The applications concern the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicants owing to their inability to examine an anonymous witness at any stage of the proceedings.
CASE OF ADOMAITIS v. LITHUANIA (European Court of Human Rights) 14833/18
The case concerns the applicant’s complaints, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, that he did not have a fair hearing and was not able to challenge effectively the lawfulness of the interception
CASE OF ATRISTAIN GOROSABEL v. SPAIN (European Court of Human Rights) 15508/15
The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that he was denied a lawyer of his own choosing whilst being held incommunicado, and that for this reason he made self-incriminatory statements.
CASE OF KHUDOROSHKO v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 3959/14
The present case concerns a conscript’s suicide as a result of being subjected to hazing practices in the Russian Navy and the refusal of the applicant’s claim for compensation for her son’s death.
CASE OF KARUYEV v. RUSSIA – 4161/13. The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for spitting on a portrait of the President of Russia.
THIRD SECTION CASE OF KARUYEV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 4161/13) JUDGMENT Art 10 • Freedom of expression
CASE OF FAYSAL PAMUK v. TURKEY (European Court of Human Rights) 430/13
The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant owing to his alleged inability to confront in person four witnesses who had earlier made incriminating statements about him
CASE OF KOVAČ v. SERBIA (European Court of Human Rights) 6673/12
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KOVAČ v. SERBIA (Application no. 6673/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 January 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
CASE OF APOSTOLOVSKI AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (European Court of Human Rights) 28704/11and 2 others
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF APOSTOLOVSKI AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (Applications nos. 28704/11and 2 others) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 January 2022
CASE OF DENISENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 33842/10
The case concerns the interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions following a decision of a court in the self‑proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”), which allowed B.
CASE OF PASHINYAN v. ARMENIA (European Court of Human Rights) 22665/10 and 2305/11
The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for his involvement in the protest movement that followed the disputed presidential election of 19 February 2008 and raises issues under Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention.