. The case concerns the domestic courts’ decision to declare null and void the contract of sale whereby the first applicant and her husband (the second applicant’s father)
Strobye and Roselind v. Denmark (European Court of Human Rights)
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 248 February 2021 Strøbye and Roselind v. Denmark – 25802/18 and 27338/18 Judgment 2.2.2021 [Section II]
CASE OF N.O. v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 84022/17
. This case concerns the administrative removal to Uzbekistan of the applicant, who was accused of politically and religiously motivated crimes, and raises issues under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
CASE OF STEFANOV v. BULGARIA (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 26198/13
. The present case concerns a complaint that a statement by the Minister of the Interior, concerning offences allegedly committed by the applicant,
CASE OF STROBYE AND ROSENLIND v. DENMARK (European Court of Human Rights) Applications nos. 25802/18 and 27338/18
. In 1984 and 2009, respectively, the applicants were deprived of their legal capacity. Consequently, they were not entitled to vote, inter alia, in the 2015 parliamentary elections.
Jurcic v. Croatia (European Court of Human Rights)
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 248 February 2021 Jurčić v. Croatia – 54711/15 Judgment 4.2.2021 [Section I]
CASE OF GOROPATSKIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights) Applications nos. 63243/13 and 5 others
. The present cases concern the ineffective investigation into the violent deaths of the applicants’ relatives without, however, any evidence that State agents were involved.
CASE OF KAPLATYY v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 39997/17
. The case concerns complaints under Article 2 of the Convention regarding the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of the applicant’s ex-wife which was allegedly not natural.
CASE OF VOROTNIKOVA v. LATVIA (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 68188/13
. The case concerns a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the dispute had been decided on the basis of unlawfully acquired documents,
CASE OF JURCIC v. CROATIA (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 54711/15
. The applicant entered into an employment contract ten days after she had undergonein vitro fertilisation. When she subsequently went on sick leave on account of pregnancy-related complications,