The main issues in the present case are (i) whether the authorities failed to take protective measures to minimise or eliminate the effects of the pollution allegedly caused by the
Category: European Court of Human Rights
CASE OF S.F.K. v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 5578/12
In the present case, the applicant, a 20-year-old mother-to-be at the time of the events, was forced by her parents to have her pregnancy terminated after her partner and would-be father
CASE OF THEO NATIONAL CONSTRUCT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (European Court of Human Rights) 72783/11
The case concerns a “raider attack” against the applicant company, that is the alleged illegal seizure of its goods with the assistance of presumedly corrupt courts and law-enforcement agencies.
CASE OF PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 31612/09
The main issue in the present case is whether the authorities failed to take protective measures to minimise or eliminate the effects of industrial air pollution in the city of Lipetsk,
CASE OF BEELER v. SWITZERLAND (European Court of Human Rights) 78630/12
In his application the applicant submitted that as a widower who had been bringing his children up alone since his wife’s death, he had suffered discrimination as compared
CASE OF KRYZHANOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights) 16218/17 and 4 others
The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.In applications nos. 76701/17 and 21796/21, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF VOLYK v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights) 8942/17 and 30796/21
The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF SMAGINA AND VLADIMIROV v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights) 41891/15 and 59909/15
The applicants complained of the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention.
CASE OF TELEPENKO v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights) 31763/20 and 21605/21
The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF RAMAZANOV v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights) 31757/20 and 21592/21
The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.