The application concerns civil proceedings brought by the applicants against other individuals before the Hazro Cadastral Court concerning a cadastral dispute, in which they argued that a plot of land, allegedly owned by them,
CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. SPAIN (European Court of Human Rights) 36584/17
The application concerns the applicants’ right to privacy and to protection of their own respective image (Article 8 of the Convention) as well as their right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention).
Grosam v. the Czech Republic (European Court of Human Rights)
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 263 June 2022 Grosam v. the Czech Republic – 19750/13 Judgment 23.6.2022 [Section I]
CASE OF KHARLAMOV AND SHCHERBATENKO v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 40959/19 and 19258/20
The applicants complained of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties.
CASE OF TURCIN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (European Court of Human Rights) 46051/19 and 14 others
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. FOURTH SECTION CASE OF TURCIN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 46051/19 and 14 others – see appended list)
CASE OF TRENCHENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 65143/19 and 14 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 DIACONU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (European Court of Human Rights) 8806/20 and 9 others
The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
CASE OF PJONTEKOVÁ AND PETEJOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA (European Court of Human Rights) 52505/20 and 52832/20
The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings that they had initiated, respectively, on 13 May 1999 and on 26 April 2001 before the Bardejov District Court seeking payment of unjust enrichment.
CASE OF BELOSLUDTSEV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 8806/20 and 9 others
The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
CASE OF BUDAGHYAN AND CHUGASZYAN v. ARMENIA (European Court of Human Rights) 56589/15 and 56596/15
The applicants complained of the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention. FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BUDAGHYAN AND CHUGASZYAN v. ARMENIA (Applications nos. 56589/15 and 56596/15 – see appended list)