The applicants complainedof the inadequate conditions of their detention.
CASE OF NAGOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 63528/16 and 6 others
The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
CASE OF UTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 54784/16 and 41 others
The applicants complainedof the inadequate conditions of their detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF BOGOMOL v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights) 15528/11
The present case concerns allegations, under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention, that the applicant was tortured by officers of the Kharkiv Organised Crime Police Unit (“the UBOZ”);
CASE OF VOROBYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 7440/07 and 4 others
The applicants complained of the various restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events.
CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights)
The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.
CASE OF PALAIA v. ITALY (European Court of Human Rights) 23593/14
The applicant complained that the enactment of Law no. 296/2006 had violated her right, as F.P.’s heir, to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
CASE OF LYPARIS v. GREECE (European Court of Human Rights) 6047/14
The applicant complained to the Court that the civil proceedings for defamation in which he had been ordered to pay EUR 10,000 to I.G. because of the article he had published in the local press had violated
CASE OF SLÁDKOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC (European Court of Human Rights) 15741/15
The present application concerns the ill-treatment allegedly suffered by the applicant while in the hands of Czech police officers, as well as the alleged lack of effectiveness of the subsequent investigation
CASE OF J.N. v. POLAND (European Court of Human Rights) 10390/15
The case concerns the State’s positive obligations to carry out timely proceedings concerning children’s residence and to secure the applicant’s contact rights.