Search
Data source
EU member states
Other countries
Keywords
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13
ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. Russia
ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. Russia RUS 04/10/2012 00:00:00 04/11/2016 11:41:33 Case Description: This group of cases concerns in particular poor conditions of pre trial detention in the remand centres SIZO under the authority of the Federal Penitentiary Service EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-14142
GUBACSI v. Hungary
GUBACSI v. Hungary HUN 28/09/2011 00:00:00 02/11/2016 16:32:51 Case Description: This group of cases concerns ill treatment between 2000 and 2016 by law enforcement officers during the applicants arrest transfer and detention and lack of effective EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-10515
HELLIG v. Germany
HELLIG v. Germany DEU 07/10/2011 00:00:00 15/11/2016 14:32:10 Case Description: Protection against ill treatment: Ill treatment due to detention in security cell for 7 days without clothing in the absence of sufficient reasons for such a deprivation. EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-38456
KALASHNIKOV v. Russia
KALASHNIKOV v. Russia RUS 15/10/2002 00:00:00 04/11/2016 11:41:33 Case Description: This group of cases concerns in particular poor conditions of pre trial detention in the remand centres SIZO under the authority of the Federal Penitentiary Service FSIN EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-14068
KUPPINGER v. Germany
KUPPINGER v. Germany DEU 15/04/2015 00:00:00 15/11/2016 14:24:56 Case Description: Protection of family life and effective remedy: Failure to make adequate and effective efforts to execute an interim decision ordering contact meetings between the EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-38236
M.S.S. v. Greece
M.S.S. v. Greece GRC 21/01/2011 00:00:00 25/10/2016 12:18:05 Case Description: These cases concern the degrading treatment of the applicants asylum seekers or irregular migrants including unaccompanied minors 1 on account of their conditions of detention EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-1219
MITZINGER v. Germany
MITZINGER v. Germany DEU 09/05/2017 00:00:00 20/06/2017 16:33:38 Case Description: The case concerns discriminatory interference with the applicant s right to respect for her family life in that born out of wedlock in 1940 in the former German Democratic EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-47113
MUGEMANGANGO v. Belgium
MUGEMANGANGO v. Belgium BEL 10/07/2020 00:00:00 29/07/2020 17:07:09 Case Description: The Mugemangango case concerns the absence of a procedure offering adequate and sufficient safeguards to prevent arbitrariness and to ensure effective examination of the EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-55685
PETROVIC v. Croatia
PETROVIC v. Croatia HRV 10/12/2020 00:00:00 10/12/2020 21:35:28 Case Description: This case concerns the inability for the applicant to examine a key witness whose statement was of decisive importance for his convictions in criminal proceedings that took EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-56439
RAHIMI v. Greece
RAHIMI v. Greece GRC 05/07/2011 00:00:00 04/11/2016 16:42:14 Case Description: These cases concern the degrading treatment of the applicants asylum seekers or irregular migrants including unaccompanied minors 1 on account of their conditions of detention EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-15571
STRAZIMIRI v. Albania
STRAZIMIRI v. Albania ALB 21/05/2020 00:00:00 18/08/2020 10:08:56 Case Description: This case concerns the inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicant a person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia who was found not criminally liable for attempted EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-55687
WERRA NATURSTEIN GMBH & CO KG v. Germany
WERRA NATURSTEIN GMBH CO KG v. Germany DEU 19/04/2017 00:00:00 03/05/2017 11:45:10 Case Description: Violation of the right to protection of property on account of the total lack of compensation as regards the applicant company s mining licence and the EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-46759
WOLTER AND SARFERT v. Germany
WOLTER AND SARFERT v. Germany DEU 23/06/2017 00:00:00 12/07/2017 17:01:36 Case Description: Discriminatory interference with the right to protection of property in that the applicants born out of wedlock in 1943 and 1940 respectively were unable to assert EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-47447