SECOND SECTION CASE OF YİGİN v. TURKEY (Application no. 36643/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
Category: European Court of Human Rights
CASE OF AKSOY v. TURKEY (European Court of Human Rights)
SECOND SECTION CASE OF AKSOY v. TURKEY (Application no. 37546/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
CASE OF KAPLAN v. TURKEY (European Court of Human Rights)
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAPLAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 13807/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
CASE OF AYMELEK v. TURKEY (European Court of Human Rights)
SECOND SECTION CASE OF AYMELEK v. TURKEY (Application no. 15069/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
MLADOST TURIST A.D. v. CROATIA (European Court of Human Rights)
FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 73035/14 MLADOST TURIST A.D. against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30 January 2018 as a Chamber composed of:
SHTOLTS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 77056/14 Eduard Nikolayevich SHTOLTS against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)
CASE OF EDINA TÓTH v. HUNGARY (European Court of Human Rights)
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF EDINA TÓTH v. HUNGARY (Application no. 51323/14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 January 2018 FINAL 30/04/2018
CASE OF STEPAN ZIMIN v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)
THIRD SECTION CASE OF STEPAN ZIMIN v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 63686/13 and 60894/14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 January 2018 FINAL 02/07/2018
CASE OF POLIKHOVICH v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)
THIRD SECTION CASE OF POLIKHOVICH v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 62630/13 and 5562/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 January 2018 FINAL 02/07/2018
CASE OF CASSAR v. MALTA (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 50570/13
The applicants alleged that they had suffered a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the forced landlord-tenant relationship