Search
Data source
EU member states
Other countries
Keywords
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13
CERNAK v. Slovakia
CERNAK v. Slovakia SVK 14/04/2014 00:00:00 02/11/2016 13:46:05 Case Description: Protection of rights in detention: failure to guarantee adequate review of lawfulness of detention as the applicant s representatives had limited possibilities to consult the EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-7705
DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. Ukraine
DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. Ukraine UKR 01/10/2010 00:00:00 08/11/2016 10:44:14 Case Description: The case concerns ill treatment of the applicants serving their sentences in high security Zamkova Prison Zhytomyr Region suffered in the course of training EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-31328
ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. Turkey
ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. Turkey TUR 13/09/2006 00:00:00 10/11/2016 15:29:41 Case Description: The cases mainly concern the deaths of the applicants next of kin as a result of unjustified and excessive force used by members of the security forces during EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-37076
GARABAYEV v. Russia
GARABAYEV v. Russia RUS 30/01/2008 00:00:00 04/11/2016 11:41:33 Case Description: The present group of cases concerns different violations related to extradition violations of Articles 3 5 13 and 34 . The violations of Article 5 1 relate to the absence of EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-14088
GONGADZE v. Ukraine
GONGADZE v. Ukraine UKR 08/02/2006 00:00:00 08/11/2016 10:44:14 Case Description: The case concerns the authorities failure in 2000 to protect the life of the applicant s husband. The latter a journalist known for his criticism of those in power had been EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-31344
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
KEBE AND OTHERS v. Ukraine
KEBE AND OTHERS v. Ukraine UKR 12/04/2017 00:00:00 03/05/2017 11:29:10 Case Description: This group of cases concerns various deficiencies in the procedures related to different aspects of the treatment of asylum seekers in Ukraine at different times in EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-46729
MURADYAN v. Armenia
MURADYAN v. Armenia ARM 24/02/2017 00:00:00 24/03/2017 11:39:16 Case Description: These cases concern the authorities failure to comply with their positive obligation to protect the applicants sons right to life during their military service as well as EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-46287
SEAGAL v. Cyprus
SEAGAL v. Cyprus CYP 12/09/2016 00:00:00 27/10/2016 10:37:04 Case Description: Protection against ill treatment and protection of rights in detention: Ill treatment by prison guards and other prisoners and the failure of authorities to conduct an EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-3219
SOARE AND OTHERS v. Romania
SOARE AND OTHERS v. Romania ROU 22/05/2011 00:00:00 03/11/2016 17:43:49 Case Description: These cases concern deaths life threatening injuries or ill treatment during arrest and other law enforcement operations. The facts occurred between 2000 and 2009. EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-12812
SUKHANOV AND ILCHENKO v. Ukraine
SUKHANOV AND ILCHENKO v. Ukraine UKR 26/09/2014 00:00:00 08/11/2016 10:44:14 Case Description: These cases concern the interference with the applicants rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 legitimate expectation resulting from the failure of the EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-32283
UDOVENKO v. Ukraine
UDOVENKO v. Ukraine UKR 11/03/2021 00:00:00 06/04/2021 20:53:01 Case Description: The case concerns the obstacles faced by the applicant who was serving his term of imprisonment to file submissions with the European Court in 2008 2009. This was due to the EXEChttps://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-57077
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