragraph 6 above), that at the relevant time it was still partly owned by the State, that the process of denationalisation in Slovakia was in general tainted with various suspicions and irregularities, and that A. had ... | 0 |
31. The applicant political party submitted that the voters’ posting photographs showing their participation in the referendum and the way they had cast their votes had constituted the expression of opinions on political matters, as protected under Article <mask> of the Convention. It also maintained that providing a ... | 0 |
28. The Government contested that argument. They pointed out that the applicant had been a prosecutor and the applicable law had allowed the mass media to publish information concerning his income as part of anti‑corruption measures. The national courts had verified the accuracy of the information concerning the appli... | 0 |
33. The applicants complained that their right to freedom of expression had been violated in that the courts had allowed G. T.’s claim concerning content published in Pravoye Delo on 19 September 2003. They stated that the interference had neither been in accordance with the law nor necessary in a democratic society. ... | 0 |
35. The Government submitted that they had asked the Prosecutor General in January 2017 to inform them about the prospects of reopening the criminal proceedings against the applicant at the domestic level. They had referred in their request to the Court’s judgment in the case of Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 3... | 0 |
46. The applicant company reiterated that the freedom of the press was strongly protected under Article <mask> of the Convention; the press could have recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation (it cited Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 38, Series A no. 313). It was allowed to use sarc... | 0 |
33. The applicant complained of an infringement of his right to freedom of expression, both because of the Italian courts’ decisions on the merits and because of their procedural decisions, which had prevented him from proving that the offending article was an example of the right to report and comment on current even... | 0 |
33. The Government concluded that the interference complained of had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and thus necessary in a democratic society to protect the reputation of others. The penalty, a symbolic payment to a charity and an order to apologise to A.W., was a lenient one and did not constitute ... | 0 |
19. The applicants alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that the suspension of the publication and distribution of Yedinci Gün and Toplumsal Demokrasi, which had been based on section 6(5) of Law no. 3713, constituted an unjustified interference with their freedom of expression. They claimed in particular th... | 0 |
36. The Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that neither the Estonian Constitution nor the Convention prescribed that everyone should be entitled to obtain through the Internet information such as that in issue in the present case. The State had a dis... | 0 |
65. The Government considered that, should the Court find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicants should be awarded as pecuniary damages the sums paid by them. As to the non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered that the first applicant should be awarded reasonable compensation for non-pe... | 0 |
27. The applicant complained of a violation of his rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. He submitted that, in choosing to become a member of the BNP and to stand for election, he was engaging both his right to freedom of expression pursuant to Article <mask> of the Convention and his right to freedom of ... | 0 |
64. The applicant disagreed. It considered that the interference was not necessary because the articles referred not to facts, but to value judgments, which were not susceptible of proof. The courts' decisions were in fact a form of political censorship of the opinion of the journalist and were aimed at removing it fr... | 0 |
218. The Government agreed with the Chamber that no causal link had been established between the damage claimed and the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Nor had any causal link been established between the damage claimed and the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. According to t... | 0 |
47. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the alleged reprisals against him as a result of the publication of his letter. He submitted that the sealing off of his office, the search effected therein, the fact that he had been prevented from having access to his office, and the deceptive... | 0 |
16. The applicants contended that the offending statement concerned a fictitious, but nevertheless conceivable and humanly understandable thought by Mr Eberharter, which was clearly discernable as such even by the hastiest of readers. The domestic authorities' reference to a reader who perused the text in such a quick... | 0 |
62. The applicant submitted that the relevant criminal and civil judgments undoubtedly constituted an interference “by a public authority” with his right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article <mask> of the Convention. This interference, however, was not “in accordance with the law” because the domestic cr... | 0 |
36. The Government acknowledged that the conviction of the first applicant and the ordering of both applicants to pay damages and costs had amounted to an interference with the exercise of their freedom of expression under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, in their submission the impugned measures had had a b... | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.