Case Law

The Case Law database provides access to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments, decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports), the Committee of Ministers (resolutions), and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Right to Information (Measure B) (56 Entries)

Displaying 1-10 of (56)


CASE DATE:
Thursday, 28 Aug 2014
STATE:
Malta
OUTCOME:
Communicated case; questions to the parties.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to be promptly informed of the reason for arrest and detention. Lawfulness of detention. Effective remedies. Conditions of detention.



CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 5 Aug 2014
STATE:
Malta
OUTCOME:
Communicated case; questions to the parties.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to be promptly informed of the reason for arrest and detention. Lawfulness of detention. Effective remedies. Conditions of detention.



CASE DATE:
Thursday, 26 Jun 2014
STATE:
Turkey
OUTCOME:
Communicated case; questions to the parties.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to be promptly informed of the reason for arrest and detention. Lawfulness of detention. Effective remedies. Conditions of detention in removal centre.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicants allege that they had been denied access to affective domestic remedies to complain about the conditions in the removal centre, that their detention was unlawful and that they had not been informed promptly about the reasons for their detention and had not been able to challenge their detention.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.4, 13

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 24 Jun 2014
STATE:
Turkey
OUTCOME:
Violation of Articles 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 5.5, 3 and 13 in conjunction with 3.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Prompt information of the reasons for arrest and detention. Right to judicial supervision of the lawfulness of detention in removal centre. Conditions of detention. Absence of effective remedies to complain about the conditions of detention.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complained, under Art. 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Art. 13, that he had been unlawfully detained without the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and that he had not been duly informed of the reasons for his deprivation of liberty. He further maintained, under Art. 5 § 5 of the Convention, that he had had no right to compensation under domestic law in respect of these complaints


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 3, 13

CASE DATE:
Saturday, 14 Jun 2014
STATE:
Slovenia
OUTCOME:
Violation of Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4.
SUBJECT MATTER:

A requirement for prompt information. Involuntary confinement depriving a person of their liberty on the basis of a medical assessment and not permitting them to initiate any proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of such confinement. it must be made available during a person’s confinement to allow that person to obtain speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of his or her confinement capable of leading, where appropriate, to his or her release.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleged violations of Articles 5 and 8 concerning the lawfulness of her involuntary confinement in psychiatric hospitals, the lack of information about the reasons for her confinement, the lack of judicial review with regard to both periods of her confinement, and the lack of possibility of obtaining compensation for the alleged violations of her rights under Article 5 of the Convention.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 8, 61

CASE DATE:
Monday, 24 Mar 2014
STATE:
Russia
OUTCOME:
Communicated case; questions to the parties.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Fair trial (including presumption of innocence). Prompt information of the nature and cause of the accusations.



CASE DATE:
Wednesday, 8 Jan 2014
STATE:
Albania
OUTCOME:
No violation
SUBJECT MATTER:

Presumption of innocence. Right to a fair trial. Right to information.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleged that that the testimony of the then Minister of Justice, who hinted at the applicant’s guilt, breached the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by Art. 6 § 2. Furthermore, the domestic courts presumed him guilty on the basis of witnesses’ testimonies, which had been considered contradictory and unreliable.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.1 and 6.3(a)-(d)

CASE DATE:
Wednesday, 8 Jan 2014
STATE:
Albania
OUTCOME:
No violation of Articles 6.1 and 6.3(a)-(d)
SUBJECT MATTER:

Statement of a public official. Right to a fair trial. Presumption of innocence. Right to information.



CASE DATE:
Monday, 6 Jan 2014
STATE:
Ukraine
OUTCOME:
Communicated case; questions to the parties.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Lawfulness of detention. Prompt information about the reasons for arrest and the charges.



CASE DATE:
Wednesday, 18 Dec 2013
STATE:
Slovakia
OUTCOME:
Communicated case; questions to the parties.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Prompt information of the nature and cause of the charges. Preparation of the defence. Assistance by a lawyer during police custody. Fair trial.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleged among others that he had not been promptly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, that he was not properly informed at the initial, crucial stages of his prosecution of his procedural rights, including the right to choose a lawyer, and that the courts took into account his and his co-accused’s pre-trial statements, although these had been made without them being properly informed of their rights and without being assisted by a lawyer.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    6.1, 3

Page 3 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›

JUSTICIA European Rights Network