The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. In applications nos. 20193/15 and 36396/17, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention.
CASE OF CIANCHELLA v. ITALY (European Court of Human Rights) 65808/13 and 2 others
The case concerns legislative intervention in the course of ongoing civil proceedings. The applicants complained that the enactment of Law no. 296 of 27 December 2006 (“Law no. 296/2006”)
CASE OF MKHITARYAN v. ARMENIA (European Court of Human Rights) 4693/12 and 3 others
The applicants complained of the unlawful detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF KHALIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 35205/19 and 8 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 HEGEDIŠ v. CROATIA (European Court of Human Rights) 41306/18
The case concerns the applicant’s inability to use her flat occupied by a protected lessee.
CASE OF PESTRIKOVA v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 52548/17
The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of her detention, which were incompatible with her disabilities and that there was no effective remedy in that regard. She also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF ARAMBAŠIN v. CROATIA (European Court of Human Rights) 48981/17 and 49727/17
The present case concerns the applicants’ inability to use their flats or to collect an adequate rent from their tenants.
CASE OF IBISHBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN (European Court of Human Rights) 45929/17
The case originated in an application against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 June 2017.
CASE OF IVANTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 20509/17 and 11 others
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention, which were incompatible with their disabilities and that there was no effective remedy in that regard.
CASE OF VASS AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (European Court of Human Rights) 7175/17 and 14 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”)