THIRD SECTION CASE OF GARRIDO HERRERO v. SPAIN (Application no. 61019/19) JUDGMENT Art 2 (procedural)
CASE OF ASHOT MALKHASYAN v. ARMENIA (European Court of Human Rights) 35814/14
The case concerns the death of the applicant’s son during compulsory military service as a result of the authorities’ alleged failure to adequately assess his state of health during
CASE OF ÇÖÇELLI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE (European Court of Human Rights) 81415/12
The case concerns the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were not given sufficient time to challenge the composition of an expert panel,
CASE OF COVENTRY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (European Court of Human Rights) 6016/16
The applicant was an unsuccessful defendant in a nuisance action which the claimants had funded through a conditional fee arrangement (a “CFA”, or “no win no fee” agreement)
CASE OF KOTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 6142/18 and 13 others
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
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.