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”)
CASE OF KOZIN v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 1993/17
The applicant alleged that he did not receive adequate medical care in detention and that there was no effective remedy in that regard. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF MUKHIN AND BASIYEVA v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 24655/16 and 57261/17
The case originated in applications against Russia 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 ALLELEH AND OTHERS v. NORWAY (European Court of Human Rights) 569/20
The case concerns a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention relating to the expulsion of the first applicant and its alleged consequences for the applicants’ family life.
CASE OF GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC (European Court of Human Rights) 19750/13
The case concerns disciplinary proceedings conducted against the applicant, an enforcement officer, by the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court acting as the disciplinary court.
CASE OF HAŠČÁK v. SLOVAKIA – 58359/12 and 2 others. The three applications originate from various facts linked to a surveillance operation carried out in 2005 and 2006 by the Slovak Intelligence Service (“the SIS”)
In 2011 the existence of that operation became publicly known by its codename of “Gorilla”. The general context of the case, both at the national level and before the Court, is described in the Court’s judgment