FIRST SECTION CASE OF PETER v. SLOVAKIA (Application no. 14112/21) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 December 2021
CASE OF KLAPOFF AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (European Court of Human Rights) Applications nos. 4431/21 and 4 others
The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings. Some applicants also raised other complaints under Article 13 of the Convention.
CASE OF CSIKÓS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (European Court of Human Rights) Applications nos. 44001/20 and 13 others
The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF OMERBAŠIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 4359/19 and 4 others
The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions against the Sarajevo Canton.
CASE OF DUMITRACHE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 58771/16 and 9 others
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DUMITRACHE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 58771/16 and 9 others – see appended list)
CASE OF IANCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 57085/16 and 12 others
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. FOURTH SECTION CASE OF IANCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 57085/16 and 12 others – see appended list)
CASE OF COVACI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 48624/16 and 11 others
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. FOURTH SECTION CASE OF COVACI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 48624/16 and 11 others – see appended list)
CASE OF DICU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 30319/16 and 14 others
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DICU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 30319/16 and 14 others – see appended list)
CASE OF SZÉL AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY – The applicants complained that the measure taken by the Speaker of banning the first applicant’s parliamentary speech had infringed the applicants’ right to freedom of expression
Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained that the measure taken by the Speaker of banning
CASE OF SCOTT BADER D.O.O. AND MILETIĆ v. CROATIA – The case mainly concerns the deprivation of property arising from a government decision on the restructuring and recovery of a commercial bank depriving its shareholders of their shares
The case mainly concerns the deprivation of property arising from a government decision on the restructuring and recovery of a commercial bank depriving its shareholders, including the applicants,