diff --git "a/ecthr_terms.jsonl" "b/ecthr_terms.jsonl" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/ecthr_terms.jsonl" @@ -0,0 +1,6273 @@ +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant newspaper endeavoured to repair an omission it had made in the first article by citing hearsay evidence to back up its accusation of bribe-taking. It was only when faced with the threat of civil proceedings that it called two additional witnesses in an attempt to lend substance to its allegations of bribe-taking. In the course of adversarial proceedings, the Buiucani District Court did not accept the applicant newspaper\u2019s arguments and evidence and found the allegations to be untrue and defamatory. The Court would underline that it does not accept the reasoning of the first-instance court, namely that the allegations of serious misconduct levelled against the claimant should have first been proved in criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the right to cannot be taken to confer on newspapers an absolute right to act in an irresponsible manner by charging individuals with criminal acts in the absence of a basis in fact at the material time (see Bladet Troms\u00f8 and Stensaas, cited above, \u00a7 66) and without offering them the possibility to counter the accusations. There are limits to their right to impart information to the public, and a balance must be struck between that right and the rights of those injured."], "id": "c77ed856-1824-4af1-9ebf-b9638bf8914f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government also produced a letter in which the University provided replies to the Government\u2019s questions. It stated, inter alia, that the University had assessed the question whether a less restrictive measure could be applied to the applicant and had also examined the employee\u2019s right to , as attested to by the analysis of the impugned email carried out by the ethics committee and the ad hoc investigative committee."], "id": "ea6ef973-979b-4339-828a-2a662ab4cfae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant argued (see paragraphs 31-32 above) that she had made the impugned media statements in the exercise of her constitutionally guaranteed right of reply. She added that she had acted primarily with a view to responding to what she had seen as groundless criticism of her in the same newspaper by another officer of the same company, namely the chairman of its General Meeting, who had also been the municipal mayor. In that connection the Court reiterates that the right of rectification or of reply, as an important element of , falls within the scope of Article 10 of the Convention (see Kaperzy\u0144ski v. Poland, no. 43206/07, \u00a7 66, 3 April 2012, and Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX). This flows from the need not only to be able to contest untruthful information, but also to ensure a plurality of opinions, especially in matters of general interest (ibid.). At the same time, the restrictions and limitations of the second paragraph of Article 10 are equally pertinent to the exercise of that right (see Melnychuk, cited above)."], "id": "ccc53c48-e9e4-4ece-8f22-fba989c140f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government stressed that the issue at hand was a dispute between two journalists, namely two persons whose profession was to pursue critical journalism. Journalists who used strong expressions and pursued so-called investigative journalism could be expected to tolerate even severe criticism of their activities. In the present case, the national courts had weighed in the balance in their judgments different considerations going to and the protection of private life and had exercised the discretion available to them. It was the Appeal Court which had considered that the limits of acceptable criticism had been exceeded, holding that the first applicant had intentionally made serious accusations against the complainant and had defamed him by calling him a liar."], "id": "3a2b1b80-3de5-42d6-a64e-b0b8cd04e99e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicants considered that the right to respect for private life did admittedly have to be upheld, but that it was not absolute, especially when it clashed with the right to and information, and the rights of the other people concerned by the publication. They criticised the domestic courts for failing to balance the Prince\u2019s rights against other rights which, they submitted, were of equal value: the rights of the mother, which they considered to be no less legitimate in a democratic society; the child\u2019s right to be officially recognised; and the magazine\u2019s right to impart information of public interest which was no longer confidential at the date of publication."], "id": "845400b7-7e1a-41b3-8097-7fbebca2a492", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant company alleged a violation of its right to . It submitted that the domestic courts' injunctions prohibiting it from distributing the book Le Grand Secret had not been prescribed by law, had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d; it further complained that the \u201cexorbitant\u201d award of damages which it had also been ordered to pay had not been proportionate to the aim pursued. It relied on Article 10 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "4f3cc66c-bca1-4ad3-8b8a-102b09f776a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government also considered that, even if the Court did see the applicant\u2019s discharge from the military as an interference with the exercise of his right to , that presumption would be incorrect. The Government categorically rejected any such considerations, because the applicant had been discharged in accordance with the domestic law for having reached retirement age, and not because of the criticism he had expressed in the article in Kauno Diena. The Government also pointed out that in the domestic proceedings concerning his discharge the applicant had raised his allegation of discrimination only very briefly, while in essence disputing the interpretation and application of Article 38 \u00a7 1 (7) of LMS. However, having regard to the interpretation of that provision by the administrative courts in the applicant\u2019s case as well as in other relevant case-law, the applicant was discharged from the military in accordance with the domestic law, and there was no ground to allege any possible discrimination in any regard."], "id": "6dd51d68-67b2-4c53-9c59-056f94017a50", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["13. The Government did not dispute that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to . They argued however in essence that the impugned expression was so offensive that the applicant\u2019s prosecution had corresponded to a pressing social need. In any event, his case had finished with only a reprimand; consequently, the interference could not be considered disproportionate."], "id": "0b442d6c-d37e-4250-8492-4f8ed6edcdbd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant's lawyer submitted that the interference with the applicant's had been in breach of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. She considered that the domestic courts had failed to take into account that the impugned statements had been made at a session of the City Council, in the course of public debate devoted to the future functioning of the Knyszyn School Complex. The applicant's lawyer considered that, by holding the applicant criminally responsible for his statements, the domestic courts had failed to strike a fair balance in weighing the interests of K.Ch.'s right to respect for his private life and the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. In this respect she considered that in the present case there had been no element of \u201cpressing social need\u201d. Finally, she criticised the provisions which provide for criminal sanction for defamation without leaving any room for exceptions for matters of public debate; in her view such a construction of responsibility for defamation deprived the public debate of any sense."], "id": "1667e8fa-e851-4c5b-a94f-63909ddd14d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government agreed that the applicant\u2019s conviction and the fines imposed on her constituted an interference with her right to . However, the interference had a basis in Finnish law, in particular in Chapter 24, section 8, of the Penal Code which fulfilled the criteria of precision, clarity and foreseeability. The applicant and the publisher had consulted a lawyer before publishing the book and they had thus been aware of the legal risks connected with the publication. The interference was thus \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the private life and reputation of others."], "id": "65df44cf-38c3-4606-86bd-20ca1b942a84", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government did not contest the authenticity of the letter that had been sent by Mr Mi\u015fin to the Prosecutor General. However, they argued that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to because he was not the author of the articles that had been published in the Jurnal de Chi\u015fin\u0103u and had not been dismissed for exercising his freedom of expression but simply for breaching the internal regulations of the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office. In their view, since the applicant\u2019s complaints were in essence related to his labour rights, Article 10 was inapplicable."], "id": "049f110f-c120-45e3-88b4-01252c214222", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant company complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on its right to in its case had not been prescribed by law as the Penal Code provision applied had not defined adequately the scope of private life. Nor had the restrictions been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. B. had not been an innocent bystander but had participated actively in the incident of 4 December 1996. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest, especially since the case had been very newsworthy. Moreover, the information in the articles had in every respect been correct."], "id": "023be9ca-586f-4587-9869-057eb4df95ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant maintained that his article concerned the irregularities in the Wroc\u0142aw judiciary which was an issue of public interest. He argued that the main duty of a journalist was to collect journalistic material with due diligence; however, there was no obligation to prove the truthfulness of all acquired information. would be undermined if only those facts that could be proven were publishable. A particular example of this was when a journalist wrote an article about a person who was subject to criminal proceedings. In such a case, the journalist could not have known the eventual result of the proceedings at the time of writing. This was the situation in the applicant\u2019s case. After the publication of his articles, several sets of proceedings were opened against the members of the local judiciary. The proceedings against prosecutor R.M. for forgery had been discontinued on 2 March 2005. On 19 November 2001, a bill of indictment was lodged against bailiff M.K. accusing him of theft and forgery."], "id": "b9fef1f8-0388-47d1-94b3-e9ae9ca4ab7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government did not dispute the fact that the applicants' conviction for the offence of handling information protected by the secrecy of a judicial investigation or by a duty of professional confidence constituted interference with their right to . In their opinion, that interference was prescribed by law, namely by Articles 226-13 and 321-1 of the Criminal Code, which fulfilled the conditions of accessibility and foreseeability required by the Court (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999\u2011I). The Government considered, however, that the interference constituted a measure that was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others and for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Without disputing the fact that the aim of the applicants' work had been to inform the general public about an affair of state that was of interest to public opinion, they considered that it prejudiced the presumption of innocence in respect of G.M. The publication of the book just a few days after the death of Fran\u00e7ois Mitterrand had given it a certain commercial and media impact, thereby increasing the prejudice sustained by G.M. Moreover, the affair had been a very sensitive one and the book had contained precise reproductions of a number of documents from the case file."], "id": "9bd320a1-9a53-4728-b436-fe8045eda864", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government did not dispute that the libel proceedings and the sanctions imposed on the applicants constituted an interference with their . They argued that the interference was necessitated by a pressing social need, namely the protection of the reputation and rights of others, and that the sanction imposed was proportionate. The domestic courts had complied with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention, considered the distinction between statements of fact and value judgments, and concluded that the statements of the second applicant were devoid of any factual basis. Referring to the Court\u2019s judgments in the cases of Krasulya v. Russia (no. 12365/03, 22 February 2007), and Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 29492/05, 26 February 2009), the Government contended that even if the paragraphs in question were expressing a value judgment the second applicant lacked \u201cgood faith\u201d in the exercise of his journalistic duties by failing to rely on any facts."], "id": "8b94ffcb-e3aa-4bf3-a638-70fe4e2cb7d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant maintained that the interference had not been \u201cnecessary in the democratic society\u201d because the domestic courts had failed to respect the principle of proportionality between the restriction of and the objective set out in Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In particular, he had been sanctioned for criticism of a member of the government in respect of whom the limits of acceptable criticism should be wider than in respect of a private individual. He further argued that a free political debate is the core concept of a democratic society, that the discussions about political issues deserve a greater protection than non-political discussions and that, consequently, the State has very narrow margins for restricting such expression. "], "id": "8678796d-a5ae-484e-bf96-0f80574b4709", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant company argued that the interference with its \u2013 including its right to store information and to enable users to impart their opinions \u2013 was not prescribed by law. It submitted that there was no legislation or case-law stating that an intermediary was to be considered a publisher of content which it was not aware of. On the contrary, the applicable law expressly prohibited the imposition of liability on service providers for third-party content. In this connection, the applicant company referred to the Directive on electronic commerce, the Estonian Information Society Services Act and the Council of Europe Declaration on freedom of communication on the Internet. The Directive provided for limited and notice-based liability with take-down procedures for illegal content. Service providers were exempted from liability where, upon obtaining actual knowledge of illegal activities, they acted expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information concerned. Such removal or disabling of access had to be undertaken in the observance of the principle of freedom of expression and of procedures established for this purpose at national level (Recital 46 of the Preamble to the Directive). The applicant company argued that this law was indisputably formulated with sufficient precision to enable a citizen to regulate his conduct. According to the applicant company, its behaviour had been in full compliance with the applicable law as it had removed the defamatory comments the same day it had been notified by the original plaintiff."], "id": "ba54849f-014a-4b13-8427-a4aee3e5c24a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government argued that the application was manifestly ill\u2011founded. The complaint was essentially about the magnitude of the damages assessed by the jury, but that was a factual determination by the High Court that should not now be revisited. The decisive issue was whether domestic law contained sufficient safeguards for in the context of defamation. It had already been established in the Independent News and Media case that the requisite safeguards were present in domestic law. The proceedings in the present case had begun only four years after this Court\u2019s assessment of the domestic system in that case. The applicant company had not suggested that the domestic courts had misapplied the relevant jurisprudential principles, nor had it put forward any reason for the Court to depart from its previous positive assessment of the safeguards provided by Irish law."], "id": "40f3608c-dfbf-4196-a3ff-f7632fd57231", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government pointed out that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights had been lawful and had aimed at protecting the rights and the reputation of K.T. In addition, it had been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention for the following reasons: the article expressly cited by the applicant when making his impugned statement about Freemasonry only presumed K.T.\u2019s affiliation with the Freemason order; as to K.T.\u2019s connections with the former secret services, the applicant\u2019s allegation had been disproved by official documents; the above meant that the applicant had clearly made untrue statements, without having genuinely tried to verify them; he had, in addition, not sought K.T.\u2019s preliminary opinion; the domestic courts had given sufficient reasons when establishing the untruthfulness of the applicant\u2019s allegations and the damage suffered by K.T. on that account; they had, moreover, conducted a balancing exercise, taking into account the applicant\u2019s right to ; the applicant had not been prosecuted for having committed the criminal offenses of insult or libel, but had only been held civilly liable; and finally, the domestic proceedings had been adversarial and the applicant had been legally represented."], "id": "9626ab33-fffb-417a-bc0a-5318c38f48c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant claimed that, as an academic, he had fulfilled his duty to inform scientific circles and the public at large about the weaknesses of the discipline in which he taught. In his statements, he had not mentioned the name of the plaintiff, but even if he had done so, this was not a valid reason to restrict his right to . In any event, the opinions expressed by him had had a factual basis given that the plaintiff had been dismissed from his post on account of inadequate scientific competence and personal values. The applicant concluded therefore that there was no pressing social need capable of justifying the interference in question and that it was not proportionate to the aim pursued."], "id": "9ec67cff-4ab9-4c79-bdc1-b237a858c368", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant stressed that under the relevant provisions of the Press Act of 1984, in particular its Article 34, he was, as an editor-in-chief, under an obligation to publish official communiqu\u00e9s issued by the highest State authorities. Furthermore, he was not to be held responsible for the contents of such communiqu\u00e9s. The applicant further relied on principles established in the case-law of the Convention organs concerning , which constituted one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. "], "id": "6909efbf-b1fb-4226-942a-5d77372cae0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government alleged that the disciplinary sanction had been imposed on the applicant because he had left his city of residence without the authorities\u2019 permission. The sanction was not connected to the applicant\u2019s views or any remarks he might have made during the programme in question, or to his . The applicant could have conveyed the opinions which he had expressed during the programme through an article or a statement."], "id": "06326ef2-41dc-4d26-9afc-ea648743fd85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government submitted that the right to hold demonstrations inside the premises of public institutions was not unlimited (see Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, \u00a7 47, ECHR 2003\u2011VI). They referred in this connection to Article 9 \u00a7 1 of the Law on Assembly and Demonstrations, which provided that no assembly or demonstration could be held, inter alia, in a building of a governmental institution (see paragraph 45 above). They stated that there had been alternative venues at the disposal of the applicants and their supporters, such as the courtyard of the University, where they could have organised their protest. They stressed in this connection the idea that a university, being an educational establishment, was exclusively devoted to providing educational services; therefore, if the Government were to allow unrestricted demonstrations on its premises it would put a disproportionate burden on the educational establishment, jeopardising its proper functioning. They thus maintained that in the instant case, no interference with the applicants\u2019 right to and peaceful assembly had taken place at all."], "id": "b9ad4056-630c-41da-b7da-1e8d70c7da68", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant company argued that in today\u2019s world, Internet media content was increasingly created by the users themselves. User-generated content was of high importance \u2013 comments on news stories and articles often raised serious debates in society and even informed journalists of issues that were not publicly known, thereby contributing to the initiation of journalistic investigations. The possibility for \u201ceveryone\u201d to contribute to public debate advanced democracy and fulfilled the purposes of in the best possible way. It was a great challenge in this setting to hold those who infringed the rights of others accountable while avoiding censorship."], "id": "2e5ec710-cbbf-4a3a-8180-8e4549727376", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government disagreed with this claim and submitted that any damage caused to the applicant was the result of its own unethical, non-professional and abusive conduct which gravely insulted the State. The applicant was sanctioned after the courts duly balanced the interests at stake, including the particular role that the right to plays in a democratic society. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s administration should hardly have been shocked by the sanction since they had been warned to stop publishing the relevant materials and the law clearly included the possibility of a court order for the closure of a newspaper. In addition, the applicant did not prove that its failure to fulfil its contractual obligations had affected in any way its reputation. Finally, the Government submitted that in a number of previous cases where a violation of Article 10 had been established the Court rejected any just satisfaction claims, declaring that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction."], "id": "ab6c6550-f3b3-4b6e-a24d-be4e6a99d2a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government acknowledged that the decisions of the domestic courts amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to . They were of the view that that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim. The assertions made in the article concerned the conduct of a politician. It was accepted in the Court\u2019s case-law that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider with regard to a politician than with regard to a private individual. Where, as in the present case, journalists considered that it was their duty to alert public opinion to an important issue in the general interest, namely the alleged acceptance of a bribe, they were under an obligation to provide a sufficient factual basis for their allegations. The domestic courts had accepted, having regard to the fact that the applicants referred in their pleadings to their freedom of expression, that they had been motivated by the protection of the general interest. Moreover, the courts had focused on the essential aspect of the case, namely on the allegations of corruption advanced by the applicants."], "id": "61c5d536-e3c7-4886-867b-0e7570e5bcae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["162. The Government maintained that any interference was justified and proportionate. It was confined to preventing certain conduct by reason of its adverse impact, or potentially adverse impact, on others and on the public order, in a public context. They further emphasised that any person who exercised undertook duties and responsibilities that included the obligation to avoid expressions which were offensive to others and which did not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs. The Government were of the view that the applicant had failed to act consistently with this principle."], "id": "daad6a47-962f-47f1-a381-8cc755c75b2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant complained under Articles 6, 7, 10 and 13 of the Convention that his conviction by the domestic courts for aggravated defamation had infringed his right to . The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will consider this complaint solely under Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "51876fd2-2b75-48df-be83-37fcf8a0020e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government agreed that the facts of the case disclosed an interference with the applicants' right to . The interference was nevertheless justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The applicants had been ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages for defamation on the basis of Articles 7 and 7 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code. The interference had thus been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and the law was accessible and foreseeable. It had served the legitimate aim of protecting the dignity of Mr Stepaniuc; furthermore, the measure had been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "871a65f7-758e-4148-b962-fd0d89dd48cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant maintained his allegations. In his observations, he observed, in particular, that the object of section 81 (c) of Law no. 2820 was to prevent the creation of minorities, and that therefore it did not cover the language of an existing minority, the Kurds. He further submitted that the mere fact that certain delegates at the party meeting spoke in Kurdish could not be construed as having served the aim of creating a minority. The applicant insisted that the relevant provisions of Law no. 2820 were incompatible with the Constitution and the Treaty of Lausanne. He maintained that the content of the speeches had been within the scope of and that the mere fact that the party delegates had chosen to speak in a language which had been better understood by most of the participants at the meeting was not in breach of the Constitution or international treaties. In this connection, the applicant emphasised that HAK\u2011PAR was a party representing Kurds. He was of the view that the interference with his rights and freedoms resulted from a desire to prevent Kurds from using their own language and, thus, to diminish Kurdish culture and language."], "id": "55e9ee4f-3710-4f97-a809-a259b08a5944", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government accepted that the applicants\u2019 arrest at the site of the public event and their administrative convictions had constituted an interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and their right to . Such an interference constitutes a breach of Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention unless it is prescribed by law, pursues one or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2 of each Article, and is \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "001691a2-4f07-4c72-bc0a-8c387c7d984b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant argued that her aim was to inform the public about the ideas and attitudes of the mayor and about certain irregularities in the exercise of his office. Her letter concerned matters of public concern and she acted in good faith as a representative of society and of the political opposition. The applicant, drawing similarities with the case of Castells v. Spain, argued that the interference with the of an opposition member called for the closest scrutiny. The applicant admitted that her letter contained harsh criticism of the mayor; however it was a response to the mayor\u2019s appeal in which he claimed that the Regional Audit Chambers were unconstitutional and that they were undertaking activities comparable to Stalin\u2019s regime. In the applicant\u2019s opinion, the language used by the mayor was provocative and harsh, while her response was very balanced and subtle. Only the last sentence of the letter contained strong language. The authorities did not properly balance the need to protect the reputation of the mayor and the general interest served by criticism aimed at those exercising power."], "id": "4b3d3cf0-a8b9-4b16-93e9-1d8bb1bd8dde", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant disagreed with the argument that the requirement to obtain the authorisation, strengthened as it had been at the material time and remained afterwards, served only the purposes of good journalistic practice. He stressed that the legal requirement to ask for authorisation and obtain it, reinforced by a criminal sanction, did not exist in the legislation of any other Council of Europe countries. Such a requirement amounted in itself to a disproportionate interference with ; all the more so when it was, in addition, protected by a criminal sanction. Such a sanction had been imposed on the applicant in the instant case."], "id": "9d454ebd-a77f-4928-bc9f-f0bdaf833131", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government rejected the applicants' argument that the ability of multinational corporations, such as McDonald's, to defend their reputations by bringing defamation claims amounted to a disproportionate restriction on the ability of individuals to exercise their right to . They denied that there was a parallel to be drawn with the position under domestic law whereby government bodies and political parties are unable to sue for defamation: this bar was justified for the protection of the democratic process, which required free, critical expression. The reputation of a large company might be vital for its commercial success, and the commercial success of companies of all sizes was important to society for a variety of reasons, such as fostering wealth creation, expanding the tax base and creating employment. Furthermore, the applicants' proposal that \u201cmultinational companies\u201d should have no legal protection for their reputations was unworkably vague and it would be difficult to draft and operate legislation to that effect. Their alternative suggestion, that multinationals should have to prove loss, was also misconceived. The vindication of a plaintiff's reputation was a legitimate aim in itself and it would place enormous evidential burdens on both sides if economic loss were to become a material issue."], "id": "edc51b66-6c8c-4d8a-8bfa-88df8f4600b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant also argued that the authorities had not taken into account the principles of the Convention when deciding the case. Firstly, the importance of in the process of democratic elections had not been given due consideration. Secondly, the courts had failed to notice that both parties were politicians, whose reputation and good name should be given lesser protection."], "id": "275baeac-2eef-4a5a-a498-2d0090f6f89b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant company claimed that it could not have foreseen that the Hungarian courts would consider hyperlinking to constitute dissemination. Accordingly, the applicant company could not have foreseen that, by including the hyperlink in the article, it would be found liable for defamation and ordered to remove the hyperlink, publish excerpts of the judgment and pay legal costs. The Government conceded that there had been interference with the applicant company\u2019s , but argued that this interference had been lawful and proportionate in the light of the prevailing doctrine of objective liability in this field of law in Hungary."], "id": "34ea285e-aa20-4cdd-b7e0-5eb4d9cc4706", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicants submitted that the interference with their right to had not been necessary in a democratic society as it had not been justified by a pressing social need. They maintained that what was at stake in the present case was not purely commercial interests but participation in a general debate. In such cases the existence of particularly strong reasons for restricting the freedom of the press in a democratic society was necessary and the national margin of appreciation was limited."], "id": "ae527e02-828a-49ec-9fc2-bec3f93b22a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant, while agreeing with the Government that the interference had been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and had pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the reputation or rights of others, contended that it had not been proportionate. He argued that the domestic courts had taken neither his position nor that of the plaintiff into consideration. In his view, his being an editor of a newspaper and a journalist meant that the interference into his right of should have been assessed in the light of the important role the press plays in a democratic society. At the same time, Mr Fedorov was not a State servant, but a member of the Bryansk Region Duma, that is a public figure, who had to display a greater degree of tolerance to public criticism. Furthermore, rather than bringing proceedings for defamation, it had been open to the plaintiff to react to the applicant\u2019s article by making a statement to the media."], "id": "a8d09a37-631e-441f-b9e7-a129622b83c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention that their conviction following the publication of a newspaper article had not been fair and had amounted to unjustified interference with their right to . Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that this complaint does not raise a separate issue under Article 6 of the Convention and falls to be examined solely under Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "eb188961-a701-49e4-ab78-10e45c594a93", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government also pointed out that at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings the competent investigating authority could have resorted to the procedure under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Law and sought a disclosure order from a court. However, they chose not to do this and other investigative activities followed and the alleged perpetrator was identified by other means. The Government wished to emphasise that the domestic authorities deliberately chose to pursue a more time\u2011consuming course of investigation, thus clearly demonstrating their respect for and the rights of journalists not to disclose their sources. The Government held the view that the competent authorities had properly balanced the conflicting interests of the protection of journalistic privilege against those of the criminal investigation."], "id": "50ece07c-c61d-4d48-9c5d-2ec4cb7e682f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant concluded that the authorities had overstepped the margin of appreciation afforded to them. Moreover, the national courts\u2019 findings had been based on an assessment of the relevant facts which could not be considered reasonable and justified and failed to interpret the matter in the light of the principles set forth in Article 10 of the Convention. Thus, punishing the applicant for having published the interview in question was a disproportionate interference with his right to and constituted a violation of the Convention."], "id": "7904ff7d-cc04-4896-99a0-ccd63a0644cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government further maintained that the domestic courts had given relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions. The sanctions imposed on the applicants were proportionate as they had been held liable only under the civil law. The applicants were ordered to publish an apology and to pay the costs of the claimant and the court fees. They did not have to pay compensation. In the Government\u2019s view, the domestic courts struck a fair balance between the restriction of the applicants\u2019 and the protection of W.D.\u2019s reputation."], "id": "9ee112a0-98ab-4263-95c4-6e1a11619b0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant complained that the existence of Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code interfered with his right to . He maintained that the mere fact that an investigation could potentially be brought against him under this provision for his scholarly work on the Armenian issue caused him great stress, apprehension and fear of prosecution and thus constituted a continuous and direct violation of his rights under Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "524dfd41-2359-43e9-8ed8-75fb6665cb8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained that the criminal proceedings before the Ankara National Security Court were unfair, that that court was not independent and impartial, and of infringements of their and freedom of association; they also asserted that in the enjoyment of the rights thus breached they had been the victims of discrimination on the ground of their political opinions."], "id": "8a60b8d1-3542-48a3-a632-052491e0cf2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to had been lawful in that it had been based on the clear, accessible and foreseeable provisions of the domestic law, namely, on Article 7 of the Civil Code of 1963, section 47 of the Information Act of 2 October 1992, and sections 1, 32 and 42 of the Printed Mass Media (Press) Act of 16 November 1992, as applied by the national courts in the applicants\u2019 case."], "id": "916631d8-9d26-4d77-b45d-d2f623f600f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to freedom of speech. He maintained that as a serviceman he had been responsible for many years for giving legal advice to the Commander of the Armed Forces on the question of statutory penalties. His opinion on the statutory penalties the army imposed on soldiers often did not correspond to that of others at the Ministry of Defence. The applicant stated that he had made many proposals with the aim of improving, inter alia, servicemen\u2019s procedural rights when the new Army Disciplinary Statute was being drafted. As his superiors and the State President had failed to take his proposals into account, the applicant had contacted the Kauno Diena daily and expressed his ideas to the press. The internal inquiry into his communication with the daily had been started the same day. Even though that inquiry had later been discontinued by the authorities\u2019 acknowledgement that the applicant had not violated military discipline, the appeal to Kauno Diena and to the State President had had direct consequences for the applicant. He was dismissed from professional military service before the expiry of his contract. Most importantly, in order to avoid accusations of interference with , the authorities at the Ministry of Defence chose to dismiss him not on the ground that he had appealed to the media, but formally, on the basis of Article 38 \u00a7 1 (7) of LMS, thus leaving no official trace of injustice. If that provision had been applied to others in the same manner, several hundred soldiers would have been dismissed from service, however none of them except the applicant had suffered the same consequences. The example of four soldiers (R.L., V.S., J.\u0160. and M.I.) he relied on during the administrative court proceedings confirmed that there were more soldiers who should have been dismissed from the army, but that this was not done. Lastly, he also challenged as misleading the two examples provided by the Government (see paragraphs 41 and 42 above)."], "id": "4747e21a-dffa-4cf0-a878-fb672146ca35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicants complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against them under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and their subsequent conviction, had constituted a violation of their right to . Referring, in particular, to the Court\u2019s judgments in G\u00fcl and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02, 8 June 2010) and Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011), the applicants claimed that their conviction was not necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "eee6005e-e8de-4c1d-9a5f-566d18be0fe2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["4. The applicant did what he did. Under domestic law the Speaker of Parliament should have called him to order or excluded him from the remainder of that day\u2019s sitting. It appears that that would probably have been in line (or at least I hope so) with Kar\u00e1csony and Others (cited above), where the Court in no way objected to (albeit without explicitly approving) the respondent Government\u2019s arguments that \u201cclearly abusive speech or conduct of an MP nullifies the protection of his or her right to or may be considered an abuse of the right\u201d (\u00a7 155). But it was too late for such immediate intervention, as the Speaker seems not even to have noticed the indecent gesture at that moment (this part of Mr Szanyi\u2019s performance lasted for only a second). But that gesture was noticed (and, as the minutes of the Parliament session of that day reveal, even applauded) by some other MPs and caught by the Parliament TV camera and the media. At some later point, having become aware of Mr Szanyi\u2019s \u201cnon-verbal expression\u201d, the Speaker proposed to impose on him the sanction provided for in section 48 of the Parliament Act. Had the sanction been not applied, it would have been most surprising \u2013 not because Mr Szanyi was a member of opposition, but because of the very nature of his \u201cnon-verbal expression\u201d and its connotations."], "id": "4d6d3fca-3220-4187-85ac-3dec4700cd2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government asserted that the interference with the applicant's was prescribed by law, namely by Article 11 (e) of Law no. 2935 dated 25 October 1983, and that it pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and crime and protecting national security as permitted by Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They maintained that the measure taken against the newspaper was within the authorities' margin of appreciation and that it was justified given the specific circumstances of the case. They submitted in this connection that vital interests of the State were at stake and that the decision to ban was in response to a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "e7f9d7fc-7c7a-42a6-bc8d-99bdf4088cab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of the applicants\u2019 rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and to , as the relevant domestic authorities had not impeded their public gathering in any manner. On the contrary, the applicants and other participants of the demonstration were able to assemble freely near the Tbilisi Concert Hall and then proceeded with their march. As the organiser of the event had given a prior warning, the Ministry of the Interior deployed police units to the scene of the event. Police patrol vehicles escorted the LGBT marchers. As to the manner in which the police reacted to the clash between the marchers and counter-demonstrators, the Government admitted that that reaction had been somewhat delayed. However, they claimed that that had been done on purpose and in the marchers\u2019 best interests. Thus, the Government asserted that where a serious threat of a violent counter-demonstration exists, the domestic authorities have wide discretion in the choice of means to employ to protect assemblies. They referred to the Court\u2019s case-law in Plattform \u201c\u00c4rzte f\u00fcr das Leben\u201d (cited above, \u00a7 34). Considering the large number of counter-demonstrators and their aggressive attitude towards the demonstrators, immediate preventive measures by the police could have provoked an even greater outburst of violence. Nevertheless, the law-enforcement officers remained at the scene and instantly intervened when the verbal attacks degenerated into actual physical violence by evacuating the attacked applicants from the scene. The police officers also separated the opposing parties by standing between them, verbally warning both sides to behave in an appropriate manner. As regards the applicants\u2019 complaints of discriminatory intent under Article 14 of the Convention, the Government limited their response to noting that that provision was complementary and could not be invoked autonomously in the absence of a violation under Articles 10 and 11."], "id": "bae96339-aa91-4123-995f-116aa2b86259", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant emphasised that the domestic courts had convicted him of the offence of using a totalitarian symbol. While it is true that for a probationary period of one year the Hungarian courts had refrained from imposing a criminal sanction, in his view it was beyond doubt that there had been an interference with his , since his criminal liability had been established."], "id": "e28da558-c763-4beb-947c-acdabaa96b26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government were of the view that there had been no interference with the exercise by the applicants of their . They thus pointed out that Radio M Plus had not engaged in any activity in the period 2002-2004, in view of the unlawful assignments of the rights to licence no. 246/1997 (see paragraph 32 above). They further observed that the material in the file showed that the second applicant had worked as a journalist for the national daily Rom\u00e2nia liber\u0103 in October 2002. Similarly, there had been nothing to prevent the first applicant from writing in a newspaper or preparing television programmes."], "id": "d9af7825-8b47-4259-aa4f-54a8575e6fa8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government submitted that the present case differed from the Leempoel & S.A. ED. Cin\u00e9 Revue v. Belgium case (no. 64772/01, 9 November 2006) in that it concerned the audio-visual media in relation to Article 19 of the Constitution, rather than the print media in relation to Article 25. The extremely severe penalties referred to in the above-mentioned case were not applicable to the audio-visual media, whose was governed exclusively by Article 19 of the Constitution, a provision that did not prohibit censorship in such absolute terms as Article 25 did. That being so, Article 19 allowed a preventive system to operate with regard to freedom of expression, subject to certain fundamental conditions. In order to assess the level of acceptability of a preventive measure in a democratic State, a clear distinction had to be made between arbitrary intervention on the part of the executive and a situation where the courts were called upon to intervene at the request of a party in the context of a dispute between two private individuals, with a limit on the duration of any prior restraints."], "id": "88f7fcf9-eb4a-4380-adcb-f471d03d8e70", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant in the present case held a picket in front of a regional court. Some time later he was found administratively liable and fined for having breached the procedure for organising and holding a public assembly. The Court considers that the administrative prosecution amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly, interpreted in the light of his right to . Accordingly, its task is to determine whether the interference was justified."], "id": "6c6e70cc-229f-47aa-86e1-5dce5f785850", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant alleged that the restrictions on his imposed as a condition of his house arrest had been unlawful. He pointed out, in particular, that Article 107 \u00a7 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure set out an exhaustive list of possible restrictions during house arrest, which did not include a ban on public comments. He argued that the ban on commenting on the particular criminal case had been excessive and contrary to the public interest, given the high profile of those proceedings. Moreover, the Investigation Committee had made numerous comments about the case in the media. According to the applicant, the restriction had seriously impeded his public and professional activities, in particular his participation in the political debate, and had been imposed without any justification."], "id": "e9595227-a9d5-4b28-aba4-3e6141756283", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government firstly argued that the applicant\u2019s detention and the administrative fine imposed on him by the prosecutor\u2019s decision of 15 August 2007 had not amounted to an interference with his right to . They considered that the applicant had not acted in his capacity as a journalist, because he had gathered and shared not information of public interest but military intelligence concerning operations of the Romanian army in Afghanistan."], "id": "2b5460b0-33e7-42ad-897e-1f9e13c8738a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant complained that the first-instance judgment of 21 May 2003 (as rectified by the decision of 12 July 2005) and the second-instance judgment of 8 November 2005 had violated his freedom of thought and . In particular, he complained that he had been ordered to pay damages for tarnishing A.H.\u2019s reputation, although he had never used the word \u201cmachinations\u201d to describe A.H.\u2019s actions, had not authorised publication of the content of the telephone conversation between him and Dr I.V., and even though the second article did not accurately reflect the content of that conversation. He relied on Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention."], "id": "531d0803-5267-4bcc-85b1-eca2f023b56a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in non-pecuniary damages for the distress he had suffered as a result of the violation of his . He submitted that the criminal proceedings against him and his conviction had injured his reputation among his relatives, friends and colleagues in the legal community, and had had a negative impact on his health. Furthermore, he had had to suffer the humiliation of a public reprimand, which had been read before his colleagues. Finally, his conviction had resulted in his having been reduced in rank and salary for six months at the Ministry of Justice."], "id": "01784494-b51e-4ef7-970a-293b03bdafa6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies by failing to lodge a constitutional complaint challenging the compatibility of Article 52 (2) of the Code of Medical Ethics with the Constitution. They argued that on 23 April 2008 the Constitutional Court had declared unconstitutional an interpretation of this provision which penalised doctors for making a truthful public assessment of the conduct of another doctor which was in the public interest. The relevant provision, examined in its wording which came into force in 2003, had not been quashed by the Constitutional Court as only its overly strict interpretation had been considered to breach the constitutional norms securing the (see paragraph 49 above)."], "id": "b75aa1b1-1c3f-433b-b179-86e656c12b86", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government, while acknowledging the essential role played by the press as a \u201cpublic watchdog\u201d, asserted that in the present case the interference with the applicant company\u2019s had been necessary within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They argued in particular that the domestic courts had had to weigh the applicant company\u2019s interest in imparting information on an issue of public interest against the right to protection of the most intimate sphere of life of the person on whom it reported, which was equally protected by the Convention, namely, the right to respect for his or her identity, protected by Article 8 as part of a person\u2019s private life. The necessity to carry out such a weighing of interests was laid down in section 7 of the Media Act."], "id": "e4a88c95-2aef-4b41-a843-b18dd3fcb2d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants submitted that the present case, as well as other Supreme Court judgments restricting in the media, had received attention in Finland. A public debate had taken place, in which those judgments had been criticised. Furthermore, in December 2005 the Supreme Court had decided a case (no. 2005:136; see paragraph 31 above) which concerned another article published in the Alibi magazine. In that case, the majority of the Supreme Court judges had taken the view that the magazine had been entitled to publish the name of a convicted criminal. The incompatibility of that Supreme Court judgment with its judgment in the present case was, in itself, sufficient reason to find a violation. The applicants also observed that it was difficult for the Finnish media to report on legal proceedings because the domestic courts\u2019 decisions had made it difficult to predict when disclosure of the identity of a defendant or convicted person was within the sphere of freedom of expression and the public nature of legal proceedings and when, in contrast, disclosure constituted a criminal offence giving rise to a liability to pay damages. In the present case the Supreme Court had not even mentioned the Convention or Article 10 thereof. The names of accused and convicted persons were published daily in the Finnish media. There were no legal provisions defining when a defendant\u2019s identity could be revealed. In the present case, the applicant\u2019s actions had complied with the Guidelines for Journalists and no complaints had been lodged with the Mass Media Council (julkisen sanan neuvosto, opinionsn\u00e4mnden f\u00f6r massmedier)."], "id": "c56e4bb0-5dbb-461e-88c8-8b6de1006ed2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant complained that there had been an unjustified interference with his , in breach of Article 10 of the Convention. In addition, in the application form, the applicant made lengthy and detailed submissions criticising the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted before the first-instance court, especially the appointment of experts and admission of evidence and the manner in which the first\u2011instance court and the Court of Cassation had assessed the evidence and the applicable procedural rules. In this connection, the applicant emphasised what he described as the inappropriate way in which the domestic courts had praised the plaintiff in their decisions. In his view these flaws in the proceedings demonstrated that the domestic courts lacked the requisite impartiality vis-\u00e0-vis the plaintiff, and that they had been unduly influenced by his status. He claimed a violation of his rights under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention."], "id": "3df53f9a-bfe7-434c-a768-f4a44b93feb8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant complained that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions imposing sanctions on him for expressing his views concerning a demonstration, which had been organised by the trade union of which he was the chairman, had violated his right to within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. This provision in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "56511b24-64f9-4e03-a485-375c3737d51d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["7. The applicant was, moreover, ordered to pay damages to the tune of EUR 5,000 (see paragraph 16 of the judgment). The Court has repeatedly noted the chilling effect that a fear of sanction has on the exercise of . Although the applicant has not shown what his financial situation was at the time and whether or not he struggled to pay that amount, we are of the view that, in the circumstances, the sanction imposed was capable of having a \u201cchilling\u201d, dissuasive effect on the applicant\u2019s exercise of his right to freedom of expression (see, for instance, Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, \u00a7 61, 24 April 2007, and Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, \u00a7 61, 27 June 2017)."], "id": "c16ac1a4-360d-4523-a55d-03a773bb8596", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to had been justified in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 10. It had a legal basis in section 1 (1) of the Disciplinary Act taken in conjunction with section 9 of the Lawyers Act and served the legitimate aims of protecting the reputation and rights of others and the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."], "id": "d6132ff0-f137-407b-935a-21f6f7c4c505", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government did not dispute that the convictions in issue constituted \u201cinterference\u201d with the applicants\u2019 exercise of their right to . However, they submitted that the interference had had a clear and foreseeable basis in law. Article 179 bis protected actual conversations and Article 179 ter protected spontaneous comments. They applied both to the intimate and private sphere, to the right to one\u2019s own image and to the non-disclosure of one\u2019s own comments, and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others."], "id": "17a87d19-32b7-4886-92fa-09c31d04dad5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government argued that according to the \u201cquotation case-law\u201d of the Austrian courts, the publication of a statement which satisfies the definition of an offence may lead to sanctions against the medium concerned unless there is any objective reason, such as e.g. the protection by a basic right, justifying such statement. In the present case, having carefully weighed the against the protection of the reputation of others, the second instance court set out comprehensively the arguments in favour of the application of section 33 of the Media Act. It rightly considered that the statement \u201cspiritually depraved\u201d amounted to an offence and violated the concerned person's right to reputation. Referring to case-law of the Court of Appeal, the Government asserted that the correct quotation of an insult of one person by another person was protected by Article 10 of the Convention and did not justify forfeiture. In the present case, however, the applicant company had not reported about the pending defamation proceedings in a neutral way but had identified itself with the content of the quoted statements. The Government referred in this regard to the Court of Appeal's findings as regards the structure and style of the article and, furthermore, to the article's subtitle which wording between the lines in their opinion called the rejection of the reproach of being \u201cspiritually depraved\u201d into question. A victim's right would be almost completely void without an adequate protection against abuse of quotations, if a medium was free to publish and add to defamation by third persons. The applicant company had not been deprived of the possibility to inform the public about the fact that criminal proceedings against Mr Heller were pending. Finally, the forfeiture was principally a safeguarding measure containing elements of minor punishment. It appeared proportionate as most of the issues of the weekly magazine had, in any way, already been published. The applicant company had not sufficiently substantiated the alleged damage resulting from the forfeiture."], "id": "48d73d23-a414-4050-9550-3bd2ccade30a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested their argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicants did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of their conviction had been suspended. They further submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 had been prescribed by law, and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security and public safety as well as the prevention of disorder and crime. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, by referring to Abdullah \u00d6calan as a \u201cleading figure\u201d and an interlocutor for the State of Turkey, the applicants had conveyed to the public the idea that their client was still active. Moreover, their statements contained expressions referring to the strategy of a terrorist organisation. Noting that the applicants had not been imprisoned or subjected to any other restrictions, the Government contended that the interference in question had therefore not been disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "d0df08f5-c384-4ab9-8f46-b9ec197642d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s assertions, which directly concerned his former employer, were statements of fact rather than value judgments. They were of the view that the mere existence of labour and criminal proceedings instituted against the plaintiff could not serve as a basis for the applicant\u2019s allegations or justify statements violating the former\u2019s good reputation. They also pointed out that the Contracting States enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation when limiting the rights enshrined in Article 10. The Government were of the view that, since the applicant\u2019s declarations were statements of fact capable of harming S.K.\u2019s reputation, he had overstepped the Convention limits of ."], "id": "b45c7fbe-a6cd-4e40-8ea0-0d3496e622cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant further submitted that, for a newspaper, a refusal to publish a rectification was a matter of editorial policy and an aspect of the freedom to provide information. The freedom to choose and pursue editorial policy fell within the scope of the . The order to publish the rectification requested by the mayor and the applicant\u2019s criminal conviction had violated that freedom."], "id": "b0e6727f-9035-41c5-adfe-57cf945cf826", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant, while conceding that termination of an employment relationship without notice under Article 626 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code could pursue the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, namely, the business reputation and interests of Vivantes, argued that the said provision did not contain any criteria for a lawful dismissal in the event of whistle-blowing on the part of an employee. The related decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court of 2 July 2001 and the Federal Labour Court of 3 July 2003 (see \u201cRelevant domestic law and practice\u201d above) did not amount to comprehensive and established case-law in this regard. The conditions for dismissal without notice on the ground that an employee has filed a criminal complaint against his or her employer were not sufficiently foreseeable and the resulting interference with the applicant\u2019s right to had thus not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2."], "id": "ece98109-793e-4f23-9f89-94f819a5b55c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicants claimed that the question of whether or not there had been a rape ultimately had no significance when assessing the necessity to restrict , as the applicants had had good grounds for publishing the case at the time of the publication: the applicants had relied on a number of sources including a written statement submitted by the rape victim and verified by two witnesses, the article had dealt with a serious criminal offence, and although the rape suspicions had also been known to the local police, no investigation had been started. The article had not infringed the presumption of innocence of any of the players as no player had been mentioned by name. It had also become apparent from the article that the victim had not wanted the police to investigate the matter. The magazine had published a reply given by the players in its next issue in which all the players had denied being guilty of a crime."], "id": "75124e6e-3fab-4928-908c-19e8635dbae5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicants contested that assertion. They contended that the second applicant had been subject to an order to pay compensation for something which had been written by her husband. Given the situation, one could not fail to consider that the of the first applicant encompassed that of his spouse, given that she had been considered jointly responsible for it. Therefore, the second applicant had been the victim of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention for the purposes of Article 34."], "id": "52335700-ac35-4416-9844-5640e4ffff6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants further submitted that the Federal Constitutional Court, by decision of 25 October 2005, had changed its case-law and let, in case of doubt, personality rights prevail over the right to . Had the Federal Constitutional Court adjudicated the applicants' case at an earlier date, they would have profited from the more liberal standards applied before. The change of the Federal Constitutional Court's case-law had not been foreseeable for them."], "id": "04cb8c21-1ab9-4117-89be-2dbb30bbf7ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicants were obliged to pay the court fees, including the fee paid by the injured party for its legal representation (see paragraph 22 above), but no awards were made for non-pecuniary damage. However, it cannot be excluded that the court decision finding against the applicants in the present case might produce legal basis for a further legal action resulting a damage award. In any event, the Court is of the view that the decisive question when assessing the consequence for the applicants is not the absence of damages payable, but the manner in which Internet portals such as theirs can be held liable for third-party comments. Such liability may have foreseeable negative consequences on the comment environment of an Internet portal, for example by impelling it to close the commenting space altogether. For the Court, these consequences may have, directly or indirectly, a chilling effect on the on the Internet. This effect could be particularly detrimental for a non-commercial website such as the first applicant (compare and contrast Delfi AS, cited above, \u00a7 161)."], "id": "a321b2fa-191e-427d-93f3-15aed536ae72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant pointed out that the Court of Appeal had not referred to the Court\u2019s case-law nor balanced the applicant\u2019s right to against K.U.\u2019s right to reputation. No reasons had been given as to why there had been a compelling social need to limit the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression, nor had any reasons been given as to why such limitation had been considered proportionate vis-\u00e0-vis the legitimate aim relied on. The applicant claimed that the Government seemed to expect that there needed to be a ground for publishing information, while the Court\u2019s case-law showed the opposite, namely that there needed to be a special ground for not publishing certain information. The present article could not insult K.U.\u2019s honour, solely on the ground that the same information had been published in another evening newspaper in K.U.\u2019s own words on the same date."], "id": "c62b10bf-93a0-479e-aa24-98eb8108758e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government then contended that the necessity of the restriction on did not relate only to the particular seriousness of the remarks and accusation, but also to a failure to comply with the requirements of good faith and the ethics of journalism. They pointed out that the journalist, in addition to the fact that she had made mistakes in dates, had not even tried to make contact with one of the investigating judges or a member of the public prosecutor\u2019s office, and that in reporting comments by a representative of the union she had distorted them, had not struck the requisite balance between the different positions and had not carried out any research into the facts. Contrary to the applicants\u2019 assertions, the Court did not exempt journalists from that duty of verification, since it had described this as an \u201cordinary\u201d or \u201cusual\u201d obligation from which the media could be dispensed only on \u201cspecial grounds\u201d (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, \u00a7 78), and had found that the more serious the allegation, the more solid the factual basis had to be. In this connection, it was appropriate to point out that the definition of \u201cpartialit\u00e9\u201d (bias), according to the Petit Robert dictionary, indicated about a person that they took a position for or against someone or something without any concern for justice or truth, and that the use of the term \u201crocambolesque\u201d referred to a character described as \u201cvillainous\u201d by the Encyclop\u00e6dia Universalis. In the Government\u2019s submission, the applicants had wrongly claimed that French case-law on interviews would be applicable, firstly because the offending article was not an interview but a report, and secondly because the case-law cited (Court of Cassation, Second Civil Division, 27 March 2003), concerning the prudence required of journalists reporting remarks by third parties, was pertinent only for journalists who were not actually the authors of the reported remark. It remained the case that a newspaper was not entitled to publish all kinds of remarks on the ground that they had been made by a third party, as the person liable for defamation under French law was the publication director or editor \u2013 in other words the person disseminating the defamatory statement. In those circumstances the case-law in Thoma (cited above) was not pertinent because the person prosecuted in that case was a journalist \u2013 the principal for the offence under Luxembourg law being the author of the offending article \u2013 and the Court had found a violation of Article 10 because the journalist had not been, and had not purported to be, the author of the statement. It could not be argued, as the applicants had done, that when any comment whatsoever had been made by a third party and reported with basic textual precautions, such as the use of inverted commas or the conditional tense, it was not reprehensible. Such reasoning would render paragraph 2 of Article 10 meaningless. In any event, the Government took the view that the newspaper Lib\u00e9ration \u2013 contrary to other daily newspapers, such as Le Monde, from which they produced an article of 16 May 2000 \u2013 had not complied with the requirements of good faith or with the rules of ethics in journalism, by using bold type for the word \u201cpartialit\u00e9\u201d and thus deliberately drawing attention to the defamatory statement."], "id": "9e8de854-b465-4b17-a6fd-7b5820dc4d94", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to had been compatible with the terms of Article 10. The interference was prescribed by law, being based on Article 212 of the Criminal Code and pursued a legitimate aim, i.e. the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The statement that the mayor had put \u201cextralegal pressure on the prosecution service\u201d was directed against his personal dignity and had debased him."], "id": "1a53d385-06af-46cd-806b-b4bfb4d2fa26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government argued that the applicant's complaints were incompatible with the provisions of the Convention ratione temporis. In particular, he had been found guilty and sentenced by the Municipal Court on 11 June 2003 and the respondent State had ratified the Convention on 3 March 2004. The \u201calleged interference\u201d with the applicant's had thus occurred prior to the ratification while the subsequent criminal and civil judgments merely allowed for its subsistence thereafter (see paragraphs 9, 13, 15 and 17 above)."], "id": "e2fdb44b-2952-4f7c-b7a8-cd0d9ad07f19", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government did not dispute the fact that there was an interference with the applicant's . However, they submitted that the applicant had not acted, as a journalist, in \u201cgood faith\u201d. Insofar as the property declaration did not disclose how and when exactly the impugned assets had been acquired, the applicant, pursuant to section 24 \u00a7 2 of the Press and Media Act, should have investigated the issue further before imprudently implying in her article that the plaintiff had obtained the summer house and Tbilisi apartment corruptly during his political life. The Government stated that, contrary to the aim of the newspaper's rubric, the applicant's purpose was not to raise a public debate but to undermine Mr Lominadze's reputation."], "id": "ede86923-672a-4a7f-b736-72677c724e3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government noted that the purpose of the applicant\u2019s apprehension had not been to hinder his but to investigate the offence he was suspected of having committed. He had been able to use all the photographs he had taken at the event. The applicant\u2019s apprehension and detention had thus been justifiable, necessary and proportionate as the police had been reacting to a violent demonstration for which there had existed a risk of further violence and disruption. The alleged interference was thus necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "4ba13380-9e2d-4677-8453-a35f44f5cc48", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicants further submitted that Article 10 of the Convention protected not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they were conveyed. Journalistic freedom also covered possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation. applied not only to views deemed harmless or neutral, but also those which shocked, disturbed and offended. They referred to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24)."], "id": "5aa3b5eb-5f6a-4ff5-b431-ee56994fad71", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant stated that the restrictions placed on his by Article 8 of Law no. 3713 cannot be considered as proportionate, as they were applied to a wide range of topics and materials, the large majority of which, like the applicant, have nothing to do with inciting violence or advocating terrorism. He maintained that his publications contained material of an academic or otherwise serious and responsible nature, much of which consisted of documentation which was in the public arena. He further pointed out that the measures applied by the Government were extreme in so far as they consisted of criminal sanctions, attracting substantial prison sentences and fines."], "id": "6aa8133b-d2bc-4fba-9e65-e2eb3f6fe504", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant newspaper complained of a violation of its right to . It relied on the Court's jurisprudence concerning the distinction between facts and value-judgments, the special role played by the press in a democratic society and the wider limits of acceptable criticism to which politicians knowingly subject themselves. It referred to the gravity of the penalty imposed by the courts, which was the highest possible under the law. It also noted that Mr Stepaniuc had lodged his complaint a year after the publication of the article and that Moldovan law did not provide for any time-limits in lodging such complaints, imposing a disproportionate burden on the media to keep records and evidence of past events long after they had happened. It finally relied on its good faith in dealing with an issue of genuine public interest."], "id": "4144bad0-4f4f-47b5-a0d1-7a3425c0d7b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government admitted that the applicant\u2019s had been restricted. This restriction, however, had been in accordance with the applicable domestic law and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of others. The competent civil courts had also properly assessed the facts and adequately applied the relevant domestic legislation. The applicant\u2019s allegation to the effect that her lawyer, Mr NB, had deliberately failed to represent her properly in a pending civil case, had been a statement of fact in support of which no credible evidence had ever been offered. This statement had likewise not been given in any constructive social context, but merely as an expression of the applicant\u2019s personal dissatisfaction. Further, Mr NB, being a practising lawyer, could not have remained passive in the face of such serious allegations undermining his very livelihood. Finally, the Government argued that neither the sum which had been awarded to Mr NB by the civil courts, consistent with damages awarded in other similar cases, nor the manner of its subsequent enforcement could be deemed disproportionate. While, admittedly, the applicant\u2019s pension had been low this could not have absolved her from paying for the profound damage caused to Mr NB. In any event, approximately one third of the total principal sum due to be paid by the applicant consisted of the costs incurred by Mr NB in the course of the civil and enforcement proceedings."], "id": "36894e4b-5f7e-444d-8117-7ba894d31014", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant maintained that she had been communicating only with authorities acting under professional secrecy and that she had been correct with the child\u2019s father. She could not have committed any crime simply by seeking help and proper examination of her child\u2019s case, as that was her duty. She had acted in good faith and on the advice of a social worker. Therefore the applicant\u2019s right to had been seriously violated when she was convicted of defamation."], "id": "5894ef99-877b-4811-81ce-d6e496893439", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government conceded that the contested article had raised questions of public concern and that the limits of acceptable criticism in respect of Mr P., a civil servant, were wider than in the case of a private individual. They submitted, however, that the article had not been limited to criticism of Mr P.\u2019s actions in an official capacity; it had also encroached on the private sphere, claiming that Mr P. had lovers. The Government disputed the applicants\u2019 arguments that there had been no objective link between those statements and Mr P. The contested article had been entirely devoted to the activities of the Chief Federal Inspector Mr P. Taking into account the article\u2019s title, structure and contents, there could be no doubt that the statements concerning the collector of funds had been directed at Mr P. Those statements had been intended as statements of fact and the applicants had failed to prove their truthfulness. Given that the statements published by the applicants were damaging to Mr P.\u2019s honour and reputation, the interference with their had been justified."], "id": "43f405ea-2aa8-442b-9246-5546b7283fef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government submitted further that the applicant company had also failed to give the judge in question, or the court she belonged to, the opportunity to respond to the accusations. Proper journalistic conduct would have required the author to give the judge or the court concerned, the latter through its spokesperson who communicated regularly with the media, an opportunity to comment. This had been all the more necessary given that the author of the article had not attended the trial at which the judgment which he had so vehemently criticised had been issued, but had merely informed himself by studying the case file. When weighing the right to on the one hand against the protection of the reputation and impartiality of the judiciary on the other hand, the Austrian courts had in the present case explained, in a sufficient and relevant manner and following the case-law of the Court on this matter, why the protection of the reputation and independence of the judiciary had to be given precedence."], "id": "54bd05d2-1cb6-4031-bd66-099a912c5ac0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant submitted that the interference with his right to was not necessary in a democratic society as it was not justified by a pressing social need. He emphasised that the language used by him had not overstepped the boundaries of admissible and civilised journalistic expression of criticism. The statements in question were not offensive and were not an intentional personal assault on that politician. The applicant\u2019s intention was to highlight that politician\u2019s incompetence in the context of upcoming local elections. Moreover, the statements were quoted after a well-known book by Laurence J. Peter, which could not be considered offensive."], "id": "0e09b45a-1cf1-4719-832a-dc88ce1dd081", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s expressions fell outside the scope of protection of Article 10 of the Convention. In particular, it had been established in the domestic proceedings that the applicant had intended to insult E.P., as proven by the fact that he had accompanied the diffusion of the true facts with adverse judgments relating to her position in public office and inappropriate characterisations which had exceeded the limits of admissible criticism. The applicant\u2019s words were susceptible of harming E.P.\u2019s honour and reputation and therefore the applicant\u2019s conviction could not be considered as an interference with his right to ."], "id": "8bba5151-d718-4678-8d4a-be4ae9acc728", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant contended that the Internet publication rule restricted its ability to maintain a publicly accessible Internet archive. It pointed to the \u201cchilling effect\u201d that the rule had upon , which it said was aggravated by the fact that it had not actively sought to disseminate the information contained in its Internet archive. The applicant submitted that Article 10 required the adoption of a single-publication rule."], "id": "28255499-3441-4fe8-b0aa-3e0a184dacb8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that the applicant had exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism and had accused Ms G.B. of taking bribes. Although criminal proceedings had been initiated against Ms G.B. on charges of breach of duty based on negligence, those proceedings had been postponed in accordance with Law no. 4616. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, Ms G.B. was entitled to be presumed innocent until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against her. The domestic courts considered that even if Ms G.B. had been convicted of the charges, this would not mean that she had been bribed or that she had not behaved like a lady. When striking a balance between the conflicting interests, namely the applicant\u2019s right to and the plaintiff\u2019s right to be presumed innocent, the domestic courts had ruled in favour of the latter. The interference in question had therefore been proportionate to the aim pursued and should be considered to fall within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities."], "id": "6cd01976-302e-4929-9f16-7a0fca1fc148", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant argued that the desist order had interfered with his without being justified by the protection of the personality rights of Dr St. He submitted that his distribution of leaflets and the intended conversations with passers-by had contributed to a public debate of great importance. His actions had not personally attacked Dr St., but had criticised the legal situation in Germany concerning abortions, which had been performed by a doctor within twelve weeks of conception and following obligatory counseling. Those abortions had been considered to be unlawful, but had been exempt from criminal liability. Moreover, it had been consistent with the case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court to call abortions, as performed by Dr St., unlawful. The applicant further submitted that the domestic courts had not sufficiently taken into account that Dr St. had not been unknown to the public \u2013 as the doctor had been in the earlier case decided by the Federal Court of Justice \u2013 but had appeared as an expert before the German Parliament and had been involved in several legal disputes in the context of the debate about abortion."], "id": "bbb2cf7e-d823-4438-af90-82ec48c2c1fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant replied that he had exercised his when giving an interview to a journalist from Imperijal in which he had criticised the policy of the Minister of Health. Even though the domestic courts\u2019 judgments suggested that he had not been ordered to pay damages for what he had said in that interview but for its title and for what he had allegedly said in the telephone conversation with Dr I.V., the exercise of his freedom of expression had been stifled indirectly, as he had been sanctioned for something that he had not said (in that interview)."], "id": "d928405f-7a58-4a67-a32d-7cc899e778bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant argued that the interference with her had been disproportionate within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in view of the minor threat posed by the publication to the interests of the Lithuanian State or any ethnic groups living in Lithuania or the neighbouring countries. In this connection the applicant emphasised that \u201cLithuanian calendar\u201d had been edited and officially distributed by her for 6 years in the whole territory of Lithuania, attracting no great attention from the public or from State institutions. Similarly, the 2,000 edition of \u201cLithuanian calendar\u201d had been released in a very limited print run of 3,000 in the second half of the year 1999, and for the following five months had caused no significant interest or exaggerated reactions, up until the State authorities' intervention in January 2000 after they received a note from the embassy of the Russian Federation. The applicant likewise noted that the Prosecutor General had refused to start criminal proceedings against her as the publication had not had the elements of the criminal offence of instigation of ethnic or racial hatred. She also observed that the information published in \u201cLithuanian calendar 2000\u201d had already been made public in other historical documents. The applicant also relied on the fact that the publication had contained mainly the expression of her own opinions on and assessment of various historical events, and the State had presented no evidence proving the necessity of such a serious interference. As a result of the proceedings, she had not only received an administrative penalty in the form of a warning, but had also lost the main source of her income, in view of the confiscation and destruction of all the unsold items of \u201cLithuanian calendar 2000\u201d and her resultant inability to continue editing the publication she had created. The applicant further submitted that the authorities could have pursued means other than halting the distribution of the calendar, such as giving her the opportunity to make certain rectifications or announcements, if necessary, on the cover of the remaining, unsold, versions of the publication. Finally, the domestic courts' finding of a lack of intent on the part of the applicant, as well as the minor danger which the publication represented, were also to be taken into account in discarding the argument that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "db7767e5-161f-4ffa-ada8-27cbf592dbd8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government argued that the enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention was not absolute. Paragraph 2 of Article 10 formulated certain conditions and restrictions concerning its exercise. Journalists, in order to comply with the duties and responsibilities referred to in that provision, were obliged to act in good faith and to provide accurate and reliable information to the public."], "id": "18d482d4-3946-45b1-baea-a7fb3589c5b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants began by emphasising that the interference in their right to was totally lacking in legitimacy and observed that the offending remarks had not impugned the judiciary\u2019s impartiality, no more than they had damaged the reputation or rights of others. They observed that the remarks had not hindered the judges\u2019 action in seeking to establish the truth, nor had they led to a breach of the secrecy of the judicial investigation or of the right to be presumed innocent."], "id": "a64610b7-b603-4a2d-9606-9fda4216621b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government, while acknowledging the essential role played by the press as a \u201cpublic watchdog\u201d, asserted that in the present case the interference with the applicant company\u2019s had been necessary within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They argued in particular that the domestic courts had had to weigh the applicant company\u2019s interest in imparting information on an issue of public interest against the rights of the victim to the protection of her privacy which were equally protected by the Convention, namely the right to respect for her identity, protected by Article 8 as part of a person\u2019s private life, as well as Article 31 \u00a7 1 (e) of the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse and various other instruments of the Council of Europe. The necessity to carry out such a weighing of interests was laid down in section 7a (1) subparagraph (1) of the Media Act."], "id": "e5253cff-f9ed-481d-92e2-51f9df509297", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant claimed that the interference with his right to , even though it had been in accordance with law and had pursued a legitimate aim, had not been proportionate. The applicant maintained that the domestic courts had failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise between the competing interests, since they had not taken into account all of the relevant criteria established in the Court\u2019s case-law (he referred to Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, \u00a7\u00a7 89-95, 7 February 2012)."], "id": "bbab785e-920f-40db-9902-6fa7f26031f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of expression", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government admitted that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions had amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to . They submitted, however, that the interference had been justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It was prescribed by law, namely Article 212 of the Criminal Code, and pursued a legitimate aim: the protection of the \u201creputation or rights of others\u201d."], "id": "471db769-30e2-49e4-90ec-f7622a56da5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government lastly submitted that the domestic courts had carried out a thorough analysis of the necessity of the impugned measure, in line with the principles developed in the Court\u2019s case-law and the applicant company had been given a fine which had been close to the minimum provided in law (see paragraphs 19 and 36 above), so there were no grounds to find that the had not been proportionate."], "id": "3f2026f6-3e21-47d4-baf9-f71b22b5de15", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant further submitted that the with his freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society. According to him, the article contained value judgments alone in regard to certain complainants and value judgments based on facts in regard to other complainants. The applicant argued that there had been no pressing social need for an interference with his freedom of expression and that the domestic courts did not adduce relevant and sufficient arguments to justify the interference."], "id": "2698f436-224b-4c77-8309-cc14f54e878d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicants argued, under Article 7 of the Convention, that Finnish law contained no provision which defined reporting of a public trial as a punishable offence. At the time of the publication of the articles, it had been unforeseeable and surprising to the applicants that penal sanctions could be imposed on them for having published public information that had been freely available to everybody and to which anyone could have had access on the basis of Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of Finland. The published information remained even today freely available. The with the applicants' freedom of expression had thus not been foreseeable or \u201cprescribed by law\u201d."], "id": "1cf72518-f0af-42b7-b1c0-b850a36b4b39", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant submitted that there has been an unjustified with his right to freedom of expression. He claimed that he was the victim of a pattern of prosecutions in this regard and that the prohibited acts, as defined in the Prevention of Terrorism legislation, were too vaguely defined to be \u201cprescribed by law\u201d. In this connection, he averred that the aim of the restrictions in reality was to suppress democracy and public discussion of the Kurdish issue. He argued that Article 8 of Law No. 3713 satisfied neither the accessibility nor the foreseeable test. He contended that the interpretation given to the act of assisting members of prohibited organisations under Article 7 of Law No. 3713 was too broad for him to have anticipated prosecution or to have enabled him to regulate his conduct accordingly."], "id": "1dd86df3-1d7d-4e65-8fb4-769ee11a846c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government acknowledged that the impugned court decisions amounted to an with the applicant company\u2019s right to freedom of expression. However, the interference was prescribed by law and pursued an aim recognised as legitimate by the Court, namely, the protection of the private sphere (News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, \u00a7 44, ECHR 2000\u2011I). The question at issue between the parties in the present case was whether the interference had been proportionate, and in particular whether the balancing exercise undertaken by the national courts of the applicant company\u2019s right to freedom of expression against X\u2019s right to respect for his private life was in conformity with the criteria established by the Court\u2019s case-law. In that connection regard had to be had to the role of the person concerned, the purpose of the publication and the severity of the sanction imposed on the press."], "id": "3c8cd6c6-30d6-4615-9e31-10a1977353bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government argued that the with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had been justified in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 10. It had a legal basis in section 1 (1) of the Disciplinary Act taken in conjunction with section 9 of the Lawyers Act and served the legitimate aims of protecting the reputation and rights of others and the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."], "id": "95ae5bfc-b2bf-4870-ad5c-20a7d0749b77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["184. The applicant, by deliberately and consistently appearing naked in very public places such as urban centres, courtrooms and the communal parts of prisons, was intent on making a public statement of his belief in the inoffensive nature of the human body. The Court has found that his conduct amounted to a form of expression protected by Article 10 (see paragraph 150). It has previously indicated that a distinction must be drawn between carrying out an activity for personal fulfilment and carrying out the same activity for a public purpose, where one cannot be said to be acting for personal fulfilment alone (see Friend and Others, cited above, \u00a7 42). Furthermore, as concerns in particular an individual\u2019s personal choices as to his desired appearance in public (as referred to in S.A.S., cited above), on analogy with the applicability of Article 9 of the Convention to religious beliefs (text of Article 9 cited below at paragraph 185), Article 8 cannot be taken to protect every conceivable personal choice in that domain: there must presumably be a de minimis level of seriousness as to the choice of desired appearance in question (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to Article 9, Bayatyan, cited above, \u00a7 110; and Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 48420/10, \u00a7 81, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). Whether the requisite level of seriousness has been reached in relation to the applicant\u2019s choice to appear fully naked on all occasions in all public places without distinction may be doubted, having regard to the absence of support for such a choice in any known democratic society in the world. In any event, however, even if Article 8 were to be taken to be applicable to the circumstances of the present case, the Court is satisfied that those circumstances are not such as to disclose a violation of that provision on the part of the public authorities in Scotland. In sum, any with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life was justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 for essentially the same reasons given by the Court in the context of its analysis of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 10 of the Convention (see paragraphs 171-176 above)."], "id": "dbc9abbb-ba13-4e82-8320-ce6b6bb6cd35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government did not deny that the applicant\u2019s conviction constituted an with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. They took the view, however, that this interference was prescribed by law, since its legal basis lay in section 23 and sections 29 et seq. of the Act of 29 July 1881, and that it pursued a legitimate aim. On that latter point they argued that it sought to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, and to ensure the protection of the reputation or rights of others, since the statements had been directed at judges in the exercise of their duties and also undermined the confidence of citizens in the judiciary."], "id": "9bf89b4a-125e-497e-9295-c2ad0663efc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant further argued that the complained of was not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. He insisted, in particular, that his comment had been directed against dishonest and corrupt police officers whom he had called \u201cinfidel cops\u201d in his text and had not targeted all Russian police officers. He pointed out that there had been valid grounds for his criticism given numerous articles in the mass media, including in newspapers, exposing various abuses committed by law-enforcement officers."], "id": "5f6b33bd-6305-4b2e-8ccc-f75aefc02094", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government maintained that there had been no with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression. They submitted, however, that even if the Court were to consider that there had been such interference, it had been in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 10. In that connection the Government submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been based on sections 58 and 151 of Law no. 298 and that it had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public order. As to whether the interference in question had been necessary in a democratic society, the Government, quoting various passages from the Court\u2019s case-law on Article 10, submitted that the domestic courts had examined the cases carefully and that their findings had been relevant and sufficient. It considered that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions in the instant cases fell within the State\u2019s margin of appreciation."], "id": "5c2a084c-430e-4b61-b345-150e1db5020f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["102. The applicant companies argued that this with their right to freedom of expression had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d. The publishing of taxation data had, in particular, been accepted by the Finnish legislator. The preparatory work relating to the Act on the Public Disclosure and Confidentiality of Tax Information noted that such publishing had taken place for years and also served certain societal purposes. A thorough discussion had taken place during the preparation of the said Act, assessing the pros and cons of publishing taxation data, and the legislator had finally decided to maintain public access to such data. The Personal Data Act was not intended to restrict publishing activities. The relevant preparatory work stated that the legal status of the data in question was to remain unchanged. The journalistic purposes derogation was to apply to databases that were designed to support publishing so as to prevent even indirect prior restrictions on freedom of expression. Possible violations of privacy were to be examined and dealt with ex post facto. On this basis the applicant companies argued that the interference had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "de3c1912-46c3-40e0-9c8e-2b49d2c7e9aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government submitted that no prior notification had been made to the competent authority about a march planned for 16 July 2006 along Nevskiy Avenue. The absence of such notification had rendered the march unlawful. Certain demonstrators had behaved in a \u201cdestructive manner\u201d, thus manifestly breaching order and creating a real threat to their own and others\u2019 safety. They had not stopped their unlawful actions and had not dispersed, despite the by the police. Moreover, they had shown active resistance to the police. Some forty people had been arrested."], "id": "54ff6bab-28b4-4bdf-a893-c05143b8b41a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government argued that the courts' decisions had been justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. By qualifying the applicant's statements as statements of fact, the Austrian courts had not transgressed their margin of appreciation. An essential element for this qualification was the fact that the impugned statements had been given without any further explanation and without giving the reasons for the applicant's conclusions. The Austrian courts had legitimately interpreted the statements in the sense normally attributable to similar reproaches. Even assuming that Mr K\u00f6ck was to be considered as a person of public life, the impugned statements had transgressed the limit of acceptable criticism. The Austrian courts' orders had also been proportionate. In that regard the Government argued that the applicant had neither been convicted nor made to pay compensation. He had merely been ordered to refrain from making clearly defined incorrect statements of fact and by no means impeded from voicing his opinion in other less derogatory and defamatory words. Even if the Court, contrary to the Government's view, considered the statements to be value judgments, the appeared proportionate, in particular in view of the implied accusation that Mr K\u00f6ck had acted in a manner similar to another expert who had committed criminal acts."], "id": "07660ec8-5d73-4ce7-9f2f-c78450680847", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant newspaper agreed that the was prescribed by law and had pursued a legitimate aim. However, it was not necessary in a democratic society because the impugned article had merely disseminated statements made by a third party and had been part of a debate on an issue of public interest. The impugned statement was a quote from an open letter sent to the President of the country, the Prime Minister, the Council of Europe, the OSCE Mission in Moldova, the Moldovan Centre for Human Rights and the United States Embassy in Chi\u015fin\u0103u. Beside Mr V.S., the letter referred to at least five other judges and prosecutors involved in the criminal case. Mr V.S. had never asked the newspaper for a retraction of the statement or for a right to retort. The article had been written on the basis of detailed research. The journalist had contacted the author of the open letter and interviewed her. The journalist had also obtained a legal opinion from a lawyer and studied the verbatim record of a debate in Parliament on the criminal proceedings against Ms Duca. Mr V.S. had indeed been dismissed from his position in June 2002 and appointed as a simple prosecutor. The reasons for the demotion had never been made public; however, the investigation conducted by the journalist and the fact of the demotion of Mr V.S. could have reasonably made the journalist believe that the information in the open letter was reliable."], "id": "cc2ae7ec-df98-40ab-becd-2887629b9d1d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government argued that the Austrian courts' injunction did not constitute an with the applicant association's rights within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. They submitted in that regard that Article 10 did not protect artistic freedom as such but only provided protection to artists who intended to contribute through their work to a public discussion of political or cultural matters. The present reproduction of public figures in \u201cgroup sexual situations\u201d could, however, hardly be regarded as a statement of opinion contributing to a cultural or political debate."], "id": "438d1999-3112-44e5-9660-2c526495c811", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant company submitted that the in issue had not pursued a \u201clegitimate aim\u201d; firstly, the aim relating to the \u201csocial function\u201d of medical confidentiality could not justify a ruling in favour of a person's heirs, and secondly, the protection of Fran\u00e7ois Mitterrand's private interests could not be relied on since the right to institute civil proceedings had lapsed on his death."], "id": "f8d2ea07-62de-4095-82ba-fcabacaa0bea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant contested the necessity of the . It asserted that the scope of the preliminary injunction as formulated by the Supreme Court went beyond what was necessary to protect Mr G.'s rights. The lower instances had only prohibited the publication of Mr G.'s picture in the context of the tax evasion proceedings against him if accompanied by any text violating the presumption of innocence. In contrast, the Supreme Court considered that the duty to respect the fiscal secret excluded any public interest in receiving the information at issue. Consequently, it had failed to weigh the conflicting interests. Moreover, the Supreme Court considered it irrelevant whether or not the applicant had obtained the information without inciting tax officials to breach the fiscal secret. Such an interpretation was contrary to the Court's approach in Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999\u2011I."], "id": "38fc6a29-0d20-45ec-95a0-cf11b0136df1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant company stated that it had nothing to add to the arguments already submitted in its application. There, it had argued that the with its right to freedom of expression was not necessary, in particular as the article explicitly stated that no suspicion existed against Mrs G. Further, it had argued that Mrs G. had laid herself open to public scrutiny when escaping together with a Member of Parliament and had given interviews to the media. Moreover, there had been great public interest in the events at issue and Mrs G. had willingly given interviews to the media and had her picture taken."], "id": "61f74ea0-fbe2-42e2-9fd9-aca6dc9a94b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that the applicant had exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism and had accused Ms G.B. of taking bribes. Although criminal proceedings had been initiated against Ms G.B. on charges of breach of duty based on negligence, those proceedings had been postponed in accordance with Law no. 4616. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, Ms G.B. was entitled to be presumed innocent until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against her. The domestic courts considered that even if Ms G.B. had been convicted of the charges, this would not mean that she had been bribed or that she had not behaved like a lady. When striking a balance between the conflicting interests, namely the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression and the plaintiff\u2019s right to be presumed innocent, the domestic courts had ruled in favour of the latter. The in question had therefore been proportionate to the aim pursued and should be considered to fall within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities."], "id": "1a18e7c7-6020-4821-9006-ec81c2b9e039", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government submitted that the with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression, which had been based on Article 823 \u00a7 1 in conjunction with Article 1004 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code, had been necessary to safeguard Dr St.\u2019s personality rights, as enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention. By calling abortions unlawful the applicant had created the false impression that Dr St. had been operating outside of the legal framework in performing such procedures. Unlike the leaflet in the case of Annen (cited above) the leaflets in the present case did not point out that abortions are permitted in Germany under the terms of Article 218a of the Criminal Code and therefore not subject to criminal liability. Moreover, given the applicant\u2019s goal of forced \u201cpavement counselling\u201d, the applicant had severely disturbed the relationship of trust between doctor and patient. The Court had already rejected an earlier application by the same applicant against a desist order against similar conduct (see Annen v. Germany (dec.), nos. 2373/07 2396/07, 30 March 2010). In the present case, the domestic courts had relied on the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice, which had been the subject matter of the earlier inadmissibility decision of the Court, and concluded that the circumstances had been comparable and had not warranted deviating from the existing case-law. When coming to that conclusion the domestic courts had paid attention to the fact that Dr St. had taken a public position in the abortion debate."], "id": "93099b27-ad7d-41f9-9054-a1e923223794", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government considered the reasons given, particularly by the District Court, to be relevant and sufficient. As to the sanction imposed, it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. They concluded that the had been necessary in a democratic society in that it had complied with a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."], "id": "4ad1a613-20a3-4d29-b8b9-cad47f47756d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government accepted that the applicant\u2019s conviction had amounted to an with her right to freedom of expression. They contended that the interference was based on the Criminal Code, which proscribed defamation, and that the conviction had pursued a legitimate aim \u2013 the protection of the reputation and rights of others. The impugned statement was factual, and its veracity could have been tested. The national courts had found that the statement had not been truthful, since Z.B. held Croatian citizenship and fulfilled all the conditions for being the head of a kindergarten, and that the applicant had not made an effort to verify her allegations. In a Croatian context, labelling someone a Yugoslav citizen was defamatory, since the army of the former Yugoslavia had carried out an armed offensive against Croatia. Given that the area at issue, Slavonia, had been particularly seriously affected by the armed conflict, and that the applicant\u2019s statement had been aired by a local radio station, it had had a significant defamatory effect."], "id": "126958b0-a97e-46e2-ab66-8ed10cab8436", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government submitted that the criteria on which the NRTC had based its denial of a broadcasting licence had not included a religious element. Nor had the NRTC grounded its decision on the religious nature of the radio's proposed programme. On the contrary, it could be seen from the documents in the file that the authorities with competence for religious issues had endorsed Glas Nadezhda EOOD's licence application. However, that application, like any other, had to comply with the criteria published by the NRTC. The denial of the licence on the basis of its failure to meet these criteria had not amounted to an with the applicants' right to manifest their religion or belief."], "id": "6d3c5811-673b-43dd-8400-50a9f173f131", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government, while acknowledging the essential role played by the press as a \u201cpublic watchdog\u201d, asserted that in the present case the with the applicant company\u2019s freedom of expression had been necessary within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They argued in particular that the domestic courts had had to weigh the applicant company\u2019s interest in imparting information on an issue of public interest against the rights of the victim to the protection of her privacy which were equally protected by the Convention, namely the right to respect for her identity, protected by Article 8 as part of a person\u2019s private life, as well as Article 31 \u00a7 1 (e) of the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse and various other instruments of the Council of Europe. The necessity to carry out such a weighing of interests was laid down in section 7a (1) subparagraph (1) of the Media Act."], "id": "0c83c4a0-d691-4d1f-ae4e-879671fab59f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government and the applicant reached a settlement (see paragraph 7 above), which was rejected by the Court on 5 October 2004. In this connection, the Court took note of the serious nature of the complaints made in the case regarding the alleged with the applicant's freedom of expression. Because of this, the Court did not find it appropriate to strike the application out of the list of its cases. It considered that there are special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the further examination of the application on its merits (Articles 37 \u00a7 1 in fine and 38 \u00a7 1(b) of the Convention)."], "id": "950c319a-61b3-4f1f-9a5d-c26a998779fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicants also submitted that the impugned statements in the article, which they accurately reported, had been made by the chief executive and not by the journalists themselves. The applicants had not made any corruption allegations against W.D. but only referred the statement of the chief executive. In this respect they relied on the judgment Thoma v Luxembourg. In the applicants\u2019 view, the complained of was not necessary in democratic society and the authorities did not give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify it."], "id": "a14ec6d3-480d-4465-bf93-2d9088a38ff4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant company argued that the with its freedom of expression \u2013 including its right to store information and to enable users to impart their opinions \u2013 was not prescribed by law. It submitted that there was no legislation or case-law stating that an intermediary was to be considered a publisher of content which it was not aware of. On the contrary, the applicable law expressly prohibited the imposition of liability on service providers for third-party content. In this connection, the applicant company referred to the Directive on electronic commerce, the Estonian Information Society Services Act and the Council of Europe Declaration on freedom of communication on the Internet. The Directive provided for limited and notice-based liability with take-down procedures for illegal content. Service providers were exempted from liability where, upon obtaining actual knowledge of illegal activities, they acted expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information concerned. Such removal or disabling of access had to be undertaken in the observance of the principle of freedom of expression and of procedures established for this purpose at national level (Recital 46 of the Preamble to the Directive). The applicant company argued that this law was indisputably formulated with sufficient precision to enable a citizen to regulate his conduct. According to the applicant company, its behaviour had been in full compliance with the applicable law as it had removed the defamatory comments the same day it had been notified by the original plaintiff."], "id": "328bc2ed-e4e4-4947-91f6-f27d1cbfdd74", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government maintained that the pursued one or more legitimate aims: the prevention of crime, in so far as the first applicant\u2019s own safety was concerned by the bomb threats, and the interests of national security with regard to all the applicants. In each case the interference was moreover \u201cnecessary\u201d for the achievement of the legitimate aim or aims pursued."], "id": "d8e50886-783a-4ad0-965d-eac45897d76f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["155. The applicant failed, in the context of his written submissions under Article 10, to explain the nature of his challenge to the legality of the measures taken against him. Having regard to the Court\u2019s finding in Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02. 18 March 2003, that the definition of the offence of breach of the peace as stipulated in Smith v. Donnelly (see paragraph 100 above) was sufficiently precise to provide reasonable foreseeability of the actions which might fall within the remit of the offence, the Court is satisfied that the in the present case both had a sufficient legal basis in domestic law and was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d in the wider sense of having the quality required of \u201claw\u201d in a democratic society."], "id": "04bf0a34-6434-41aa-8032-8988fedf8eea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the with the applicants' right to freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, notably Article 152 of the Civil Code which governed the protection of the professional reputation of both citizens and legal entities. The domestic courts found that the facts set out in the publications were not shown to have been true and that there were no grounds to exempt the applicants from responsibility by virtue of section 57 of the Mass-Media Act."], "id": "652c2f23-a469-4672-bcf1-0b165d3d4e99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant association further submitted that the with their Convention rights had not been necessary in a democratic society. The domestic courts had failed to consider that, under the Court\u2019s case-law, freedom of expression constituted one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that a special degree of protection was afforded to expressions of opinions which were made in the course of a debate on matters of public interest. The applicant association accepted that the historical background in Germany made it necessary to apply specific criteria enabling every person of Jewish origin to take steps against anti-Semitic discrimination. However, this approach was taken too far if every depiction of a person of Jewish origin was automatically considered collective insult."], "id": "98b25fa1-9b3a-45db-9696-588a8d05160b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that there had been no with the applicant's private life. He had not been allowed access to his office on Saturday 13 May 2000, but this had happened because he had failed to comply with the relevant formalities for entering the building at weekends. His employment had been terminated on 15 May 2000 and it had thus been normal for him not to have access to the building thereafter. On 23 May 2000 a commission had formally inspected his workplace and had drawn up an inventory, on which the applicant had commented. The present case did not concern the applicant's private life or home, because the applicant was not exercising a liberal profession, as had been the case in Niemietz v. Germany (judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251\u2011B). Furthermore, the applicant's workplace did not belong to him, contrary to the position in Niemietz (cited above). The persons from the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office who had inspected his workplace had acted as representatives of his employer, not as public officials. They had carried out the inspection at a time when the applicant's employment had been terminated and in accordance with the internal rules of the institution."], "id": "4917a934-bcce-4a41-a4ef-e9862b26c262", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government accepted that the court decisions rendered against the applicant constituted with his right to freedom of expression, but argued that the interference was provided for by law, notably Articles 206 of the Criminal Code and 998-999 of the Civil Code, and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the victim\u2019s reputation. They further contended that the courts had given sufficient reasons to justify the conviction. As for the applicant\u2019s conduct, they considered that he had acted in bad faith with the intention of denigrating the victim and had presented no evidence to justify the accusations made, thus failing to observe press ethics. They relied on Flux v. Moldova (no. 6) (no. 22824/04, 29 July 2008) and Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 28871/95, ECHR 2000\u2011VIII)."], "id": "f2a8eea7-3c23-449c-9719-fb138ca79882", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government, while acknowledging the essential role played by the press as a \u201cpublic watchdog\u201d, referred to the Court\u2019s case-law that when assessing whether and to what extent any was necessary in a democratic society, the national authorities enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation. The national courts had applied standards that were in accordance with the principles enshrined in Article 10 and they had based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the facts. In contrast with the article examined by the Court in Standard Verlags GmbH (cited above), the material at issue could not be qualified as a contribution to a current debate of public interest. It had essentially confined itself to describing the bank\u2019s speculative losses and to related suspicions of criminal acts. The theme of the intertwining of politics and the speculative losses had only been discussed as a side issue. Even if it had been in the public interest to be informed about the events connected to the speculative losses, that had not justified disclosing the claimant\u2019s name. Moreover, the claimant had to be protected against a \u201ctrial by the media\u201d as the report had been published at a very early stage in the criminal proceedings, namely only five days after the information gathered by the Financial Market Authority had arrived at the public prosecutor\u2019s office, which had been around six weeks prior to the institution of judicial investigation proceedings. The sanction imposed on the applicant company, compensation of EUR 3,000, was extremely moderate, taking into account the legal upper limit of EUR 20,000 and the magazine\u2019s high circulation."], "id": "3dea2e39-0ba0-4c62-bfff-f81c9339d9cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government contested that argument. They conceded that the judicial decisions had constituted an with the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article 10. However, they argued that the interference had been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d as it had been based on Article 152 of the Civil Code and Resolution no. 3 of the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 24 February 2005 (section 7). It had also pursued a legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or the rights of others and had been proportionate to that aim."], "id": "88b3db2a-3313-4b08-b98d-7df38767b108", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government pointed out that being A.'s female friend had not as such made her a person in a socially significant position whose right to private life could be narrowed. B.'s conduct had not in any way contributed to any discussion of general interest. Notwithstanding the incident of 4 December 1996 and B.'s subsequent sentence, the information published by the applicant had been of such a nature that it had been covered by the protection of B.'s private life. The reporting of the events could have been done without mentioning B. by name. The press could not overstep certain boundaries, particularly as regards the reputation and the rights of others. Bearing in mind the margin of appreciation, the Government argued that the in the present case had been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "955412e7-f06c-4593-89e5-97e91afe9726", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant company argued that the domestic authorities\u2019 conclusion that the commentary had praised or welcomed the death of the Polish President had been wrong and arbitrary. It asserted that the authorities had taken the reporter\u2019s statement \u201cI do not pity the Poles. I envy them\u201d out of context. Such a statement had not been related to the President\u2019s tragic death and had not condoned it per se. Rather, the applicant company\u2019s reporter had expressed his opinion that the politics of Lech Kaczynski had been marked by extreme, intolerant and aggressive conservativism and he had welcomed the end of the political era that the President had represented. In this connection, the reporter had been comparing the politics of Poland and Slovakia. Since in the latter country the political status quo remained the same, the applicant company had \u201cenvied\u201d the Poles for their upcoming change. In the applicant company\u2019s opinion, the Slovakian authorities had unjustifiably sanctioned it for expressing its political views and the with its freedom of expression had been unnecessary and disproportionate in a democratic society."], "id": "ed4d48ea-1e16-483a-b39a-f04db1696483", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government conceded that the denial of a broadcasting licence to Glas Nadezhda EOOD had amounted to an with the applicants' freedom to impart information and ideas. In their view, however, this interference had been authorised under the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Convention. The licensing of radio broadcasters had been specifically envisioned by the Radio and Television Act 1998. It had been entrusted to a special body, the NRTC, charged with protecting freedom of expression. Moreover, the law regulating licensing had been sufficiently clear in its terms. The NRTC's decision had been based on quite detailed and publicly announced criteria. The NRTC had clearly indicated, as could also be seen from the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 March 2002, which of those criteria had not been met by Glas Nadezhda EOOD. Some of the criteria were formal, while others had related to the utility and the feasibility of the proposed radio station. This could not be seen as unlawful, arbitrary or discriminatory, as indicated by the former Commission in its decision in the case of Verein Alternatives Lokalradio Bern et Verein Radio Dreyeckland Basel v. Switzerland (no. 10746/84, Commission decision of 16 October 1986, Decisions and Reports 49). The decision to refuse the licence had been based on the failure by Glas Nadezhda EOOD to meet a number of the announced criteria. This decision had been the result of a detailed examination and had been reviewed by two levels of court."], "id": "2e233b58-d225-4fef-9a46-be226b832a3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant complained that the decision of the Judiciary Qualification Board of Moscow to bar her from holding judicial office in view of her critical public statements was incompatible with the principles enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention. She contended that judges, like other persons, enjoy the protection of Article 10 and that the with her freedom of expression was not \u201cprescribed by law\u201d, did not pursue a legitimate aim and, finally, was not necessary in a democratic society. Her submissions under these heads may be summarised as follows."], "id": "751a421f-6c94-4e6f-a9d6-bccab43484a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government\u2019s submissions concentrated on the necessity of the . They explained that section 78 of the Copyright Act required a weighing of the conflicting interests under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. Referring to the Court\u2019s judgment in Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 59320/00, ECHR 2004\u2011VI), they emphasised that the Austrian courts applied a strict standard when it came to interference by the press with an individual\u2019s private life, all the more so where the individual concerned was not known to the general public."], "id": "c51acf42-d4e3-4330-a1b1-38f24e410079", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their right of access to court was violated by the refusal to hold a hearing at which they could challenge the order made by the High Court of Justiciary on 15 February 2005. They further complained under Article 10 of the Convention that this was an unjustified with their right to impart information as guaranteed by that Article. Finally, under Article 13 of the Convention, they complained that there was no effective remedy to challenge the making of an order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1983."], "id": "470e531a-6ef7-415f-8f47-ef00f42f38b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government acknowledged that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression, but argued that it had been justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In particular, they pointed out that the interference had been based on Article 152 of the Russian Civil Code, and had pursued the aim of the protection of the reputation and private life of the S. family members."], "id": "4ac18345-39dc-44fa-ad97-148e7cda1fe7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government contended that the injunction issued against the applicant constituted an with his rights under Article 10 of the Convention which was, however, justified under \u00a7 2 of this provision. It had a legal basis, namely Section 1330 of the Civil Code, and pursued the legitimate aim of protection of the reputation of others. As to the necessity of the interference, they argued that the Austrian courts classified the applicant's statements as statements of facts. An essential element for this classification was that the applicant had not given any explanation for his statements which was thus not discernible as a value judgment. There was no factual basis to enable the reader to evaluate himself why the applicant had come to his conclusions. Therefore, it appeared legitimate that the Austrian courts attributed to the statements at issue the meaning usually conveyed by similar reproaches, namely that the plaintiffs had been guided by improper and unlawful motives. The applicant himself had endorsed this interpretation as, in his appeal with the Regional Court, he had argued why the teachers' conduct had allegedly been unlawful. However, the Austrian courts, after comprehensive evaluation of all evidence, came to the conclusion that these accusations were factually incorrect. The measures taken by the Austrian courts were proportionate, as the applicant was merely ordered to refrain from making further such statements which did not hinder him to express his opinion in other less defamatory or insulting words. The Government finally argued that, even assuming that the statements at issue were value judgments, the interference was proportionate as the applicant's statements were unsubstantiated and the details of the underlying conflict were not known to the public. Such extremely harsh, excessive and generalising criticism was not justified by the applicant's interest in several-day excursions abroad."], "id": "b457e28a-8023-4891-803f-e422360a3d5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government claimed that the termination of the applicant\u2019s judicial office was proportionate to the pursued legitimate aim and that it corresponded to a \u201cpressing social need\u201d. They referred to the Court\u2019s case-law, which stated that \u201cwhenever civil servants\u2019 right to freedom of expression is in issue the \u2018duties and responsibilities\u2019 referred to in Article 10 \u00a7 2 assume a special significance, which justifies leaving to the national authorities a certain margin of appreciation in determining whether the impugned is proportionate to the above aim\u201d (the Government cited Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, \u00a7 53, Series A no. 323). They contended that the restrictions on judges\u2019 freedom of expression had even greater importance than that of other civil servants. Accordingly, the State must be afforded an even wider margin of appreciation in imposing and enforcing limits on judges\u2019 freedom of speech."], "id": "c1830a3d-42cf-45a9-890d-a33bfe2cd7ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government agreed that there had been an with the applicant's right to freedom of expression, but submitted that the interference had been prescribed by law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary in a democratic society. The applicant had defamed V.P., not only in the letter addressed to the Prosecutor's Office, the President of Moldova and the Speaker of Parliament but also by spreading defamatory rumours amongst the villagers. The Government relied on the testimonies of witnesses called in the domestic proceedings by V.P. (see paragraph 11 above)."], "id": "837039c7-68e0-4c19-abe0-3935a44aea01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government admitted that imposing a fine for a disciplinary offence amounted to an with the applicant\u2019s freedom of speech. However, they argued that the interference had been in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim and been necessary in a democratic society. In particular, the decision to fine the applicant had been based on section 37 (a) of the Act on Attorneys at Law and meant to maintain the authority of the judiciary."], "id": "fd0e70f5-7d5d-4d44-9d2d-cf7a6198c4c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government alleged that the with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had been justified by the need to protect the victim\u2019s reputation. The applicant had abused his freedom. He had begun a campaign aimed at denigrating the victim and had used expressions that had overstepped the boundaries of permissible exaggeration and had constituted personal insults, with no relevance for the public interest. He had used aggressive language by comparing the applicant to the Nazi Josef Mengele. They considered that the domestic courts had provided relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the outcome of the case. They also pointed out that the award of non-pecuniary damages had been reasonable as to its quantum and that the applicant had not been ordered to satisfy it alone, but together with the newspaper. Moreover, there was no indication that the applicant had actually paid the money."], "id": "fcb56af9-2009-4fef-b1c1-bc4f88a70522", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary in a democratic society. The judgments of the Austrian Courts had likewise pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the rights and reputation of others. Moreover, the interference had been proportionate to its aim and the reasons adduced had been relevant and sufficient. The conviction had been based on Article 111 taken in conjunction with Article 117 (5) of the Criminal Code."], "id": "b9442a76-a7df-4538-9be3-bb05fb6ee68d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government submitted that there had been no with the applicants\u2019 rights guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention. The Court observes in this connection that the applicants had permission to organise a meeting on the premises of the University on 3 July 2006 and that they had availed themselves of that opportunity. During the first phase of their protest on that day they gathered, as duly authorised by the University administration, in one of the lecture halls (see paragraph 11 above). They moved, however, soon afterwards to the acting Rector\u2019s office, protesting against the ongoing University reform and demanding his resignation. The events which developed subsequent to their unauthorised entry to the Rector\u2019s office do not represent, in the Court\u2019s view, a standard situation of a \u201cpeaceful assembly\u201d within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention. As noted in Kudrevi\u010dius and Others, although not an uncommon occurrence in the context of the exercise of freedom of assembly in modern societies, physical conduct purposely obstructing the ordinary course of life in order to seriously disrupt the activities carried out by others is not at the core of that freedom as protected by Article 11 of the Convention (cited above, paragraph 97; see also Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, \u00a7\u00a7 123-128, 25 July 2017). Nevertheless, the Court notes that the applicants were not held responsible for using violence. While the events at issue happened in a situation of tension, the applicants\u2019 conduct was not established to have been of a violent nature. The Court thus does not consider that the applicants\u2019 protest on 3 July 2006, viewed as a whole, was of such a nature and degree as to exclude them from the scope of protection under Article 11 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 10."], "id": "3228c3b8-5770-483f-9415-2040bf8282ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant company maintained that the with its right to freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society as required by Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In particular, it asserted that the article had been published in the context of the upcoming elections of the chairman of the local tourism association and had contributed to a debate of general interest. Moreover, C.M. and J.M. were public figures on account of their activities in the political scene and the nature of the offices held by them. The applicant company also submitted that the courts had failed to evaluate the reproduction of the anonymous letter against the background of the article as a whole, which gave room to the statements of the two people concerned and duly distanced itself from the accusations made against them. Furthermore, the applicant company, citing Albert-Engelmann-Gesellschaft mbH v. Austria (no. 46389/99, 19 January 2006) contested the domestic courts\u2019 view that the reproduction of an anonymous letter had to be distinguished from the quotation of a third person\u2019s statement."], "id": "ab5c0a39-4676-42fd-afdc-0d152e1b3eba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicants agreed that the was prescribed by law and had pursued a legitimate aim. However, it was not necessary in a democratic society because the impugned articles had merely disseminated statements made by third parties and had been part of a debate on an issue of distinct public importance, namely the management of public transport and alleged illegalities committed by public officials. The applicants had acted in good faith when publishing the article and verified the statements made by the third parties. They had considered the source to be reliable, since it was a letter addressed to the President of the country, contained many details, and official reports emanating from State transport authorities were attached to it. Of course it had been impossible for them to verify the statement according to which Mr Stepaniuc had telephoned the Minister of Public Transport."], "id": "466e9413-69a3-47c7-a2f1-21c9e3bea06a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["192. The applicant's complaint, as noted at paragraph 157 above, concerns the impact on it of a costs award which, under domestic law, included success fees calculated at almost twice most of the base costs of two appeals to the House of Lords. The Court considers, and it was not seriously disputed by the Government, that the requirement to pay these success fees, as an unsuccessful defendant in breach of confidence proceedings, constituted an with the applicant's right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention."], "id": "be4b6aa5-ab3f-41fe-90a9-3a6236a7d207", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government responded that the applicants had not specified the particular ideas or matters of conscience which they wished to express. Accordingly, this aspect of the case was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. They had been convicted under Articles 68 and 70 of the Criminal Code for their anti-state activities not because of any manifestation of their beliefs. If there had been an under these Convention provisions, it was justified for the protection of national security, public order and the rights and freedoms of others, as well as for the prevention and punishment of crime. The applicants were not prosecuted for their political beliefs or communist party affiliations, but for their anti-state activities, in contravention of Article 17 of the Convention, against which the young democracy of Lithuania had been entitled to defend itself (cf. the aforementioned \u017ddanoka case, \u00a7 100)."], "id": "41a8ef5b-db4a-4eb0-8758-d94b8d5ee4af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government submitted that there was no by the State with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of the threats against her, installation of hidden cameras and wires in her flat, publication of secretly filmed videos, related press articles, and other related incidents. The investigation of the above-mentioned incidents has not identified the person or persons responsible for those incidents. Nevertheless, it has not revealed any link between the incidents and the State or its agents either."], "id": "4a17dcb1-93f1-4102-9444-751926b8d7ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted that the was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d, as it had its basis in sections 1 and 7 of the Unfair Competition Act. Those provisions were formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct, as required by the Court\u2019s case-law. In the field of competition law in particular, an absolutely precise formulation could not be expected, as business markets and ways of communicating would always be subject to change. In addition, the interference had pursued a legitimate aim."], "id": "6bc73bf9-6cad-4eff-b07b-37084c08f12d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government maintained that the with the applicants' right to freedom of expression was justified under the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 10. They argued that the content of the book incited hatred and hostility and praised terrorist crime. In their opinion, the measures taken against the applicants fell within the margin of appreciation of the authorities and were justified under the second paragraph of Article 10."], "id": "4f56037e-03f2-48e9-b3c3-05a6b4ed5248", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government pointed to the national authorities' margin of appreciation in assessing the need for and submitted that where the Convention referred to domestic law it was primarily the task of the national authorities to apply and interpret domestic law. They contended that in the present case the domestic authorities had not overstepped this margin of appreciation and had made use of it in good faith, carefully and in a reasonable way."], "id": "173e73c1-f464-4d00-a3c3-e6c69620d257", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government\u2019s observations also concentrated on the necessity of the . They conceded that, in a case like the present one, concerned as it was with the press exercising its role as \u201cpublic watchdog\u201d by criticising a politician, the limits of acceptable criticism were wider than in respect of a private individual and the State\u2019s margin of appreciation was narrowly defined. However, the Austrian courts did not transgress their margin of appreciation in the present case."], "id": "24fc4175-9236-40d1-8c72-83b9ddf34e1d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant claimed that the penalty of 20 July 1999 confirmed that the domestic law applicable at the material time had prevented him, as a prisoner, from sending complaints and applications, on his own behalf and in the name of other prisoners, to the State authorities, media and non-public organisations. He stated that he had not been protected by the domestic law from an arbitrary by the prison administration with the exercise of his right to correspondence. The impugned domestic provisions had allowed indiscriminate censorship of convicted prisoners\u2019 correspondence. As a result, he had been afraid that his complaint about the detention conditions would have been censored if it had been sent through the prison administration."], "id": "4dfe2ec2-2c98-4738-a542-d50936c232c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicants then observed that the present case did not require an examination of any by the State with the exercise of their freedom of expression, but rather an analysis of its positive obligation under the Convention. They took the view that the national authorities, in the present case, had a positive obligation to provide them with a system that enabled them to obtain the performance of an undertaking from an individual and that the authorities had a duty to act with the requisite diligence to assist them in enforcing the judicial decision given in their favour on 6 December 2002, as a result of which they would have been able to exercise their profession as radio journalists. They pointed out that the Court had already noted the existence of such an obligation, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in cases concerning individuals\u2019 obligations to act. In their view, the transposition of such an obligation to the subject-matter of Article 10 of the Convention would be consistent with the principle of proportionality between the general interest and the interest of individuals and would not represent an impossible or disproportionate burden for the State, given that no new obligations would be imposed on it. Lastly, the applicants took the view that, in determining the positive obligation in the present case, it had to be taken into account that freedom of expression was exercised by professional journalists and that the de facto obstacles complained of affected the diversity and plurality of means of expression. In addition, it was also necessary to take into account the situation of the press in Romania in the relevant period (2002-2004), as described in a number of reports by various national and international organisations."], "id": "08d6ed58-eb2e-4c98-bd70-a6f83b3e6559", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant stated that by denying him access to the TEC\u2019s premises, and by refusing to provide him in good time with information about the progress of the electoral process, the authorities had interfered with his right to collect such information. He further submitted that this had not been lawful, had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "0ba73828-7c3f-4cf7-9c8a-579e47485928", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government claimed that the pursued the legitimate aim of the \u201cprotection of the reputation or rights of others\u201d. The applicants and the third parties disagreed that public bodies and authorities, such as the courts' management department in the instant case, should fall within the meaning of \u201cothers\u201d in Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The third parties cited examples from jurisdictions around the world in which the courts prevented public authorities from suing in defamation because of the public interest in such authorities being open to uninhibited public criticism. The report to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation also suggested that \u201cthe possibility of filing lawsuits against media and journalists by public authorities should be abolished as the latter per se cannot possess any dignity, honour, or reputation\u201d (see paragraph 25 above). The Court acknowledges that there may be sound policy reasons to decide that public bodies should not have standing to sue in defamation in their own capacity; however, it is not its task to examine the domestic legislation in the abstract but rather consider the manner in which that legislation was applied to, or affected, the applicant in a particular case (see Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, \u00a7 49, ECHR 2004\u2011X). Accordingly, this issue will also be examined in the analysis of the proportionality of the interference."], "id": "99d4837f-21ce-4175-8085-83155fc8a0d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government maintained that the had also been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. The title and the text of the article in question had indirectly connected K.U. with a homicide and his name and photograph had been published nationwide in that context. Thus a large number of persons had become aware of the article. Even though K.U. had offered an interview about the same matter to another evening newspaper published on the same date, he had not consented to the publication of his name and photograph in the article in question. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal had found that the article had given an erroneous impression that K.U. was linked to the homicide in question. Even taking into account that he was a public figure, there had been no justification for giving the impression that K.U. had been connected to the homicide."], "id": "edd9b75a-16da-4281-aad4-00531aa361c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government noted that the contested article was published by the applicant company during the mayoral elections in which Mr Y. was one of the main candidates. Therefore, there had been an important public interest in holding fair elections. Furthermore, the domestic courts had been protecting the rights and reputation of Mr Y. which was not only a permissible ground for under the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention but also protected one of the rights guaranteed by Article 8."], "id": "6908c97b-4001-4cf0-80d0-c2851b637e89", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant association was therefore involved in the legitimate gathering of information of public interest. Its aim was to carry out research and to submit comments on draft laws, thereby contributing to public debate. Consequently, there has been an with the applicant association\u2019s right to receive and to impart information as enshrined in Article 10 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see T\u00e1rsas\u00e1g a Szabads\u00e1gjogok\u00e9rt, cited above, \u00a7 28; see also Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, \u00a7 43, 26 May 2009)."], "id": "a913f158-d7ac-4f63-8469-dfb05b49cc3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government submitted that they were at a loss to understand the reason why the first applicant should claim at all that the Security Police\u2019s registration and filing of information concerning threats against her were not in her best interests but, on the contrary, entailed a violation of her rights under the Convention. The information that had been released to the other four applicants was highly varied in nature. Most of it appeared to have been found in the public domain, such as the media. The Government were unaware of the origins of each and every piece of information, and therefore could not comment on that particular aspect. They noted, however, that from today\u2019s perspective the information seemed either fairly old or quite harmless and that the was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, namely the protection of national security."], "id": "539d72a3-1c3a-47a8-bb03-719c5290645a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government did not contest that the decision by which the domestic court had ordered the applicant to pay non-pecuniary damage to N.C.I. represented an with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. They further submitted that the interference was based on Articles 998-999 of the Romanian Civil Code, as in force at the material time. The legitimate aim pursued by the domestic authorities was the protection of the reputation and dignity of others, as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention."], "id": "303ccd96-b3a1-4d43-855a-72dd59e609b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant argued that he had been deprived of his right to freedom of expression. Firstly, the domestic courts had not taken into account the evidence submitted by him. Secondly, the statements had been made in the public interest and during a political debate. Therefore, the with his right to freedom of expression could not be justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "294274b4-4ded-42d8-87c6-31df86368523", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["10. The applicant complained that the disciplinary punishment imposed on him for using \u201cK\u00fcrt Halk \u00d6nderi\u201d (the leader of Kurdish people) when referring to the imprisoned leader of the PKK in his letter, had constituted an unjustified with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. The applicant, based on the same facts, also invoked Article 9 of the Convention. The Court will examine these complaints solely under Article 10 of the Convention."], "id": "0d5a4a98-ab7d-4efa-bfbb-97d491017a66", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to freedom of speech. He maintained that as a serviceman he had been responsible for many years for giving legal advice to the Commander of the Armed Forces on the question of statutory penalties. His opinion on the statutory penalties the army imposed on soldiers often did not correspond to that of others at the Ministry of Defence. The applicant stated that he had made many proposals with the aim of improving, inter alia, servicemen\u2019s procedural rights when the new Army Disciplinary Statute was being drafted. As his superiors and the State President had failed to take his proposals into account, the applicant had contacted the Kauno Diena daily and expressed his ideas to the press. The internal inquiry into his communication with the daily had been started the same day. Even though that inquiry had later been discontinued by the authorities\u2019 acknowledgement that the applicant had not violated military discipline, the appeal to Kauno Diena and to the State President had had direct consequences for the applicant. He was dismissed from professional military service before the expiry of his contract. Most importantly, in order to avoid accusations of with freedom of expression, the authorities at the Ministry of Defence chose to dismiss him not on the ground that he had appealed to the media, but formally, on the basis of Article 38 \u00a7 1 (7) of LMS, thus leaving no official trace of injustice. If that provision had been applied to others in the same manner, several hundred soldiers would have been dismissed from service, however none of them except the applicant had suffered the same consequences. The example of four soldiers (R.L., V.S., J.\u0160. and M.I.) he relied on during the administrative court proceedings confirmed that there were more soldiers who should have been dismissed from the army, but that this was not done. Lastly, he also challenged as misleading the two examples provided by the Government (see paragraphs 41 and 42 above)."], "id": "01c036ab-743c-4844-80dc-7a22e0b8f369", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government also limited their submissions to the necessity of the at issue. They conceded that, in a case like the present one, concerned as it was with the press exercising its role as \u201cpublic watchdog\u201d and criticising a leading politician, the State\u2019s margin of appreciation was narrowly defined. However, the Austrian courts did not transgress their margin of appreciation in the present case."], "id": "ae50a5ac-faf4-49c9-8e84-7f05af984485", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["175. The Government contested that argument. They submitted, firstly, that the applicants had not been convicted of hooliganism for their expressing their opinions but because they had committed an offence punishable by the Criminal Code. The fact that while committing the offence the applicants had believed that they were expressing their views or had given a performance was not sufficient to conclude that the conviction had actually constituted an with their freedom of expression. Any such interference had been of an indirect and secondary nature and had not fallen under the protection of Article 10. The Government referred in that regard to Kosiek v. Germany (28 August 1986, Series A no. 105) and Glasenapp v. Germany (28 August 1986, Series A no. 104)."], "id": "9bf10486-319e-41de-9562-be01ccc9d4e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["129. The applicant further argued that such an was not \u201cprescribed by law\u201d, since the impugned legislative provisions were arbitrary, abusive, retroactive and incompatible with the principle of the rule of law. It was also difficult to conceive that there could be any \u201clegitimate aim\u201d at all pursued in imposing a punitive restriction on the proper fulfilment of legal duties incumbent on a State official such as the applicant, whose duty as head of the judiciary was to provide an opinion on the legislative reforms in question."], "id": "16ba7ebf-7676-4bc8-b6db-4c7878085a15", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government denied that there had been , arguing that the second applicant had not been sentenced for making a press declaration, but for failing to comply with the Associations Act (Law no. 2908) which had been in force at the time. They maintained that, according to section 34 of that Act, associations could only form federations and confederations."], "id": "76bdefa7-c9c6-4937-bb56-80cdeef714b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that the with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had been prescribed by law. They noted that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. The Government further contended that the interference in question had pursued the aims of protecting national security, territorial integrity and public safety as well as the prevention of disorder or crime."], "id": "a5f77f4d-6d11-462b-8a23-4f516de10b59", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government accepted that the requirement for the applicants to pay damages constituted an with their right to freedom of expression. However, as the protection of the reputation or other rights of any physical or moral person could not be excluded from the scope of Article 10 \u00a7 2, the protection of the reputation of a Local Council could legitimately form the basis of an interference with this right. Moreover, the impugned interference was prescribed by law and was necessary in a democratic society for the purpose of responding to the pressing social need of protecting the reputation of others in terms of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "b33402f2-959a-4760-9d9f-eb34e38fe1b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant association argued that the public exhibition of a painting contributed to a debate between the artist, the exhibitor and the public and was therefore protected under Article 10 of the Convention. It accepted that the impugned was prescribed by law, but maintained that the interference had been neither necessary nor proportionate. It submitted that the Government's submissions as regards the protection of morals were irrelevant as in the present case the domestic courts had based their decisions merely on Mr Meischberger's prevailing personal interests as protected under section 78 of the Copyright Act. Mr Meischberger could not, however, claim any personal interest worth protecting as the painting obviously did not state or suggest that the way in which he was portrayed corresponded to his actual behaviour. The painting presented the artist's personal history in an allegorical way and depicted, among several other well-known persons, the painter himself and some of his friends and benefactors. All these persons were depicted engaging in sexual acts, reflecting the painter's conception of the interrelation between power and sexuality. Mr Meischberger had been one of the figures who had characterised the history of the FP\u00d6 party in the past few years, and he had been portrayed with the other three members as an allegory of that party, which had always strongly criticised the painter's work. Furthermore, Mr Meischberger and, in any event, the actions he considered libellous were not recognisable after the painting had been partly damaged. In the applicant association's view, the fact that he had instituted proceedings only after the painting had been partly damaged demonstrated that rather than protecting his personal interests he was aiming to discredit the painter's work."], "id": "9ab21189-0676-4c5b-abb6-a6c0ded3e8f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant submitted that the at issue did not pursue a legitimate aim, as required by Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, as the domestic courts could not clearly distinguish between value judgments and facts. The applicant maintained that it had criticised Mr Symonenko and Ms Vitrenko in respect of their activities as public persons and had not touched upon their private lives."], "id": "96cab69a-9263-42a4-987b-a7b5b1d22803", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government maintained that the was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of others. They referred to case-law in which the Court had presupposed that a public body could also fall within \u201cthe protection of the reputation or rights of others\u201d, for example, Romanenko and Others v. Russia, cited above, \u00a7 39; Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, \u00a7\u00a7 50 and 54, 24 April 2007; and Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239. They further contended that since it was recognised that the reputation of the police may be a legitimate aim, the same should apply to several other public bodies. The conditions at a public hospital constitute an issue of considerable public interest and entail a need for wider limits for public scrutiny, but this is partly for other reasons than for a public body exercising power in the traditional sense. Public interest may therefore be deemed to be interconnected with the relevance of the activities of the hospital to the life and health of individuals. Allegations made on a factually incorrect basis will affect the patient\u2019s confidence in the treatment offered and may weaken the possibilities of the hospital to function in an optimal manner. In addition, it would amount to unfounded arbitrariness in the protection of the health interests of the contracting States if they were to have the possibility of interfering with attacks on the reputation of private hospitals but not of public hospitals."], "id": "ec9beee4-bfa3-4275-8d7d-a9fea153f4de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention that their conviction following the publication of a newspaper article had not been fair and had amounted to unjustified with their right to freedom of expression. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that this complaint does not raise a separate issue under Article 6 of the Convention and falls to be examined solely under Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "de2eff5c-f9c3-4000-ad52-0d96a0539901", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant argued that the complained of was not prescribed by law. Investigation in defamation cases was normally instituted by way of a private prosecution. The investigation in the applicant\u2019s case had been instituted ex officio, but the prosecutor had failed to provide reasons for which he had considered that the public interest required an investigation of the case."], "id": "fb42f276-efa1-472f-adff-3a04207c836c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government acknowledged that there had been an with the applicant's rights under Article 10 of the Convention. They contented, however, that it was prescribed by law and \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d within the meaning of \u00a7 2 of Article 10. They argued in the first place that the Court of Appeal considered in detail the applicant company's submissions and set out clearly why, in the present case, Mr Kabas' interest in protection of presumption of his innocence continued beyond the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against him. Furthermore, the interpretation of section 7b of the Media Act in conformity with Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention called for an extensive understanding of the protection of the presumption of innocence. While there was certainly public interest in the discussion of the \u201cpolice information affair\u201d, Mr Kabas' right in the presumption of his innocence outweighed the applicant company's right to freedom of expression. In the impugned article the applicant company depicted Mr Kabas as already convicted and did not inform the reader that the charges against him had already thoroughly been examined by the Public Prosecutor's Office which had closed his file months ago. When weighing the respective interests, the domestic courts had furthermore had regard to the fact that Mr Kabas was not given the opportunity to comment. Moreover, the ex-post appraisal of the present case confirmed that the court's assessment was correct. As Mr Krei\u03b2l and Mr Kleindienst were finally both acquitted, the alleged assistance of Mr Kabas in their criminal acts was impossible. The Government further argued that the measures taken by the Austria courts were also proportionate."], "id": "7a6cc022-6799-41e8-803b-50f8805748f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government agreed that the facts of the case disclosed an with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. The interference was nevertheless justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The applicant had been ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages for defamation on the basis of Articles 7 and 7 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code. The interference was thus \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and the law was accessible and foreseeable. It served the legitimate aim of protecting the dignity of Mr Stepaniuc; furthermore, the measure was necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "1569a770-d620-477b-a717-9a44bea821f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicant placed particular emphasis on the deficiencies of the reasoning adduced by the domestic authorities. Both parties have asked the Court to re-examine the proportionality of the \u201cinterference\u201d, although they disagree about certain circumstances having significance for such an assessment. The Court, for its part, is not satisfied that the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the \u201cinterference\u201d under Article 10 of the Convention were sufficient for sentencing the applicant to two days\u2019 detention. Faced with the domestic courts\u2019 failure to give reasons that would be both relevant and sufficient to justify the , the Court finds that the domestic courts cannot be said to have applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 or to have based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, for a similar approach, Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, \u00a7 24, 26 January 2017, and Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, \u00a7 139, 25 July 2017)."], "id": "10c38f0f-12f3-4ada-8e50-7314c2aac06f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They submitted that the with her right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of national security and public order, as well as the prevention of disorder and crime. The Government further submitted that in her speech the applicant had legitimised the PKK and called for a moment of silence for the terrorists who had died during the conflicts with the Turkish Armed Forces. Besides, following her speech, the crowd had made a \u201cV\u201d sign. The Government took the view that, having regard to the content of her speech and to the fact that the applicant was not a politician, her speech could not be protected as political discourse. They further submitted that the first-instance court had assessed the circumstances of the event as a whole and had had regard to the other speakers\u2019 speeches and the slogans chanted by the crowd when it had convicted the applicant. The Government also contended that the investigation against the applicant had not only been based on her acts during the event of 21 March 2007 but also on the books and documents found in her house. They lastly noted that the applicant had been sentenced to imprisonment of only one year, the minimum possible sentence under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. In sum, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "b5bfffdf-effe-426a-840a-acb8e1328d01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant alleged that his right to freedom of expression had been breached as a result of the administrative sanction applied to him. He contended that there had been an with his rights guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention, but conceded that it had been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d. He doubted that the real aim of the sanction had been to protect the reputation of I.M. rather than to punish him for making many complaints against the region's leadership."], "id": "0299cd5f-f674-45d9-ab9c-1e0fe10cf236", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government submitted that the with the applicant's freedom of expression was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, to which it was proportionate. In particular, they pointed out that the applicant had been acquitted and that there was no evidence that he had paid the damages or court fees imposed (they referred to St\u00e2ngu v. Romania (dec.), no. 57551/00, 9 November 2004, and St\u00e2ngu and Scutelnicu v. Romania, no. 53899/00, 31 January 2006). Moreover, the amounts imposed by the court had been moderate."], "id": "1c6214d8-0abc-4a5d-8c14-b2c35c68810f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicants submitted that the with their right to freedom of expression had not been necessary in a democratic society as it had not been justified by a pressing social need. They maintained that what was at stake in the present case was not purely commercial interests but participation in a general debate. In such cases the existence of particularly strong reasons for restricting the freedom of the press in a democratic society was necessary and the national margin of appreciation was limited."], "id": "b8513425-547d-41a9-9630-20bfb0faebd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant contended that he was not aware of any relevant law regulating the matters of which he complained and that there was no legal protection against arbitrary by the public authorities with his rights. In this connection he argued that the respondent Government had made no effort at all to indicate the grounds on which such interference might have been justified, nor had they shown it to be necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "8335af54-ccf0-4b58-b03a-71b82b550c42", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["113. The applicant noted that he had been convicted under Articles 214.1 and 283 of the Criminal Code, despite the fact that he had committed none of the acts proscribed by those provisions. He had neither been involved in any terrorist activities, nor had he incited ethnic hostility. He had not aimed to create fear among the population or exert pressure on State authorities by committing or threatening to commit terrorist acts. He had merely published an analysis of possible future events, based on the information he had obtained from numerous other sources. The applicant also noted that the charges of tax evasion against him had been fabricated and that this should also be regarded as an with his freedom of expression."], "id": "927158a2-87b0-427f-a3d3-8bd67cd9fbc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants maintained that the constituted by section 36 of the Act of 29 July 1881 could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society or, consequently, to have a legitimate objective, as its sole purpose was to prohibit any criticism of a head of State, even if it related only to his policies and whether or not it was founded. To accept the Government\u2019s arguments that the aim pursued was legitimate would be tantamount to recognising that heads of foreign governments were entitled to a veritable privilege affording them immunity from any criticism of their conduct and actions in office, however blameworthy they might be, since such criticism was insulting by definition, as it attacked their character and reputation. The offence was made out even if the remarks proved accurate, since the relevant case-law precluded evidence of the truth of the allegations as a defence to a charge under section 36, in order to avoid embroiling the head of State in a debate that would undermine the respect due to his or her office. Under section 36 freedom of communication on matters of general interest was counterbalanced by the prestige of office and title, with the latter taking precedence."], "id": "be24a701-e28d-45f0-84ab-20bb77966887", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government agreed that the first applicant\u2019s conviction, the fines imposed on him, and the obligation to pay compensation and legal expenses to the former Prime Minister constituted an with his right to freedom of expression. However, the interference had a basis in Finnish law, in particular in Chapter 24, section 8, of the Penal Code which fulfilled the criteria of precision, clarity and foreseeability. The first applicant had consulted a lawyer before publishing the book and he had thus been aware of the legal risks connected with the publishing. The interference was thus \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the private life and reputation of others."], "id": "2d338fbe-d65f-4592-83ea-5776b200665b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government did not comment on this point since they considered that there had been no in the present case. However, they provided explanations regarding the concepts of \u201cTurkishness\u201d and the \u201cTurkish nation\u201d. They maintained that following the amendment of the text of Article 301 the concept of \u201cTurkishness\u201d had been replaced by that of the \u201cTurkish nation\u201d. Yet these concepts did not have any racial or ethnic connotations. They should instead be understood as referring to Turkish citizenship as defined by Article 66 of the Turkish Constitution."], "id": "53ae0a07-6d1b-4a65-9d2f-262a496214c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant also submitted that the in question had not pursued any legitimate aim. He argued that his conviction had been an act of deterrence to punish him for publishing the articles, which had been highly critical towards the top politicians in Russia, including the President, and their politics, and to discourage him from making use of his right to freedom of expression."], "id": "cf2cf98b-ce27-4867-b522-ec5c963826be", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["137. The applicant argued that the disclosure of the above-mentioned information constituted by the State authorities, the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office and the Baku City Prosecutor\u2019s Office, with her right to private and family life. She argued that the interference had not been in accordance with the law: the domestic legislation actually prohibited disclosing information relating to a person\u2019s private life (see paragraphs 64 and 67 above). Furthermore, in any event, the interference had not pursued any of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention, and had not been necessary."], "id": "f41aba91-986c-4478-81c6-47b3ef0e4d08", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government submitted that the right to hold demonstrations inside the premises of public institutions was not unlimited (see Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, \u00a7 47, ECHR 2003\u2011VI). They referred in this connection to Article 9 \u00a7 1 of the Law on Assembly and Demonstrations, which provided that no assembly or demonstration could be held, inter alia, in a building of a governmental institution (see paragraph 45 above). They stated that there had been alternative venues at the disposal of the applicants and their supporters, such as the courtyard of the University, where they could have organised their protest. They stressed in this connection the idea that a university, being an educational establishment, was exclusively devoted to providing educational services; therefore, if the Government were to allow unrestricted demonstrations on its premises it would put a disproportionate burden on the educational establishment, jeopardising its proper functioning. They thus maintained that in the instant case, no with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly had taken place at all."], "id": "3adc91a5-8a9f-4a80-a1c0-5aa9b3aa7edf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["181. The applicants maintained that the criminal proceedings against them had constituted an with their right to freedom of expression as they had been prosecuted for their performance. In their view, the Government\u2019s argument to the contrary and, in particular the reference to Kosiek (cited above) was misconceived. They also argued that the cases of Otto-Preminger-Institut (cited above) and \u0130.A. v. Turkey (no. 42571/98, ECHR 2005\u2011VIII) had concerned entirely different situations. In any event, in both those cases the punishment had been much milder than that imposed on the applicants, being a ban on showing the film in question in the former case and a fine in the latter. The applicants further argued that the domestic courts had failed either to recognise that their song had an explicit political message or to assess the proportionality of the interference. Furthermore, the conclusion that their actions had been motivated by religious hatred was arbitrary and based on an incomplete assessment of the evidence owing to the refusal of their applications for additional evidence and to question additional witnesses."], "id": "1be971b1-e2ac-44a7-a71e-3b335c0c75ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government pointed out that at the time of publishing the article in question B. had not yet been convicted. Moreover, being A.'s female friend had not as such made her a person in a socially significant position whose right to private life could be narrowed. B.'s conduct had not in any way contributed to any discussion of general interest but had been intended to satisfy public curiosity. Notwithstanding the incident of 4 December 1996 and B.'s subsequent sentence, the information published by the applicants had been of such a nature that it had been covered by the protection of B.'s private life. The reporting of the events could have been done without mentioning B. by name. Bearing in mind the margin of appreciation, the Government argued that the in the present case had been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "f60568b9-ba37-454a-b026-4b8271b118ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant party submitted that such with the exercise of its rights was not \u201cprescribed by law\u201d in the sense attached to that expression by the Court, since the refusal of its application for authorisation on the basis of the penultimate subsection of section 11-4 of the Act of 11 March 1988 had not been foreseeable in that the first subsection of section 11-6 of the same Act did not envisage the \u201crefusal\u201d of an application for authorisation but the \u201crevocation\u201d of authorisation already obtained. Furthermore, the second paragraph of Article L. 52 of the Elections Code expressly provided that \u201clegal entities, with the exception of political parties or groups, [could] not contribute to the funding of the election campaign ...\u201d and section 11-4 (in its version as amended by the Act of 19 January 1995) of the Act of 11 March 1998 provided that \u201clegal entities, with the exception of political parties or groups, [could] not contribute to the funding of political parties or groups ...\u201d, and there was no statutory provision excluding foreign political parties. In addition, the penultimate subsection of section 11-4 referred to \u201cforeign legal entities\u201d, without specifying that this included foreign political parties."], "id": "4878ea8a-4b46-4e1a-8e3f-4c4b5538a063", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government further maintained that even if it were to be accepted that there had been with the applicant company\u2019s rights under Article 10 of the Convention, such interference had been prescribed by the domestic legislation, namely Article 15 \u00a7 2 of the Constitution, Article 3 \u00a7 1 (c) of Law No. 2328/1995, Articles 7 and 9 of Regulation 1/1991 and Article 2 \u00a7 3 of Regulation 2/1991 of the National Radio and Television Council, and Article 2 (b) and (f) of the Code on Journalistic Ethics (issued by the journalists\u2019 union). Additionally, the Government asserted that any interference with the applicant company\u2019s right to impart information had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and reputation of others \u2013 specifically A.C.\u2019s right to private life, as protected under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "f4dc9d7d-6587-406a-9655-a1c93c9a7aad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government considered it indisputable that the judgment whereby the domestic courts had ordered the applicant company to pay damages to Judge B.B. had constituted an interference with the company\u2019s freedom of expression. However, that interference had been in accordance with Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention because it had been lawful, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been ."], "id": "6edeb277-1602-42df-8563-8391663a20ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant maintained that the impugned measures were based on factual statements, not on value judgments. She argued that the thrust of her articles concerned the alarming circumstances surrounding the death of a patient, possibly resulting from gross negligence on the part of medical staff. This was a matter of considerable public interest. The quality of her journalism had been impeccable and she had acted in good faith. No names of medical staff had been disclosed. The sanction inflicted on her was disproportionate to the legitimate aim invoked by the Government and was likely to discourage critical journalism or to curtail it in a manner which was not ."], "id": "6f3da7f7-6fc6-444c-80f2-6b75eeb44138", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant further submitted that the interference with his freedom of expression was not . According to him, the article contained value judgments alone in regard to certain complainants and value judgments based on facts in regard to other complainants. The applicant argued that there had been no pressing social need for an interference with his freedom of expression and that the domestic courts did not adduce relevant and sufficient arguments to justify the interference."], "id": "5a3d5c24-5055-49ab-b1e2-e5ceebf45154", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government agreed that the facts of the case disclosed an interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression. The interference was nevertheless justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The applicants had been ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages for defamation on the basis of Articles 7 and 7 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code. The interference had thus been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and the law was accessible and foreseeable. It had served the legitimate aim of protecting the dignity of Mr Stepaniuc; furthermore, the measure had been ."], "id": "854c072c-ac95-4cd6-85d9-fb256b0cf4a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicants complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against them under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and their subsequent conviction, had constituted a violation of their right to freedom of expression. Referring, in particular, to the Court\u2019s judgments in G\u00fcl and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02, 8 June 2010) and Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011), the applicants claimed that their conviction was not ."], "id": "7b9216cc-c76e-47bc-a322-e266222cd773", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that the excerpt from the article in question was merely an expression of his personal opinion based on facts known to him concerning the political scene in the region. When deciding on B.'s defamation claims, the District Court had failed to distinguish between a statement of fact and a value judgment. The court had disregarded the findings of the panel of experts, which had come to the conclusion that the excerpt in question had constituted the applicant's personal opinion, and had given an unfair judgment when resolving the dispute. In line with the provisions of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, in his article the applicant had discussed issues of public interest concerning the interaction of political groups in the region and criticised the actions of the regional prosecutor. The domestic courts had not substantiated the preference they had given to the protection of the personal rights of the regional prosecutor over the applicant's right to freedom of expression and the interest of the public in receiving information. Nor had it been shown that the applicant's statements had had a negative impact on B.'s professional career. On the contrary, B. had since been promoted and appointed deputy general prosecutor of the Far East (Dalnevostochniy) Region. In sum, the applicant argued that the interference of the Russian authorities with his freedom of expression had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been , in contravention of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "090296bf-5dcc-49b7-a724-d75609e735e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government took the view that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of the \u201creputation or rights of others\u201d and of the \u201cauthority and impartiality of the judiciary\u201d. They argued that it was also , because the expressions used by the applicant in his circular letter had been offensive and had sought to denigrate X, who had been accused, in substance, of deliberately and knowingly taking an unfair decision, and of being arrogant, lacking in commitment and indifferent. X had thus been portrayed negatively and as a judge who showed total disregard for the fundamental ethical principles of his profession."], "id": "2b63ad19-0b38-4a4c-8d09-449d6c68cc6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government did not dispute the fact that the applicants' conviction for the offence of handling information protected by the secrecy of a judicial investigation or by a duty of professional confidence constituted interference with their right to freedom of expression. In their opinion, that interference was prescribed by law, namely by Articles 226-13 and 321-1 of the Criminal Code, which fulfilled the conditions of accessibility and foreseeability required by the Court (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999\u2011I). The Government considered, however, that the interference constituted a measure that was for the protection of the reputation or rights of others and for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Without disputing the fact that the aim of the applicants' work had been to inform the general public about an affair of state that was of interest to public opinion, they considered that it prejudiced the presumption of innocence in respect of G.M. The publication of the book just a few days after the death of Fran\u00e7ois Mitterrand had given it a certain commercial and media impact, thereby increasing the prejudice sustained by G.M. Moreover, the affair had been a very sensitive one and the book had contained precise reproductions of a number of documents from the case file."], "id": "7bf6b377-6594-4e77-8d13-836e97881831", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They submitted that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he had not raised his Convention grievances before the domestic authorities. As regards the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint, the Government submitted that the interference with his right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security, public safety and the rights of others, as well as preventing disorder and crime. Noting that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on his participation in an illegal demonstration which had turned into a propaganda event in favour of the PKK and on the fact that he had acted together with and led the other demonstrators, the Government claimed that the present case was different from the case of Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011). They concluded that the applicant\u2019s conviction had responded to a pressing social need and had therefore been ."], "id": "5c805480-6666-4372-bf6c-d2951e933181", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government further contend that the interference was . In many countries, the Muftis are appointed by the State. Moreover, Muftis exercise important judicial functions in Greece and judges cannot be elected by the people. The Government submit that because there were two Muftis in Xanthi at the time, the courts had to convict the spurious one in order not to create tension among the Muslims, between the Muslims and Christians and between Turkey and Greece. The courts considered that the offence in Article 175 is committed when somebody actually discharges the functions of a religious minister. The courts also considered that the acts that the applicant engaged in fell within the administrative functions of a Mufti in the broad sense of the term."], "id": "a6955971-219e-40dc-aabc-fd10b650f886", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government agreed that the facts of the case disclosed interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. The interference was nevertheless justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The applicant had been ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages for defamation on the basis of Articles 7 and 7 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code. The interference was thus \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and the law was accessible and foreseeable. It served the legitimate aim of protecting the dignity of Valeriu Matei; furthermore, the measure was ."], "id": "42dfab89-4cb8-4b93-9b28-5de4510a0fdd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been . In this respect they maintained that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on Article 312 \u00a7 1 of the former Criminal Code. They further argued that the interference had been justified by the need to protect public order and to prevent crime as part of the fight against terrorism, since the materials found at HADEP\u2019s office indicated the existence of a link between the applicant and the terrorist organisation PKK. The Government further considered that the interference had been proportionate to its aims, as the applicant had been sentenced to merely six months\u2019 imprisonment."], "id": "aa48d80a-a875-4ea0-a331-d279903decca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant newspaper agreed that the interference was prescribed by law and had pursued a legitimate aim. However, it was not because the impugned articles had merely disseminated statements made by third parties and had been part of a debate on an issue of distinct public importance, namely the management of public transport and the alleged illegal activities of public officials. The applicants had acted in good faith when publishing the article and verified the statements made by the third parties. They had considered the source to be reliable, since it was a letter addressed to the President of the country, contained many details, and official reports emanating from State transport authorities were attached to it."], "id": "5757ac8c-cb55-4ab2-97f4-a5230c0419b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants maintained that their conviction for publishing these articles was not . In this regard, they pointed out that the first two articles concerned the author\u2019s assessment on how to peacefully solve the Kurdish problem and that the third article criticised the prison policies of the State and, in particular, that of the Minister of Justice at the time of the events."], "id": "5520a9ac-c288-45bf-a29a-899e120c6eae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government agreed that the facts of the case disclosed an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. The interference was nevertheless justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The applicant had been ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages for defamation on the basis of Articles 7 and 7 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code. The interference was thus \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and the law was accessible and foreseeable. It served the legitimate aim of protecting the dignity of Mr Stepaniuc; furthermore, the measure was ."], "id": "20fa1096-8e12-4d75-b032-bf6733635d10", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["156. The Government further contended that rights and freedoms could not be used to destroy other rights and freedoms. In that context, emphasising that the offending articles by the applicant had promoted an armed terrorist organisation and had constituted incitement to violence, the Government maintained that the use of the media as a tool for destroying fundamental freedoms could not be tolerated. Accordingly, they submitted that the interference complained of had been proportionate and ."], "id": "d30fa3d7-509d-4385-8d1a-ba5a7cefb7f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government further insisted that the interference complained of had been . They submitted that the impugned paragraphs of the applicant\u2019s article had clearly referred to the S. family; in particular, both paragraphs had been accentuated by bold letters, which had given a clear impression that they had been linked between themselves and to the headline of the article. Moreover, the paragraphs in question had revealed specific details of the S. family\u2019s private life. In this respect, the Government pointed out that the impugned information had related not only to Mrs S.\u2019s son, Mr S., who at that time had been standing as a candidate for the State Duma, and had therefore been a public figure, but also to other members of the S. family, including Mrs S.\u2019s husband and daughter (respectively, Mr S.\u2019s father and sister), who were not."], "id": "f8bec44c-4897-4776-b4f1-0b63453151e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government maintained that the interference was justified by the need to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary and was as the applicant had gone beyond the bounds of acceptable criticism by making remarks about both the Constitutional Court and its judges that were defamatory and offensive. They stressed that, as a lawyer, the applicant had a duty of discretion towards the judiciary and so enjoyed more limited freedom of expression."], "id": "27e56f5a-b7fa-4cbf-baab-3accaf29ebf1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant contended that he was not aware of any relevant law regulating the matters of which he complained and that there was no legal protection against arbitrary interference by the public authorities with his rights. In this connection he argued that the respondent Government had made no effort at all to indicate the grounds on which such interference might have been justified, nor had they shown it to be ."], "id": "515b0d57-9eac-4d6f-a43c-441f47877d78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant maintained that his criminal conviction for the protest of 29 January 2013 had amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression. He argued that the interference had not been prescribed by law because Article 287 of the Criminal Code had not been applicable to his situation and that it had not been ."], "id": "716b6d00-b8c5-48fa-864f-4e2ee3e45206", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government argued that the letter contained factual allegations which the applicant had failed to prove, although she had been given an opportunity to do so in the domestic proceedings. The Government also submitted that the applicant did not complain about the amount she had been ordered to pay in compensation and that it was within the competence of the domestic authorities to determine other measures necessary to remedy the situation, including ordering the applicant to retract the statements by rescinding the impugned letter. Therefore, the Government stated that the interference had been and was proportionate."], "id": "9737e68f-7efd-495f-bee9-1936c400dad5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s conviction for defamation constituted interference with his rights guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention. They maintained, however, that this interference was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of Mrs P.\u2019s reputation, and was . In this regard they submitted that the applicant had overstepped the limits of permissible criticism of a civil servant, in particular, as he had directly accused Mrs P. of having committed serious criminal offences, thereby undermining her right to presumption of innocence. Furthermore, the financial penalties imposed on the applicant had not been disproportionate to his income, and the prison sentence was not long and in any case the applicant had not served it."], "id": "6e9fca75-10c1-4706-a935-01d1ff7e029a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant company contested the Government\u2019s view and maintained that the interference with the applicant company\u2019s right to freedom of expression had been un . In particular, the Austrian courts had disregarded that the letter to the editor contained value judgments which had a sufficient factual basis: Mr Paarhammer had publicly criticised the Pope in a radio interview in 1989 and in a press release in 1988. In the applicant company\u2019s view, church-related matters were of public interest and formed an essential part of public discussion in Austria at the material time. Further, high-ranking church officials exposed themselves to the public as politicians do and had, thus, to display a high degree of tolerance against criticism. The applicant company further argued that Mr Paarhammer had no negative consequences to bear as a result of the letter to the editor at issue. On the contrary, he was considered to be a potential successor of the Salzburg or Innsbruck Archbishop. Since the domestic courts had found that criticism towards the Pope in respect of personnel policy matters was lawful, also critical remarks towards Mr Paarhammer in this respect ought to be admissible."], "id": "a895dae0-7779-4ad7-8a62-e5146e8a9959", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government submitted that the interference complained of by the applicant had been prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and had been to achieve that aim. The restrictions imposed on the applicant had been necessary as they had met a pressing social need, namely the protection of the legal profession. This profession played a special role in the system of administration of justice. The decisions of the domestic courts constituted an appropriate reaction to defamatory accusations made by the applicant against advocate J.Z., accusations which had been devoid of any factual foundation and had been made in bad faith."], "id": "27d5ffd3-2575-477b-90fe-989cec1a13db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government further considered that the interference had been . They referred to Zana v. Turkey (25 November 1997, \u00a7 55, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VII), where the Court had stated that it had, with due regard to the circumstances of each case and a State\u2019s margin of appreciation, to ascertain whether a fair balance had been struck between the individual\u2019s fundamental right to freedom of expression and \u201ca democratic society\u2019s legitimate right to protect itself against the activities of terrorist organisations\u201d. They pointed out that the Court had already had occasion to consider the situation in the Basque Country in the cases of Leroy (cited above, \u00a7 38) and Association Ekin v. France (no. 39288/98, ECHR 2001\u2011VIII)."], "id": "2b2b35d6-f267-4dee-af9a-26504fe4dcff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government noted that the material that had been seized from the applicant had been likely to promote racist and anti-Turkish propaganda and promote ill-will between the two communities on the island. Any limitation of the applicant\u2019s rights had been prescribed by law and was justified under the second paragraph of Articles 9 and 10 as being in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order and for the safeguarding of national security and/or territorial integrity."], "id": "6df9029f-95bf-48bc-984f-e80afe15b679", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government contested this argument. They disputed the very fact that there could have been any interference, arguing that the journalist working for the applicant company had voluntarily cooperated in the measure in issue in order to demonstrate that he had taken the necessary steps within the meaning of Article 443 of the Criminal Code. In the alternative, the Government contended that the interference in question had been legally justified, had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and crime and protecting the rights and freedoms of others, and that it had been . Confronted with facts which had constituted prima facie evidence of offences, it had been incumbent on the judicial authorities to initiate the requisite investigation for ascertaining the circumstances of the case in hand. The Government submitted that publishing companies could not be exempted from the implementation of criminal legislation, and that the impugned article had been published under a name which did not appear in the list of journalists officially recognised in Luxembourg, a fact which had necessitated investigations in order to identify the author of the article. Moreover, the interference had been fairly unintrusive given that the police officers had not actively searched for documents, all the documents seized had been voluntarily handed over by the journalist and the search and seizure had actually been in the journalist\u2019s and the publishing house\u2019s best interests. Furthermore, the investigating judge had only being doing his duty, since he had been obliged to gather both incriminating and exonerating evidence and since seizure was the only way to take possession of objects, even where they were handed over voluntarily."], "id": "26561543-ad06-4f32-9dc8-848d0c8bab6c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicants agreed that the interference was prescribed by law and had pursued a legitimate aim. However, it was not because the impugned articles had merely disseminated statements made by third parties and had been part of a debate on an issue of distinct public importance, namely the management of public transport and alleged illegalities committed by public officials. The applicants had acted in good faith when publishing the article and verified the statements made by the third parties. They had considered the source to be reliable, since it was a letter addressed to the President of the country, contained many details, and official reports emanating from State transport authorities were attached to it. Of course it had been impossible for them to verify the statement according to which Mr Stepaniuc had telephoned the Minister of Public Transport."], "id": "b02224e7-2ea0-42a9-a8f2-2d3ff47b00d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants argued that the protection of X\u2019s identity was not . There was no pressing social need to depart from the established practice and regulations. In a democratic State, legal proceedings were public and a defendant\u2019s identity was public information; this also served to ensure the legal protection of defendants. The question of whether the disclosure of X\u2019s identity had been necessary for the purpose of dealing with a socially important matter was irrelevant, since the provisions on the public nature of legal proceedings were not associated with matters of social significance. In any event, the proceedings against X had significance for society. Offences of tax and accounting fraud did not belong to private life, and fraud concerning a disability pension amounting to almost FIM 2.5 million was a major offence. X had ultimately received a heavy sentence. The criminal charges against X had been significant enough to justify the publication of her name."], "id": "ebd153b5-33be-4d25-8bec-0a0b0750d420", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that the measures were and that the Court of Appeal gave sufficient and convincing reasons for its judgment. In particular it found that accusations of misappropriation and of serious mismanagement were statements of fact which could be proven by examining the accounting system and the book-keeping of a company by means of external audit reports. However, the Government agreed with the finding of the Court of Appeal that it had not been possible to establish that these accusations were in fact true. The Government further argued that the applicant company had failed to apply the necessary diligence in its research because it had not taken into account the negative effect the unproven statements would have on Mr Bruck\u2019s reputation. Moreover, the applicant company had not given Mr Bruck a chance to defend himself, which undermined the principle of diligent journalism. Since the information had already been available for a year there had been no particular urgency in this issue that could have justified this lack of investigation."], "id": "806cefe0-d63c-46b2-ac9f-798a1faf7a0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicants complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on their right to freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law and had not been for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.'s pictures and the facts mentioned in the articles had not fallen within the protection of private life. She had not been an innocent bystander but had participated actively in the incident of 4 December 1996. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest and the information in the articles had in every respect been correct. The restrictions imposed on the applicants had been grossly disproportionate, especially in view of their obligation to pay very considerable damages."], "id": "375815e3-3d4d-4023-bf1d-edda65b1341c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government agreed that the facts of the case disclosed an interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression. The interference was nevertheless justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The applicants had been ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages for defamation on the basis of Articles 7 and 7/1 of the Civil Code. The interference had thus been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and the law was accessible and foreseeable. It had served the legitimate aim of protecting the dignity of Mr Stepaniuc; furthermore, the measure had been ."], "id": "bf1dbfbe-c4d9-4b61-adcb-2122dd5f52c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government maintained that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression was . In this regard, they submitted that, in the first two articles, the State was considered as waging a \u201cdirty war\u201d against the \u201coppressed\u201d Kurdish nation and that in the third article the Minister of Justice was designated as the person responsible for the inconveniences and problems in prisons. They further pointed out that the article considered the Minister to be responsible for the death of two prisoners who were on hunger strike. Finally, they submitted that the applicants were sentenced to an insignificant fine which was never enforced and that their condemnations were eventually nullified."], "id": "6e314b02-a311-475f-87b6-1e06d96e6521", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable in the present case as that provision did not guarantee a right to retain employment or to choose a profession. They further stated that, in any event, the application of the KGB Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of protecting national security and was . According to the Government, the KGB Act constituted no more than a justified security screening measure intended to prevent former employees of a foreign secret service from working not only in State institutions but also in other spheres of activity which were important to the State\u2019s national security. The KGB Act itself did not impose collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. It provided for individualised restrictions on employment prospects by way of the list of positions in the former KGB which warranted application of the restrictions under section 2 of the KGB Act (see paragraph 27 above). The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in section 3 of the KGB Act showed that there existed a well-founded suspicion that the applicants lacked loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Given that not all former employees of the KGB were affected by the KGB Act, Article 14 of the Convention was not applicable. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "04e023cf-4661-423c-aaab-59aec6c245f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the allegedly arbitrary denial of Latvian citizenship through naturalisation was a punitive measure imposed on him because he had imparted ideas and exercised his right of assembly in order to criticise the government\u2019s position. He further complained that the aforementioned infringements of his rights, contrary to the requirements of Article 10 \u00a7 2 and Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, were not prescribed by law, did not pursue a legitimate aim and were disproportionate and not . Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention read as follows."], "id": "f0662303-0a30-41de-ac7b-9a0e1c046cb8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant company maintained that the interference with its right to freedom of expression was not as required by Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In particular, it asserted that the article had been published in the context of the upcoming elections of the chairman of the local tourism association and had contributed to a debate of general interest. Moreover, C.M. and J.M. were public figures on account of their activities in the political scene and the nature of the offices held by them. The applicant company also submitted that the courts had failed to evaluate the reproduction of the anonymous letter against the background of the article as a whole, which gave room to the statements of the two people concerned and duly distanced itself from the accusations made against them. Furthermore, the applicant company, citing Albert-Engelmann-Gesellschaft mbH v. Austria (no. 46389/99, 19 January 2006) contested the domestic courts\u2019 view that the reproduction of an anonymous letter had to be distinguished from the quotation of a third person\u2019s statement."], "id": "eb9c76c3-344c-4750-a7aa-a3fe8337ecff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant additionally submitted that the interference had not been . He referred to the principles developed in Court's case\u2011law on this issue and argued that he had been penalised solely for the ideas expressed in the association's articles. The association had not engaged in any action which could characterise it as propagating violence or undemocratic principles. The idea of a monarchy and the related insignia were not undemocratic or violent, as evidenced in particular by the fact that the name of the coalition which had ruled the country as between 2001 and 2005 had been \u201cNational Movement Simeon II\u201d, after the former heir to the throne Simeon Saxe-Coburggotski, who had become prime minister. Even before his starting into office in 2001 Bulgaria's coat of arms had featured a crown, whereas the public debate over the form of government \u2013 republic or monarchy \u2013 continued. While the Constitution indeed needed stability, it was by no means carved into stone. Its amendment could be envisaged for the purpose of bringing it in line with the dominant public views on the form of government, whereas suppressing any ideas in this respect could harm democracy and constituted unfettered majority rule."], "id": "77dd33fa-21c6-47bf-baf7-e180e3edb9c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicants complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on their right to freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law and had not been for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.'s name had not fallen within the protection of private life as the national courts had not declared any part of her criminal case file secret. She had been an active participant in the incident on 4 December 1996 and had subsequently been sentenced to a fine. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest and the information in the article had in every respect been correct. The Appeal Court had not even tried to indicate on what grounds freedom of expression could have been restricted in the present case. In any event, the restrictions imposed on the applicants had been grossly disproportionate, especially in view of their obligation to pay very considerable damages"], "id": "8689a275-3265-4b4e-a8a1-c547bb944566", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["186. The Government further submitted that, in view of the events of 15 July 2016, the call for a military coup had to be regarded as a call for violence and not as being covered by freedom of expression. In that connection they cited the following comments by the applicant: \u201cWithin the State of the Republic of Turkey, there is probably another structure, whose components outside Turkey are closely observing and documenting all these events. It is not clear exactly when [it] will pull its hand out of the bag or how [it] will do so.\u201d Noting that the applicant had made these comments one day before the attempted military coup, the Government contended that the interference complained of had been proportionate and ."], "id": "a79ed275-f15b-4c80-9ff5-086e18f99a2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant noted that there was no dispute over whether there had been an interference with her right to freedom of expression. She agreed that the interference had been prescribed by law, even if she contended that Chapter 24, section 8, of the Penal Code failed to meet the standards of the Court\u2019s case-law. The applicant also claimed that the interference had not been . There had to be a pressing social need for the interference."], "id": "48ef6533-aea7-4558-842e-39a32b9a105b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants complained that their right to freedom of expression had been violated in that the courts had allowed G. T.\u2019s claim concerning content published in Pravoye Delo on 19 September 2003. They stated that the interference had neither been in accordance with the law nor . The applicants relied on Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "4dce9096-50a2-4679-aa69-784f41583a8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant newspaper agreed that the interference was prescribed by law and had pursued a legitimate aim. However, it was not because the impugned article had merely disseminated statements made by a third party and had been part of a debate on an issue of public interest. The impugned statement was a quote from an open letter sent to the President of the country, the Prime Minister, the Council of Europe, the OSCE Mission in Moldova, the Moldovan Centre for Human Rights and the United States Embassy in Chi\u015fin\u0103u. Beside Mr V.S., the letter referred to at least five other judges and prosecutors involved in the criminal case. Mr V.S. had never asked the newspaper for a retraction of the statement or for a right to retort. The article had been written on the basis of detailed research. The journalist had contacted the author of the open letter and interviewed her. The journalist had also obtained a legal opinion from a lawyer and studied the verbatim record of a debate in Parliament on the criminal proceedings against Ms Duca. Mr V.S. had indeed been dismissed from his position in June 2002 and appointed as a simple prosecutor. The reasons for the demotion had never been made public; however, the investigation conducted by the journalist and the fact of the demotion of Mr V.S. could have reasonably made the journalist believe that the information in the open letter was reliable."], "id": "1b83aa72-5f56-4942-9e0e-7d7977b1a218", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant also complained that the interference with his right to freedom of expression had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been . He argued that it was important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards unlawful peaceful gatherings (he referred to Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32124/02 and 6 others, 18 December 2007). Consequently, it was also important to show the same degree of tolerance towards articles published on the Internet about preparations for such peaceful gatherings. The Russian authorities had shown zero tolerance in his own case, however. Furthermore, by blocking access to his VKontakte account, they had blocked access to other material published thereon which had not been found to be illegal. The judicial review of the blocking decision had been superficial: the domestic courts had not applied the \u201cproportionality\u201d or the \u201cnecessity in a democratic society\u201d tests."], "id": "02ac6de5-4040-4844-94d1-2473e9efa470", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant disagrees with the Government\u2019s arguments. He submits that his conviction amounted to an interference with his right to be free to exercise his religion together with all those who turned to him for spiritual guidance. He further considers that his conviction was not prescribed by law. In this respect he affirms that the Treaty of Peace of Athens remains in force. The Greek Prime-Minister accepted that at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the 1923 Treaty of Peace of Lausanne. Moreover, the Court of Cassation has recently confirmed the continued validity of the Treaty of peace of Athens and legal scholars hold the same view. The Muslims had never accepted the abrogation of Law no. 2345/1920. The applicant lastly contends that his conviction was not . He points out that the Christians and Jews in Greece have the right to elect their religious leaders. Depriving the Muslims of this possibility amounts to discriminatory treatment."], "id": "14087043-ffa7-4595-8afd-070bd3e2490b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression had been prescribed by law. They referred to the Advocacy Act and the Advocate's Code of Professional Conduct. It had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of the judiciary and had been . The penalty imposed on the applicant had not been severe. It had been proportionate to the disciplinary offence committed by the applicant."], "id": "0904f6a2-de3b-4641-93f5-4ced0c9ff05e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant submitted that the injunction issued by the Austrian courts was not . In particular, the Austrian courts wrongly qualified the impugned statement as a statement of fact, when it was a political value judgment criticising the plaintiff in the injunction proceedings and contributing to a political debate on a question of general importance. It was in the public interest to point out the dangerousness of a politician like Mr Haider who had proposed contemptible measures in an opinion poll against immigration (\u201c\u00d6sterreich zuerst\u201d \u2013 \u201cAustria first\u201d). As a value judgment and not a statement of fact, its truth did not require proof. To require proof of a value judgment would itself be a violation of Article 10 of the Convention."], "id": "682731d3-e2e5-48d7-8308-3fce34ec8d89", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the interference had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been . The judgments of the Austrian Courts had likewise pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the rights and reputation of others. Moreover, the interference had been proportionate to its aim and the reasons adduced had been relevant and sufficient. The conviction had been based on Article 111 taken in conjunction with Article 117 (5) of the Criminal Code."], "id": "8ebd67e9-3f42-4de2-b8ec-278b3374850b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants submit that the injunction was not . The impugned article was not intended to inform the public in detail of the specific offices held by Mr Graff, but to explain that, in the author\u2019s view, certain political functions were incompatible with professional activities outside politics. Although Mr Graff as chairman of Parliament\u2019s Legislative Committee did not de jure exercise any public powers, he had a decisive political influence on the making of laws. Since the party of which Mr Graff was a member was represented in the Government, his position was comparable to that of the former French Minister of Foreign Affairs. The criticism of Mr Graff\u2019s attitude, although harsh and polemical, did not constitute a gratuitous personal attack. Rather it constituted an objectively understandable evaluation of Mr Graff\u2019s attitude and the use of expressions like \u201cimmoral\u201d or \u201cdisreputable\u201d in that context were therefore appropriate."], "id": "062114d5-ef19-46b4-9948-63dbef760d1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government conceded that the contested decisions constituted an interference with the applicant company's right to impart information under Article 10 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. It was, however, justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2. The order was prescribed by law, namely by the relevant provisions of the Media Act and Sections 111 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Penal Code, it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, and was for the following reasons."], "id": "88359b94-a7ff-4338-bc85-e2a2c9c65cdb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government considered the reasons given, particularly by the District Court, to be relevant and sufficient. As to the sanction imposed, it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. They concluded that the interference had been in that it had complied with a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."], "id": "667afe32-2dc1-47ce-91f4-48534e74fbb5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicants complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on their right to freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law and had not been for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.\u2019s name had not fallen within the protection of private life as the national courts had not declared any parts of her criminal case file secret. She had been an active participant in the incident of 4 December 1996 and had subsequently been sentenced to a fine. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest, especially in this type of case where the person concerned had been a defendant in a high-profile criminal case. Moreover, the information in the articles had been correct in every respect. The Appeal Court had not even tried to indicate on what grounds freedom of expression could have been restricted in this case. In any event, the restrictions imposed on the applicants had been grossly disproportionate, especially in view of their obligation to pay very substantial damages in the case."], "id": "ca3cba6d-b820-4939-acee-8c84c61dcbac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant complained that she had been compelled to disclose information that had enabled a journalistic source to be identified, in violation of her right to receive and impart information as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. In her submission, the interference with her freedom of expression was not prescribed by law, did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not . The applicant further asked the Court to clarify the duties of the State under this provision in these circumstances. Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "74e09745-f54b-41e6-9134-65102997303e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant argued in essence that his statements were value judgments, not susceptible to proof, with sufficient factual basis. They were made in the press, in the course of a public debate on an issue of significant public interest, which had not been properly discussed before. In his view, freedom of debate on issues of significant public interest \u2013 as with political debate \u2013 was at the very core of the concept of a democratic society. The plaintiff was actively involved in a debate of public concern with strong political implications and he had laid himself open to scrutiny when entering that arena. In recent years, right-wing extremism had become stronger in Hungary, free debate over such questions had gained crucial importance, and in such discussions, strong criticism and harsher language should be accepted. In sum, it could not be argued that the measure was ; all the more so, since \u2013 although only civil-law sanctions had been ordered \u2013 the obligation to arrange for a public rectification was a disproportionately severe sanction for him, as his credibility as a historian was at stake."], "id": "56aff77c-9e48-48d4-9a3d-884d7a29c7c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable in the present case as that provision did not guarantee a right to retain employment or to choose a profession. They further stated that, in any event, the application of the Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of protecting national security and was . According to the Government, the Act constituted no more than a justified security screening measure intended to prevent former employees of a foreign secret service from working not only in State institutions but also in other spheres of activity which were important to the State's national security. The Act itself did not impose collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. It provided for individualised restrictions on employment prospects by way of the adoption of \u201cthe list\u201d of positions in the former KGB which warranted application of the restrictions under Article 2 of the Act. The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in Article 3 of the Act showed that there existed a well-founded suspicion that the applicants lacked loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Given that not all former employees of the KGB were affected by the Act, Article 14 of the Convention was not therefore applicable. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "8b4f308c-e6a4-4b6d-8b8c-c182b1f1ca35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government further argued that the measure complained of had been . Invoking the margin of appreciation that the domestic courts are allowed to have in the assessment of disputes between private parties, the Government contended that the applicant\u2019s defamatory statements had referred to the private life and private actions of R.M., and not to his actions as a politician. Furthermore, the veracity of the statements, which were quite serious, had never been proved, even though the courts had given the applicant the opportunity to do so."], "id": "9a40f8cc-7e6f-46eb-87f1-12caa48bad77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government accepted that the criminal conviction had interfered with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. However, they submitted that this interference had had a legal basis in Article 185 of the Criminal Code, which had served to protect Prof. Dr B.\u2019s personality rights and reputation and had been . The domestic courts had, after analysing the text of the press release, reasonably interpreted the statements as an implication that the stem-cell research carried out by Prof. Dr B. had been equivalent to the human experiments performed by scientists during Nazi times. After weighing up the interests of the applicant against the rights of Prof. Dr B, the courts had ultimately found that priority should be given to protecting the personality rights of Prof. Dr B. In the undertaken balancing exercise the courts had taken into account that the applicant\u2019s press release had been protected by the right to freedom of expression, that he had had a right to express insulting criticism and that he had been contributing to a public debate. However, they had also considered the historical and social context of the comparison, the severity of the violation of Prof. Dr B.\u2019s personality rights and the fact that the applicant could have made an equally important or noteworthy contribution to the debate without referring to the professor in question by name. The Government argued that the courts had therefore taken adequate account of the applicant\u2019s right and that the decision had not fallen outside the margin of appreciation as granted by the Court to domestic authorities."], "id": "287e4c9b-4f95-4e8c-bc74-3d13c135e761", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that in democratic societies, in which several religions coexisted within one and the same population, it was necessary to place restrictions on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion or belief in order to reconcile the interests of the various groups and ensure that everyone\u2019s beliefs were respected. Rules in this sphere could vary from one country to another in accordance with national traditions and the requirements imposed by the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others and to maintain public order. Accordingly, the choice of the extent and form such regulations took had to be left up to a point to the State concerned, as it depended on the specific domestic context. They referred in this context to Leyla \u015eahin v. Turkey ([GC], no. 44774/98, \u00a7\u00a7 106-09, ECHR 2005\u2011XI). The Government interpreted the cases of Cha\u2019are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France ([GC], no. 27417/95, \u00a7 84, ECHR 2000\u2011VII) and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (25 November 1996, \u00a7 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V) to mean that where questions concerning the relationship between State and religions were at stake, on which opinion in a democratic society might differ widely, the role of the national decision-making body had to be given special importance. Given that Said Nursi\u2019s books incited religious discord and proclaimed religious superiority and could therefore provoke serious religious clashes with unpredictable negative consequences, the ban on their publication and dissemination had pursued the aims of protecting territorial integrity and public safety in Russia, public order and the rights of others. Moreover, it had been , taking into account the tense ethnic situation in the country and the possible negative impact of those books on non-religious citizens."], "id": "398685db-4f2e-45e6-a877-4cf14f9b8c4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant also complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on his right to freedom of expression had not been for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.'s pictures and the facts mentioned in the articles had not fallen within the protection of private life. She had not been an innocent bystander but had actively participated in the incident of 4 December 1996. A conviction was public information that could not fall within the scope of private life. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest. The applicant had only written the articles, and he had had no say in the manner in which they had been published. No intent had been shown. Moreover, the information in the articles had been in every respect correct. The courts had failed to strike a proper balance between the protection of private life and freedom of expression in the manner required by the Convention."], "id": "6e28158e-8d13-47bf-9caf-394d4d71b604", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They submitted at the outset that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, as he had failed to raise his Convention grievances before the domestic authorities. As regards the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint, the Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security, public safety and territorial integrity, as well preventing disorder and crime. The Government further submitted that the slogans chanted had incited violence and that the concert had turned into a meeting of a terrorist organisation. The Government also noted that the applicant had been on the concert\u2019s organising committee, and not simply a member of the audience. According to the Government, the applicant had had a responsibility to prevent disorder and to protect public safety: a responsibility which he had failed to discharge, as he had manipulated the crowd by chanting slogans. Noting that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on his participation in a propaganda event in favour of the DHKP/C \u2011 a terrorist organisation that had committed heinous acts \u2013 and on his chanting slogans in favour of that organisation, the Government concluded by stating that the applicant\u2019s conviction had responded to a pressing social need and had therefore been ."], "id": "10281d3b-d3b6-4adc-b96d-daba0ab2ecbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant argued that the materials found in the party building did not contain any call for violence or any remarks inciting others to rebellion; thus, the penalty imposed did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not . The applicant further maintained that, had the national courts intended to take proportionate measures, they could have imposed a judicial fine instead of imprisonment."], "id": "cfdc69e4-95e8-4b16-b3f4-8836a69f8b34", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government admitted that imposing a fine for contempt of court amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of speech. However, they argued that the interference had been in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim and had been . The decision to fine the applicant had been based on section 110 of the Civil Procedure Act and sought to maintain the authority of the judiciary."], "id": "8febb14c-5365-4fe1-9c38-502ce11219aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants maintained that there had been an interference with their right to freedom of expression. Even though the domestic law allowed such an interference, it had not been . The applicants considered that it was not only the media\u2019s right but also its duty towards citizens to disclose a problem of public interest such as the lack of cooperation between the police and the tax authorities in the present case. In the television programme two separate cases were discussed which had both attracted considerable publicity. It was unusual that in those cases the tax authorities had declined the police\u2019s request to conduct a tax inspection, and this issue was revealed in the programme. It was undisputed that the information in the programme had been true and correct."], "id": "4aea29e4-0ff3-4180-9f7d-a9024529a9ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant company maintained that the interference with its right to impart information had not been . The article in question had constituted a contribution to an ongoing public debate on an issue of public concern, namely the conditions in accommodation facilities for asylum seekers such as the Traiskirchen Reception Centre and the treatment of asylum seekers therein. The article had concentrated on one particular facet of this discussion, namely the treatment of asylum seekers before the courts. It submitted further that the impugned statements had been value judgments which, as such, were not susceptible to being proved true. Therefore, the Regional Court should not have asked the applicant company to prove the truth of the impugned statements. However, in any event, there had been a sufficient factual basis for the statements made in the article."], "id": "b7db7b6b-bd24-4db4-bb81-3dcd3b4048de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant further disputed the view that the impugned remark could be interpreted as insinuating that Mrs X was guilty of criminal conduct. In the applicant\u2019s view, the Supreme Court judgment lacked reasoning on why the remark was considered defamatory and why the interference was considered . It had not mentioned the kind of criminal conduct the said remark referred to. The applicant argued that the remark was merely a value judgment, reflecting Ms A\u2019s opinion about the presence of Mrs X in a primary school."], "id": "65ae5de3-f2c9-4dff-9a1d-d869bfeaadae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government agreed that the facts of the case disclosed an interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. This interference was nevertheless justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The applicant was ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages for defamation on the basis of Articles 7 and 7/1 of the Civil Code. The interference was thus \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and the law was accessible and foreseeable. It served the legitimate aim of protecting the dignity of a police officer and furthermore the measure was ."], "id": "64e7f69b-3268-4acd-9adf-64dc8462a1fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant complained that her criminal conviction had not been and had been disproportionate. There was no pressing social need justifying the restriction imposed on her right to freedom of expression. In this respect, the applicant emphasised that the declaration had been submitted within the framework of a political debate on issues of public interest. Furthermore, the boundaries of what was to be regarded as permissible criticism were wider with respect to Government activities as opposed to those of criticism directed against individual persons. Governmental actions and omissions had to be subject to an open public debate in a democratic society; this was particularly relevant for the applicant, who, as a non-national, was excluded from participating in the electoral process."], "id": "dc9d2a2c-ba5e-4b15-a044-2c6f767befeb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government maintained that even supposing that the search amounted to an interference with the second applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8, it had been justified under paragraph 2 of that provision. The interference was in accordance with the law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely the prevention and punishment of criminal offences. Lastly, it had been . The search warrants had been drafted in narrow terms covering only the search for and seizure of a single document. The offences that had triggered the search were serious ones, as they called into question the very functioning of the State institutions, a factor that justified the investigating judge\u2019s taking any measure which he considered would assist in establishing the truth."], "id": "a158cb5a-c9e4-4bdf-8f98-3c0ea92e459c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression under Article 10. They claimed in this connection that the petitions that had been the subject matter of the criminal proceedings in the instant case had been submitted as part of a collective action organised by the PKK, a terrorist organisation, as could be seen from their virtually identical wording and the timing of their submission. In these circumstances, the criminal investigation initiated in relation to those petitions had been prescribed by law and in the interests of the prevention of disorder. They also argued that even if an interference were to be found on the facts, the applicants had been acquitted at the end of the criminal proceedings and there had therefore been no violation of their right to freedom of expression."], "id": "c9b0402a-afaa-47db-be8b-9cea0b434b61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant stated that by denying him access to the TEC\u2019s premises, and by refusing to provide him in good time with information about the progress of the electoral process, the authorities had interfered with his right to collect such information. He further submitted that this interference had not been lawful, had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been ."], "id": "e83833c6-2b86-41bd-af45-41a7cc57596d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants maintained that the interference constituted by section 36 of the Act of 29 July 1881 could not be regarded as or, consequently, to have a legitimate objective, as its sole purpose was to prohibit any criticism of a head of State, even if it related only to his policies and whether or not it was founded. To accept the Government\u2019s arguments that the aim pursued was legitimate would be tantamount to recognising that heads of foreign governments were entitled to a veritable privilege affording them immunity from any criticism of their conduct and actions in office, however blameworthy they might be, since such criticism was insulting by definition, as it attacked their character and reputation. The offence was made out even if the remarks proved accurate, since the relevant case-law precluded evidence of the truth of the allegations as a defence to a charge under section 36, in order to avoid embroiling the head of State in a debate that would undermine the respect due to his or her office. Under section 36 freedom of communication on matters of general interest was counterbalanced by the prestige of office and title, with the latter taking precedence."], "id": "904f5dc0-8e76-46ab-ae09-33225fd46d53", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government submitted that Article 10 was not applicable in the present case. In any event they stated that the application of the KGB Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of the protection of national security and was in view of the applicants\u2019 lack of loyalty to the State. The applicants had not been punished for their views, be they views which they hold at present or views that they might have held in the past. The KGB Act had not imposed a collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in section 3 of the KGB Act showed that there had been a well-founded suspicion that the applicants had been lacking in loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "71120bc6-d0b7-4a19-a729-c1e0cea88f5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicants' conviction was not . There was no German law which prohibited linking criticism to a particular person. This case had to be seen against the background of the broad social debate on the laws ruling abortions, which must not be compromised one-sidedly by the Government for the purpose of preserving other concepts and notions. The Government could not rely on the Court's decision on the second applicant's previous complaint (compare Annen v. Germany (dec.), no. 2373/07 and 2396/07, 30 March 2010), as the instant case concerned criminal convictions which weighed more heavily than the convictions to desist which formed the subject matter of the aforementioned proceedings."], "id": "d024693d-e3b1-4181-9b4d-60583a21bb5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government, while acknowledging the essential role played by the press as a \u201cpublic watchdog\u201d, referred to the Court\u2019s case-law that when assessing whether and to what extent any interference was , the national authorities enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation. The national courts had applied standards that were in accordance with the principles enshrined in Article 10 and they had based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the facts. In contrast with the article examined by the Court in Standard Verlags GmbH (cited above), the material at issue could not be qualified as a contribution to a current debate of public interest. It had essentially confined itself to describing the bank\u2019s speculative losses and to related suspicions of criminal acts. The theme of the intertwining of politics and the speculative losses had only been discussed as a side issue. Even if it had been in the public interest to be informed about the events connected to the speculative losses, that had not justified disclosing the claimant\u2019s name. Moreover, the claimant had to be protected against a \u201ctrial by the media\u201d as the report had been published at a very early stage in the criminal proceedings, namely only five days after the information gathered by the Financial Market Authority had arrived at the public prosecutor\u2019s office, which had been around six weeks prior to the institution of judicial investigation proceedings. The sanction imposed on the applicant company, compensation of EUR 3,000, was extremely moderate, taking into account the legal upper limit of EUR 20,000 and the magazine\u2019s high circulation."], "id": "bf967b16-1d72-4d65-8f41-12478ec167c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant submitted that his conviction pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 had been in breach of Article 10 because his speech had not contained any elements of incitement to violence. He contended that his prosecution and conviction on account of the use of the expressions \u201cthe leader of the Kurdish people\u201d and \u201cguerrilla\u201d had not been . The applicant argued that the national courts had failed to review the context of his speech as a whole. He noted that he had made the speech as a politician and it had concerned demands for a peaceful solution to the Kurdish issue and about Abdullah \u00d6calan\u2019s prison conditions. As regards the slogans chanted during his speech, the applicant noted that they had demonstrated the importance of Abdullah \u00d6calan to the crowd and that they had not constituted an offence. In that regard, the applicant referred to the Court\u2019s judgment in Bah\u00e7eci and Turan v. Turkey (no. 33340/03, 16 June 2009). Lastly, the applicant submitted that his sentence had not been proportionate as he had been sentenced to ten months\u2019 imprisonment and had also been prevented from taking part in political life as a result of that sentence."], "id": "50b24303-e903-4f01-9bd0-14580098106c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that the applicants had made discriminatory speeches based on religious beliefs, encouraged violence, and had provoked hostility and hatred among different segments of Turkish society. Furthermore, certain segments of Turkish society were invited to make an armed rebellion. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the interference in the present case was and the sentences were proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."], "id": "8f03b9af-c000-43f3-80f9-b95bfd7dc413", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings brought against him under section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713, and his subsequent conviction, had constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression. Referring in particular to the Court\u2019s judgments in Savg\u0131n v. Turkey (no. 13304/03, 2 February 2010) and G\u00fcl and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02, 8 June 2010), the applicant claimed that his conviction had not been ."], "id": "7e0aad78-7882-4c3e-bcae-08e71fcc1db8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant company contested the submission that the Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment had been . It contended that the impugned statements constituted value judgments which had a factual basis. The comment concerning the \u201ccitizens\u2019 web\u201d was a clear expression of an opinion. The comment concerning the refusal to pay the fee of one of the auditors out of vengeance was also a value judgment based on the fact that the auditor had not been paid. With regard to the articles about the use of public funds by Mr Bruck, the applicant company argued that the public had a right to receive this important information. In conclusion, the applicant company\u2019s convictions were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "0a517d00-fc0c-40f9-92c8-3e312c114d15", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant company submits that the injunction was not . The public has an interest in being informed about politicians and their conduct and, in particular, about politicians like Mr Posch who was not just a local politician of limited importance but a member of the Austrian Parliament, as well as a member of the European Parliament. The report did not concern issues relating to that politician\u2019s private sphere but a matter which was directly connected to his public functions, as the article criticised the fact that he received at the same time salaries from different functions and sources. Informing the public of such issues is an essential task of the media and, in this context, a politician should accept that his picture be published. "], "id": "f5d939f5-fdf6-4d0f-833d-dab8ed0b9d1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government submitted that, pursuant to Article 152 of the Civil Code, it was incumbent on the applicant to show that the information had been true, and he had failed to satisfy the burden of proof. They conceded that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression and that the article had concerned the governor's relations with the press, a subject which could be considered a matter for political debate. However, they maintained that the contested statement had referred to Mr Shamanov's personality rather than to his political activities and that the applicant could have couched his criticism in different terms without resorting to the defamatory assertion that Mr Shamanov had \u201cno shame and no scruples\u201d. The Government considered that the interference had been justified and for the protection of the reputation and rights of others."], "id": "27f521cf-bbe9-49b7-a66e-164fcdc237e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government argued that the interference was justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It was prescribed by law, namely by Section 6 of the Media Act and Section 111 of the Criminal Code. It pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the reputation or rights of others, protecting in particular Mr Paarhammer\u2019s reputation and the rights of the Salzburg Roman Catholic population against attacks on their religious beliefs and institutions. It was also for the following reasons: Eight years after the election of the Salzburg archbishop there was no strong public interest in receiving the information at issue. The Government, referring to the case of Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria (judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313), argued that the margin of appreciation accorded to Contracting States was a wide one and that church-related matters were not part of a general political debate. The domestic courts had correctly found that the applicant company had not submitted facts proving the truth of the allegations at issue. It had failed to comply with the ethics of journalism, had not acted in good faith as it had not verified the origin of that document, nor had it given the person concerned an opportunity to comment. In balancing the conflicting interests, namely the applicant company\u2019s interest in the publication of the statements in question and that of the general public in receiving this information, on the one hand, and Mr Paarhammer\u2019s interest and that of the Catholic population in protecting the reputation of a dignitary of the Church, on the other, the Austrian courts had given priority to the interests of the latter. Since the applicant company was ordered to pay a moderate amount of approximately EUR 2,180, the interference was not disproportionate either."], "id": "0822fdec-95a7-47c6-8a15-e354df83d7d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the measures were and the Austrian courts gave sufficient and convincing reasons for their judgments. In particular they found that the impugned statements constituted untrue statements of fact, namely the reproach against the judge that he had failed to take into account fundamental procedural guarantees and that he had violated the principles of impartiality and an adversarial hearing. The allegations were not admissible value judgments either as they lacked a sufficient factual basis. In particular, it did not emanate from the article at issue that the judge had conducted the proceedings in an objective manner, relying on the existing facts, and that only one passage of the reasoning was intended to be criticised. Moreover, the details of the impugned judgment and the circumstances underlying the previous criminal proceedings were certainly not known to the general public to an extent required for such serious accusations against a judge, including an attack on the reputation of the judiciary. When balancing the parties' interests, namely the applicants' interest in disseminating information and ideas on matters of public interest on the one hand, and the interest of the judge concerned in protecting his reputation and the standing of the judiciary in general on the other, the courts found in favour of the latter interests. Furthermore, in the light of the case as a whole and the economic situation of the applicants, the sanctions imposed were also proportionate."], "id": "5c7daeef-d28f-4033-9a92-4a984df74585", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant company complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on its right to freedom of expression in its case had not been prescribed by law as the Penal Code provision applied had not defined adequately the scope of private life. Nor had the restrictions been for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. B. had not been an innocent bystander but had participated actively in the incident of 4 December 1996. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest, especially since the case had been very newsworthy. Moreover, the information in the articles had in every respect been correct."], "id": "7729fe40-f73a-4012-8de1-e6de70295451", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicants furthermore maintained that physical force had been used against them by police, and that that force had not been and had in any event been disproportionate to whatever legitimate aim the Government had claimed to be pursuing. While reiterating the Court\u2019s reasoning in the case of Bukta and Others v. Hungary (no. 25691/04, \u00a7 37, ECHR 2007\u2011III), they submitted that the public authorities should have shown a certain degree of tolerance towards their peaceful gatherings at the University. Lastly, in their view, the imposition of administrative fines had only served to punish them for their having exercised their rights under Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention and had been intended to have a \u201cchilling effect\u201d upon anyone who might have been willing to protest against the Government\u2019s reforms in the educational sphere."], "id": "72ab3e12-2374-49cd-9ab3-52cdddab95e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant submitted that the interference with his right to freedom of expression was not as it was not justified by a pressing social need. He emphasised that the present case should be interpreted with particular regard to the fact that the applicant was punished for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview. He relied on the Jersild v. Denmark judgment (23 September 1994, Series A no. 298) and submitted that the Government had not pointed to any \u201cparticularly strong reasons\u201d which could justify punishing the publisher."], "id": "c7aa1b01-5468-48a0-a284-343f1df08a5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government conceded that the liability to pay damages and the conviction, although the sentence had been waived, amounted to an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. It had a basis in section 10(1) of the then Constitution Act, Chapter 27, Articles 1 and 2, of the Penal Code and Chapter 5, section 6, of the Tort Liability Act. Their interpretation in the present case had in no way been arbitrary. The interference aimed to protect the rights of the boy's father. Taking into account the margin of appreciation left to the Contracting States, the national authorities were, in the circumstances of the case, entitled to interfere with the exercise of the applicant's right to freedom of expression (compare Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, \u00a7 69, ECHR 2001\u2011I), and this interference was . The impugned measures, the waived sentence and the modest non-pecuniary damages and costs were \u201cproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued\u201d and the reasons adduced by the courts to justify them were \u201crelevant and sufficient\u201d within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2."], "id": "4e48f888-4305-4413-958d-a699476ed925", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government maintained that there had been no interference with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression. They submitted, however, that even if the Court were to consider that there had been such interference, it had been in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 10. In that connection the Government submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been based on sections 58 and 151 of Law no. 298 and that it had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public order. As to whether the interference in question had been , the Government, quoting various passages from the Court\u2019s case-law on Article 10, submitted that the domestic courts had examined the cases carefully and that their findings had been relevant and sufficient. It considered that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions in the instant cases fell within the State\u2019s margin of appreciation."], "id": "9f16893e-edb4-49b2-ac66-2c198c155eec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government argued that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been . The applicants\u2019 convictions had been based on Article 215 of the Criminal Code and had been justified by the need to protect national security, public safety and to prevent disorder and crime. The Government further considered that the interference had been proportionate to its aims, as the applicants had received minor fines and the second applicant\u2019s sentence had subsequently been suspended for five years."], "id": "56d3d219-9d1f-409d-a98f-38e79ef36785", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government argued that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression demanded from the user some duties and responsibilities, which could be subject to restrictions and penalties as were prescribed by law and in the interests of \u2013 with respect to the present case \u2013 public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others or for maintaining the authority of the judiciary. The statements made by the applicant were broadly reported by the mass media to whom he gave a press conference."], "id": "61c99970-d2a5-42b1-9314-5345461ab670", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicants also considered that the plaintiff company had not incurred any material damage, and even if the good name of the company had suffered it had been more as a consequence of the ill-considered advertising campaign than their publication. The applicants concluded that the reasons adduced by the domestic authorities had not been relevant or sufficient to show that the resulting judicial decision had been . The domestic courts had failed to achieve a balance between the two interests at stake \u2013 that of the freedom of the press and protection of the reputation of the company."], "id": "e9068dd5-4a1a-47b8-b22e-69f17a3ee9d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant was of the view that this requirement could not possibly be seen as being . It gave too much leeway to the interviewed persons, allowing them to distort and change what they had actually said in interviews. Disclosing information to the press and giving interviews was a special form of public activity, particularly in the case of persons holding public office. The mere requirement to obtain the interviewee\u2019s authorisation threatened the essence of an interview as one of the fundamental tools of journalism. It was difficult to imagine an interview in any form other than the questions asked and the answers given. The public could legitimately be interested not only in the mere content of the interviews, but also in the personal style of public figures as reflected in the way they spoke."], "id": "d9bad556-403a-4722-96bf-9e718fc80531", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant submitted that his trial, which had lasted for more than seven years and which had resulted in his being convicted under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, had amounted to an interference with his right guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention. He also claimed that the interference in question had not been . In that respect, he submitted that the book in question was like an historical novel and that, read in its entirety, it did not incite violence."], "id": "f5b50150-6785-4480-a620-4c82d3e144c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that the applicants, together with other members of the National Bolsheviks Party, had effected a forcible and unauthorised entry into the premises of the President\u2019s Administration, had held an unauthorised assembly there, had voiced unlawful demands for the President\u2019s resignation, had hampered the normal functioning of the President\u2019s Administration and had destroyed State property there. Their protest had not been peaceful and had amounted to a criminal offence of mass disorder. They had been therefore lawfully prosecuted for participation in mass disorder involving destruction of State property. Their arrest, detention and conviction had pursued the legitimate aim of investigating criminal offences and punishing those responsible and had been ."], "id": "dcb98229-5e62-428a-9800-5b4a24b05ef6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant argued that the interference with her freedom of expression had been disproportionate within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in view of the minor threat posed by the publication to the interests of the Lithuanian State or any ethnic groups living in Lithuania or the neighbouring countries. In this connection the applicant emphasised that \u201cLithuanian calendar\u201d had been edited and officially distributed by her for 6 years in the whole territory of Lithuania, attracting no great attention from the public or from State institutions. Similarly, the 2,000 edition of \u201cLithuanian calendar\u201d had been released in a very limited print run of 3,000 in the second half of the year 1999, and for the following five months had caused no significant interest or exaggerated reactions, up until the State authorities' intervention in January 2000 after they received a note from the embassy of the Russian Federation. The applicant likewise noted that the Prosecutor General had refused to start criminal proceedings against her as the publication had not had the elements of the criminal offence of instigation of ethnic or racial hatred. She also observed that the information published in \u201cLithuanian calendar 2000\u201d had already been made public in other historical documents. The applicant also relied on the fact that the publication had contained mainly the expression of her own opinions on and assessment of various historical events, and the State had presented no evidence proving the necessity of such a serious interference. As a result of the proceedings, she had not only received an administrative penalty in the form of a warning, but had also lost the main source of her income, in view of the confiscation and destruction of all the unsold items of \u201cLithuanian calendar 2000\u201d and her resultant inability to continue editing the publication she had created. The applicant further submitted that the authorities could have pursued means other than halting the distribution of the calendar, such as giving her the opportunity to make certain rectifications or announcements, if necessary, on the cover of the remaining, unsold, versions of the publication. Finally, the domestic courts' finding of a lack of intent on the part of the applicant, as well as the minor danger which the publication represented, were also to be taken into account in discarding the argument that the interference had been ."], "id": "bfd6cb6d-2d00-4936-9dee-b09a6607be74", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicants submitted that the interference with their right to freedom of expression had not been as it had not been justified by a pressing social need. They maintained that what was at stake in the present case was not purely commercial interests but participation in a general debate. In such cases the existence of particularly strong reasons for restricting the freedom of the press in a democratic society was necessary and the national margin of appreciation was limited."], "id": "4892bbc6-e388-46b9-9f2d-b995830fad5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicants contested that the Austrian courts' judgments had been . They contended that the impugned statements constituted value judgments which had a factual basis, namely the reasoning of the judgment concerned. This factual basis was also known to the readers because it had been published on several occasions, including by \u201cDer Standard\u201d in its issue of 1 September and another article on 2 September 1998 which explicitly referred to the commentary at issue on page 32. Further, the domestic courts as well as the Government had disregarded that the article was earmarked as a \u201ccommentary\u201d, thus, indicating to any knowledgeable reader that it contained a critical assessment by the author. In the applicants' view, the courts had also ignored that the impugned statement only concerned the judgment of the private prosecutor and not the way in which he had conducted the proceedings. Therefore the applicants did not share the argument of the Government and the findings of the domestic courts that they had reproached the judge with not having observed the principle of an adversarial hearing or with having been partial. Moreover, they considered the Government's view to be inconclusive and overstepping the requirements of this Court's case-law in respect of Article 10 of the Convention that their critical remarks should have contained the fact that the proceedings had been (otherwise) conducted in a fair manner. In conclusion, the applicants' convictions were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "6942a1d0-3ae1-4bc1-84b2-f36909792f30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government concluded that the interference complained of had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and thus to protect the reputation of others. The penalty, a symbolic payment to a charity and an order to apologise to A.W., was a lenient one and did not constitute a conviction. Although a notice of the proceedings against the applicant is revealed in the National Crime Record, the information is removed after a successful expiry of the probation period. They submitted that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention."], "id": "0d31f7e4-28d1-44e6-80da-e6607a63dc92", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim, as the proceedings against him had become time-barred. They therefore argued that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and thus the interference, if any, had been prescribed by law. They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public order and national security. The Government lastly submitted that the interference had been , given that the content of the book in question had promoted hatred, hostility, the use of arms, militancy and revenge."], "id": "00f02021-de0c-4bb2-82f0-d9f555a4ceab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["113. The applicant company submitted that it had been unable to broadcast television programmes despite having been granted a licence to do so following a public tendering procedure. This infringement of its rights resulted from various legislative, administrative and judicial measures by the Italian State, acting through different bodies and instruments. The interferences with its right to freedom of expression had been neither justified nor ."], "id": "393f3076-7585-4cff-b50c-ee30744e94a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained that the District Court judgment of 29 November 2012, in respect of which leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court on 25 February 2013, entailed an interference with his right to freedom of expression that was not and thus violated Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "addcef49-4d1a-4fe4-86e1-8ad44b6c1bb4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government accepted that the requirement for the applicants to pay damages constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression. However, as the protection of the reputation or other rights of any physical or moral person could not be excluded from the scope of Article 10 \u00a7 2, the protection of the reputation of a Local Council could legitimately form the basis of an interference with this right. Moreover, the impugned interference was prescribed by law and was for the purpose of responding to the pressing social need of protecting the reputation of others in terms of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "6d875965-3654-4df1-9f27-c93c36d8db58", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government argued that the information contained in the disputed article had in fact suggested that the plaintiffs had committed crimes and there was thus a pressing social need to protect the plaintiffs and to prevent the careless use of such serious allegations. The Court can accept this argument in principle as it has repeatedly attached particular importance to the of those who avail themselves of their right to freedom of expression, and in particular, of journalists (see Jersild, cited above, \u00a7 31, and Prager and Oberschlick, cited above, \u00a7 37). However, in the circumstances of the present case the Court finds no indication of such deliberate carelessness on the part of the applicant. It rather appears that Mr E.P.'s statements did not constitute a gratuitous personal attack as they were made in a particular political situation in which they contributed to a discussion on a subject of general interest such as the use made of budgetary funds (see, mutatis mutandis, Unabh\u00e4ngige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, \u00a7 43, ECHR 2002\u2011I)."], "id": "db2f6286-f0b0-4122-b035-e20211226ce1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government argued that Article 10 of the Convention had not been violated. According to them it is of essential importance that the freedom of expression not only stipulates the right to hold opinions, but also imposes , and therefore cannot be interpreted as allowing the promotion or dissemination of the ideas of ethnic hatred, hostility and the superiority of one nation vis-\u00e0-vis other ethnic groups. The Government admitted that by imposing an administrative punishment there was interference with the applicant's freedom of expression; however it had been justified by the necessity to protect the democratic values on the basis of which Lithuanian society is based. Stressing the sensitivity of the questions related to national minorities and territorial integrity after the re-establishment of independence on 11 March 1990, the Government submitted that \u201cLithuanian calendar 2000\u201d was clearly promoting the extreme ideology of nationalism, which rejected the idea of the integration of civil society, incited ethnic hatred and intolerance, and questioned territorial integrity and promoted national superiority, which had been proved by the notes sent by the embassies of the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation. By withdrawing the publication from distribution and imposing an administrative warning on the applicant, the authorities had sought to prevent the spreading of ideas which might violate the rights of ethnic minorities living in Lithuania as well as endanger Lithuania's relations with its neighbouring countries. In view of the clear threat to these legitimate interests posed by the publication, as well as the minor nature of the penalty ordered against the applicant, the Government considered that the interference had been compatible with the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention."], "id": "7574929a-a19a-4d78-950b-9ff14a397528", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["162. The Government maintained that any interference was justified and proportionate. It was confined to preventing certain conduct by reason of its adverse impact, or potentially adverse impact, on others and on the public order, in a public context. They further emphasised that any person who exercised freedom of expression undertook that included the obligation to avoid expressions which were offensive to others and which did not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs. The Government were of the view that the applicant had failed to act consistently with this principle."], "id": "1e0d338e-6229-4e88-83b9-968d4e8c152a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government claimed that the applicants had neglected their , which consisted of providing accurate and reliable information on matters of public interest. In their view, in the present case there had been a \u201cpressing social need\u201d to protect the reputation of the State officials of the Penza Region because the applicants had disseminated information alleging that they had committed criminal offences. The interference had been proportionate to the legitimate aim because the courts had clearly identified defamatory statements and granted the claim in part. The Government concluded that the necessity of the interference had been \u201cobvious\u201d and that the applicants' complaint was manifestly ill-founded."], "id": "69fe3bdf-60dc-4dd5-8e9e-eb7661809ba3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government considered that the interference could be deemed \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d in order to pursue the above-mentioned aims. They did not accept the conclusions drawn by the intervener, noting that they were based only on a small sample of legal systems, some of which were non-European. The exercise of the freedom of expression carried with it certain , as also emphasised in Recommendation (2000) 21 to Council of Europe member States. The applicant's statements had been made in her capacity as defence counsel and not with the intention of generally imparting information and ideas. Not being a member of the Bar, the applicant was not subject to possible disciplinary proceedings within that institution. Not applying the Penal Code to her would therefore have placed her in a preferential position compared with members of the Bar."], "id": "0d7c6e1a-629c-48fa-850e-089ddf6cdeb1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government argued that the interference was proportionate to the aim pursued, as the publisher had objectively caused the spreading of the defamatory statements to a wider public. According to the Government, the provision at issue was part of an overall concept under the Austrian Media Act concerning of media owners resulting from the connection between the liability of media owners for defamation offences committed in their medium, on the one hand, and, on the other, from the duty to publish the court's decision (section 34) and the right to make a counter-statement (section 13). The Government also endorsed the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, laying down the arguments of shared responsibility of the media owner irrespective of the question of guilt, and carefully weighing it against the protection of the victim of a media offence. Without such shared financial responsibility, a victim, who had no influence on the issue of what and whose statements were published in the medium, would run the risk of not recovering the procedural costs after winning a case. Also, a victim's right to protection of their honour would be impaired if, for economic considerations, he/she had to renounce the enforcement of the right to private prosecution because the incriminated statement was made by a destitute author. In the present case, the applicant company had been free to report on the two private prosecutors and their experiences in Monaco. Neither was the author who had written up the article held responsible under criminal law nor was the applicant company sentenced to pay damages. Considering the financial benefit it had achieved from the publication of the impugned statement with an eye-catching title and that the applicant company's newspaper had the highest circulation in Austria, the measures corresponded to a \u201cpressing social need\u201d and constituted the least severe means to require media owners to take over some responsibility for media offences."], "id": "f2525de3-8150-42cb-8ee2-2eb284d6f783", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government argued that the freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention was not absolute. Paragraph 2 of Article 10 formulated certain conditions and restrictions concerning its exercise. Journalists, in order to comply with the referred to in that provision, were obliged to act in good faith and to provide accurate and reliable information to the public."], "id": "5d3a5825-7a23-4d5a-b9ef-ece41fca796a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["107. The Government agreed with the domestic courts' assessment of the statements made by the applicant in \u201cThe Aliyevs Go to War\u201d. They noted that this article, which concerned possible attacks on various facilities in Azerbaijan, had appeared at a time of rising tension between Iran and a number of other members of the international community, which had led to widespread reports about possible military operations against Iran, Azerbaijan's geographical neighbour. In that context, the applicant had published a number of unverified and inaccurate statements of fact. He had failed to comply with the which went hand in hand with journalistic freedom and had failed to act in good faith and in compliance with the ethics of journalism in order to provide accurate and reliable information. The information published by the applicant had been obtained from various, sometimes unidentified, sources which the applicant had not verified by independent research."], "id": "86618c9a-89ef-4ff7-bb2c-ecdac217ca2c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government submitted that the German courts, being aware that the present case concerned a report on a political issue of significant public interest, had given due consideration to the importance of freedom of expression in the case, but had found that the applicant company had not fulfilled its journalistic . In their submission, the offending passage was to be construed as a factual allegation even if it had been presented in the form of a question. The daily newspaper published by the applicant company had not sought to find an answer to Mr Thiele\u2019s question, but rather to convey his view that Mr Schr\u00f6der\u2019s envisaged move to the private sector might have been a decisive factor in triggering early elections. In any event, even if Mr Thiele\u2019s comments were to be found to amount to a genuine question or a value judgment, they would nevertheless still be unlawful as they lacked a sufficient factual basis."], "id": "387d0a5e-badc-41a9-8d67-5662841eaa82", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant company argued that awarding S.P. EUR 10,000 in damages had not been necessary in a democratic society, as the author and thereby the applicant company itself had based the passage at issue on official reports and had thus fulfilled their journalistic . In particular, it submitted that the part of the book at issue conveyed that there had been a suspicion that S.P. was a member of the \u2018Ndrangheta. There had been sufficient reliable sources for that suspicion, including official reports of the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation, which had been identified as a source in the book. Since the report had come from an official and reliable source, the author was justified in refraining from further corroborating the information. The Court of Appeal had also neglected to take into account the fact that the author had researched the mafia for several years and interviewed a multitude of prosecutors, criminal investigators and other insiders, as well as the fact that the court had refused to hear the witnesses put forward by the applicant company. In addition, the applicant company had not been required to give S.P. an opportunity to be heard, as he had already denied his alleged membership when interviewed for a television report in 1997. The mere fact that S.P. had erroneously been described as a Calabrian had not constituted such a grave violation of his personality right as to justify the damages awarded to him."], "id": "c491bc60-a192-4b16-ab02-31f56d5f19ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government further contended that the requirement for civil servants to obtain authorisation from their supervisors before leaving their city of residence was designed to ensure the smooth functioning of the public service; in practice, it was a purely formal requirement. Civil servants had and the applicant, on entering the public service, had accepted the statutory provisions concerning civil servants."], "id": "0b45eb3c-f7ce-4315-a31e-ee8627997609", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government argued that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression demanded from the user some , which could be subject to restrictions and penalties as were prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of \u2013 with respect to the present case \u2013 public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others or for maintaining the authority of the judiciary. The statements made by the applicant were broadly reported by the mass media to whom he gave a press conference."], "id": "ca66f17b-ff6d-4d47-8dde-219891b2d74a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant argued that the importance of a free press in a democratic society dictated that the of journalists should not be enforced by means of the criminal law. The Press Act had been adopted in 1984, in a pre-democratic political context. Its provisions, applied in a democratic system, were capable of hindering the exercise of the freedom of expression, in particular as they imposed on journalists legal obligations which should normally be reserved for professional codes of conduct."], "id": "0b6008ae-3ad0-4c5a-ac20-0c079a592e41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "duties and responsibilities", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicants further contended that they had complied with the incumbent on them in the circumstances at hand. They relied on decision no. 51/2007 of the Swiss Press Council, which had held that covert research was permitted if the information concerned was in the public interest and could not be obtained by any other means. The subject of the programme, which had aimed to draw public attention to malpractice in the field of private insurance in Switzerland, was of considerable public interest. Moreover, journalists were free to choose the methods they wished to employ to carry out their investigations. A realistic portrayal of the situation had been necessary in this particular case; otherwise, the broker could have successfully brought a civil claim against the journalists. The deterrent effect of the judicial decisions in issue was extremely significant, bearing in mind the absolute nature of the Federal Court\u2019s findings. The applicants pointed out that they had given the broker the opportunity to respond to the criticisms after the recording and before the broadcast, and that he had refused to do so."], "id": "ad8a7ca1-7b6c-4ed2-87cd-e20aa5e5477f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants complained in particular that the charges against them had been altered at the last hearing of their trial. They had initially been accused of separatism and undermining the integrity of the State but on the day of the judgment, 8 December 1994, the Court had asked them on the spot to prepare their defence against a new charge, namely belonging to an illegal armed organisation. It had then dismissed their application for additional time to prepare their defence against the new charge. The applicants submitted that they had not been able to defend themselves properly and present their evidence against the new charge."], "id": "187cd58f-c913-48ac-a616-31f9f0d42b30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government responded that the applicants had not specified the particular ideas or matters of conscience which they wished to express. Accordingly, this aspect of the case was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. They had been convicted under Articles 68 and 70 of the Criminal Code for their anti-state activities not because of any manifestation of their beliefs. If there had been an interference under these Convention provisions, it was justified for the protection of , public order and the rights and freedoms of others, as well as for the prevention and punishment of crime. The applicants were not prosecuted for their political beliefs or communist party affiliations, but for their anti-state activities, in contravention of Article 17 of the Convention, against which the young democracy of Lithuania had been entitled to defend itself (cf. the aforementioned \u017ddanoka case, \u00a7 100)."], "id": "e7b7ff4a-be98-472d-8ea4-067b0e5eef76", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested his argument. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining and territorial integrity and prevention of disorder. The Government further contended that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society. They noted that in the article in question Abdullah \u00d6calan was referred to as \u201cthe ideological and political leader of the Kurdish movement\u201d and the HPG, the PJA and the KONGRA-GEL were described as \u201cfacilitators of the military, political and ideological development formed under the leadership of Abdullah \u00d6calan\u201d. According to the Government, the publication of a photograph of Abdullah \u00d6calan holding a weapon demonstrated that the purpose of the publication of the article was to advocate and propagate terrorism. The Government lastly noted that the PKK was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of states and international organisations, such as the United Nations, NATO and the United States of America, and thus represented a serious threat not only to the internal security of Turkey but also to the international public order."], "id": "869b4a35-6199-4b41-b84f-d47c7bff66f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They submitted that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he had not raised his Convention grievances before the domestic authorities. As regards the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint, the Government submitted that the interference with his right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting , public safety and the rights of others, as well as preventing disorder and crime. Noting that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on his participation in an illegal demonstration which had turned into a propaganda event in favour of the PKK and on the fact that he had acted together with and led the other demonstrators, the Government claimed that the present case was different from the case of Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011). They concluded that the applicant\u2019s conviction had responded to a pressing social need and had therefore been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "382e912b-b962-4ec9-bfb0-d75b6c93b94a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the first applicant had been prosecuted under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and thus any interference had been prescribed by law. They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting and public order as well as preventing crime. As to the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Government stated that by referring to the security forces\u2019 struggle against terrorism as a \u201cwar\u201d in the title of the exhibition, the first applicant had disseminated propaganda in favour of the PKK. The Government further noted that members of the PKK were defined as \u201cguerrillas\u201d by persons who had connections with or supported the PKK, and that by referring to the deceased members of the PKK as guerrillas the first applicant had considered them heroes. The Government submitted that the first applicant had not defined the persons whose photographs had been displayed as members of a terrorist organisation. The Government also argued that the exhibition had not reflected any sociological work, and that the content of the visitors\u2019 book showed that the first applicant had encouraged the public to participate in the terrorist organisation. The Government lastly noted that the exhibition had been held in Diyarbak\u0131r, where the authorities had to be alert to acts capable of fuelling violence."], "id": "470ca649-a4f6-4572-aa0d-295dd6a183d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable in the present case as that provision did not guarantee a right to retain employment or to choose a profession. They further stated that, in any event, the application of the KGB Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of protecting and was necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, the KGB Act constituted no more than a justified security screening measure intended to prevent former employees of a foreign secret service from working not only in State institutions but also in other spheres of activity which were important to the State\u2019s national security. The KGB Act itself did not impose collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. It provided for individualised restrictions on employment prospects by way of the list of positions in the former KGB which warranted application of the restrictions under section 2 of the KGB Act (see paragraph 27 above). The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in section 3 of the KGB Act showed that there existed a well-founded suspicion that the applicants lacked loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Given that not all former employees of the KGB were affected by the KGB Act, Article 14 of the Convention was not applicable. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "f1f96a28-db13-49b8-ba91-24f841b91821", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of and territorial integrity and the prevention of disorder and crime. They further submitted that the TKP/ML was a terrorist organisation, and that slogans praising that organisation had been chanted during the public gathering in question. Submitting that section 7 of Law no. 3713 had been amended in 2013, the Government left the issue of the necessity of the interference in a democratic society to the Court\u2019s discretion."], "id": "0cfec374-099a-474b-b9e9-5002ed3405c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government maintained that the interference pursued one or more legitimate aims: the prevention of crime, in so far as the first applicant\u2019s own safety was concerned by the bomb threats, and the interests of with regard to all the applicants. In each case the interference was moreover \u201cnecessary\u201d for the achievement of the legitimate aim or aims pursued."], "id": "1850e605-eb44-4ae5-a805-0877f5f1bf16", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had been prescribed by law. They noted that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. The Government further contended that the interference in question had pursued the aims of protecting , territorial integrity and public safety as well as the prevention of disorder or crime."], "id": "2c926f53-5d68-495b-82e4-4683dffe2f55", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government submitted that they were at a loss to understand the reason why the first applicant should claim at all that the Security Police\u2019s registration and filing of information concerning threats against her were not in her best interests but, on the contrary, entailed a violation of her rights under the Convention. The information that had been released to the other four applicants was highly varied in nature. Most of it appeared to have been found in the public domain, such as the media. The Government were unaware of the origins of each and every piece of information, and therefore could not comment on that particular aspect. They noted, however, that from today\u2019s perspective the information seemed either fairly old or quite harmless and that the interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, namely the protection of ."], "id": "86831020-9db3-4e03-b24a-ad3969254929", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government alleged that in view of the temporary and transient nature of the \u201cdetention\u201d, there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to her private life or home. In any event, any interference by the authorities had been in accordance with the law and necessary in the interests of , public safety, and for the prevention of disorder or crime. The authorities had not transgressed the principles of reasonableness and proportionality."], "id": "cbbabbd6-88a2-4434-ba37-a0a61c67e9df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government asserted that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was prescribed by law, namely by Article 11 (e) of Law no. 2935 dated 25 October 1983, and that it pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and crime and protecting as permitted by Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They maintained that the measure taken against the newspaper was within the authorities' margin of appreciation and that it was justified given the specific circumstances of the case. They submitted in this connection that vital interests of the State were at stake and that the decision to ban was in response to a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "45c9a3a1-dec0-4b56-9881-5bc224cc66f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant also submitted that subjecting a programme, which posed no threat to , did not undermine the protection of the personal rights of others, did not entail a criminal offence and did not breach the legislation on unfair competition, to particular scrutiny in order to ensure its \u201cobjectivity\u201d was tantamount to rendering Article 10 \u00a7 2 devoid of purpose and imposing a legal requirement to toe the government line on a television broadcaster which necessarily had a monopoly on the provision of information at national level."], "id": "4426a122-ab6a-44ef-9c32-3aabad234107", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicant did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of his conviction had been suspended. They further claimed that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression, given that the proceedings against him had ended with the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment. The Government submitted that should the Court conclude that there had been an interference, that interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining , territorial integrity and public safety, as well as preventing disorder and crime. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, as a politician, the applicant had showed his support for a terrorist organisation\u2019s activities by chanting the slogans noted in the first-instance judgment. Taking into account the necessity to fight against terrorism, the Government contended that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been proportionate."], "id": "d8c50ca3-d7cc-4bde-8179-41c588666d10", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government argued for their part that the Court could not be criticised for making use of its right to reclassify the offences with which the applicants had been charged to arrive at a characterisation that was less serious for the applicants than the charge initially preferred by the prosecution. They pointed out that the offences covered by Article 125 of the Criminal Code carried the death penalty whereas those covered by Article 168 carried prison sentences. In their view, it was wrong in the instant case to talk of a recharacterisation of the offence in so far as Articles 125 and 168 appeared in the same section of the Criminal Code entitled \u201cCrimes against the State\u201d. Article 168 was a \u201ccommon provision\u201d relating to all the other provisions in that section and covered anyone who \u201cform[ed] an armed gang or organisation \u2026 with the intention of committing any of the offences defined in Article 125 ...\u201d. Article 125 defined a crime in terms of the ends pursued, requiring a serious prejudice, whereas Article 168 defined a crime in terms of the means deployed to achieve those ends. The truth was that the applicants\u2019 conviction on the basis of Article 168 of the Criminal Code rather than that of Article 125 had been the result of the criminal courts\u2019 assessment of the evidence and their consideration of the defence\u2019s arguments."], "id": "fcc68375-479e-49f5-b2d3-502ec0495fcc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government submitted that Article 10 was not applicable in the present case. In any event they stated that the application of the KGB Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of the protection of and was necessary in a democratic society in view of the applicants\u2019 lack of loyalty to the State. The applicants had not been punished for their views, be they views which they hold at present or views that they might have held in the past. The KGB Act had not imposed a collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in section 3 of the KGB Act showed that there had been a well-founded suspicion that the applicants had been lacking in loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "93031d0d-739b-49b0-ac3f-1fa28929ab06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant emphasised that the self-declarations did not advocate the use of violence against the State or against individual persons. As the Government themselves had confirmed, the PKK's activities had been largely peaceful at the relevant time. The national courts did not establish a real threat to public order or safety by the PKK in general or the self declaration campaign, nor did they examine or find any proven actual impact of the PKK on the or public safety. None of the decisions reviewed the legality of the ban on the PKK or questioned its necessity in a democratic society. Insofar as the Government relied on the European Union's list of terrorist organisation, the applicant submitted that these listings, according to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, were unlawful and could not be the basis for criminal consequences on individuals. The national courts had failed to determine whether the interference with freedom of expression reflected a pressing social need in the individual case. Regardless of necessary considerations on other levels, for instance the determination of the penalty, they had ruled that freedom of speech had to generally take second place and there was no weighing on this stage."], "id": "a3f2ad91-701c-440f-acbc-c3c1989c60c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants submitted that the courts were special courts. They asserted that the military judges who sat on those courts were dependent on the executive, being appointed by a joint decree of the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister, subject to the approval of the President. The assessment, promotion and security of tenure of those judges were within the control of the executive branch and, in turn, the army. The ties binding them with the executive and the army made it impossible for them to discharge their functions on the bench in an independent and impartial manner."], "id": "f2e01528-c1d5-4111-a6f9-f3d0c7e05349", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained that the criminal proceedings before the Ankara Court were unfair, that that court was not independent and impartial, and of infringements of their freedom of expression and freedom of association; they also asserted that in the enjoyment of the rights thus breached they had been the victims of discrimination on the ground of their political opinions."], "id": "2b1db008-c404-461b-8c6d-dec3d1f02ec5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants contested the Government's submissions. They complained in particular that they had lost their private-sector jobs, and that they had furthermore been deprived of the possibility to seek employment in various private-sector fields until 2009 as a result of their statutory status as \u201cformer KGB officers\u201d. The applicants submitted that they had not been given any possibility under the Act either to present their personal cases in the evaluation and establishment of their loyalty to the State, or to avoid the application to them of the employment restrictions prescribed by Article 3 of the Act. In particular, the applicants stressed that they had left the KGB almost a decade before their dismissals. Furthermore, the applicants contended that their jobs in the private sector had not constituted any threat to the of Lithuania. However, the domestic courts imposed the employment restrictions solely on the ground of their former employment in the KGB. Finally, the applicants submitted that, as a result of the negative publicity caused by the adoption of the \u201cKGB Act\u201d and its application to them, they had been subjected to daily embarrassment on account of their past."], "id": "1b87adc3-7e37-47d6-9ab3-ca41ed5e2618", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They submitted at the outset that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, as he had failed to raise his Convention grievances before the domestic authorities. As regards the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint, the Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting , public safety and territorial integrity, as well preventing disorder and crime. The Government further submitted that the slogans chanted had incited violence and that the concert had turned into a meeting of a terrorist organisation. The Government also noted that the applicant had been on the concert\u2019s organising committee, and not simply a member of the audience. According to the Government, the applicant had had a responsibility to prevent disorder and to protect public safety: a responsibility which he had failed to discharge, as he had manipulated the crowd by chanting slogans. Noting that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on his participation in a propaganda event in favour of the DHKP/C \u2011 a terrorist organisation that had committed heinous acts \u2013 and on his chanting slogans in favour of that organisation, the Government concluded by stating that the applicant\u2019s conviction had responded to a pressing social need and had therefore been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "deef862f-7214-4cfe-a025-e763d83bf1f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested their argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicants did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of their conviction had been suspended. They further submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining and public safety as well as the prevention of disorder and crime. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, by referring to Abdullah \u00d6calan as a \u201cleading figure\u201d and an interlocutor for the State of Turkey, the applicants had conveyed to the public the idea that their client was still active. Moreover, their statements contained expressions referring to the strategy of a terrorist organisation. Noting that the applicants had not been imprisoned or subjected to any other restrictions, the Government contended that the interference in question had therefore not been disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "415e229d-f29b-4938-afbe-9b7d1d29d1c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They submitted that the interference with her right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of and public order, as well as the prevention of disorder and crime. The Government further submitted that in her speech the applicant had legitimised the PKK and called for a moment of silence for the terrorists who had died during the conflicts with the Turkish Armed Forces. Besides, following her speech, the crowd had made a \u201cV\u201d sign. The Government took the view that, having regard to the content of her speech and to the fact that the applicant was not a politician, her speech could not be protected as political discourse. They further submitted that the first-instance court had assessed the circumstances of the event as a whole and had had regard to the other speakers\u2019 speeches and the slogans chanted by the crowd when it had convicted the applicant. The Government also contended that the investigation against the applicant had not only been based on her acts during the event of 21 March 2007 but also on the books and documents found in her house. They lastly noted that the applicant had been sentenced to imprisonment of only one year, the minimum possible sentence under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. In sum, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "01c6e0b4-e801-4cd9-9df7-cefafa5bb054", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government conceded that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression. They submitted that the retroactive classification of the documents in question pursued the legitimate aim of , in which field States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation. Moreover, it was the applicant\u2019s own fault that the study in question had not been accomplished since, intransigently, he had insisted on having completely unrestricted access. The applicant contested these views."], "id": "7b3b4e88-a00b-4777-835d-bc23e0ebb972", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim, as the proceedings against him had become time-barred. They therefore argued that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and thus the interference, if any, had been prescribed by law. They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public order and . The Government lastly submitted that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, given that the content of the book in question had promoted hatred, hostility, the use of arms, militancy and revenge."], "id": "473610d4-911c-4b95-b6e5-c516cae29293", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government asserted that the witnesses concerned had not been listed among those that the applicants had asked to be examined during the hearing in the Court. They added that the court had also taken account of other evidence when establishing that the applicants belonged to the PKK. Its refusal to examine some of the witnesses for the prosecution had been justified by the threats that had been made against them, not excluding their physical elimination by the PKK, as had happened to a witness against one of the applicants\u2019 co-defendants, killed in prison by other inmates who were members of the PKK."], "id": "e3955197-ed98-43f2-8f34-db6532d3d154", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government noted that the material that had been seized from the applicant had been likely to promote racist and anti-Turkish propaganda and promote ill-will between the two communities on the island. Any limitation of the applicant\u2019s rights had been prescribed by law and was justified under the second paragraph of Articles 9 and 10 as being necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order and for the safeguarding of and/or territorial integrity."], "id": "9db10527-942f-4464-8f20-2b085fad488e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government emphasised the need to have particular regard to the context in Turkey when the decision was taken to establish national security courts, pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution. In view of the experience of the armed forces in the anti-terrorism campaign, the authorities had considered it necessary to strengthen those courts by including a military judge who was supposed to provide them with the necessary expertise and knowledge to deal with threats to the security and integrity of the State. The Government asserted that the impartiality and independence of military judges sitting on national security courts had been guaranteed by the Constitution."], "id": "10516b15-59a4-4348-bf77-c3873bc0f57c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government argued that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary in a democratic society. The applicants\u2019 convictions had been based on Article 215 of the Criminal Code and had been justified by the need to protect , public safety and to prevent disorder and crime. The Government further considered that the interference had been proportionate to its aims, as the applicants had received minor fines and the second applicant\u2019s sentence had subsequently been suspended for five years."], "id": "6390eee3-d132-49ed-aa0e-c7a432ed85da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government acknowledged the existence of an interference in the instant case but submitted that it was justified under the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention. The interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had been based on Article 6 of Law no. 3713 as well as Additional section 2 of Law no. 5680. The interference had been in the interests of , territorial integrity and the protection of the rights of others owing to the disclosure of the identities of certain public officials."], "id": "b1b2f495-38c9-4919-a4b9-d36154d5e730", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government argued that the applicants\u2019 dismissal pursued a legitimate aim, namely the aim of guaranteeing the neutrality of civil servants, including diplomatic corps. The restriction provided in section 44, subsection 1, point (c), of the Diplomatic Service Act had the legitimate aim of establishing a professional diplomatic service which would not be politically loaded, would not endure impact from any political force and would not depend on internal political developments and changes in political conjuncture. The aim was thus to uphold democracy and to protect in a newly independent country."], "id": "8a3dfd25-b457-4059-ae98-6d69682a463b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government maintained that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression was compatible with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 10. The interference was based on Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the applicant\u2019s conviction was necessary in order to maintain and public safety. The Government also stressed that the applicant\u2019s speech contained provocative views."], "id": "3f1e1a4e-9bfe-444d-b0e4-7f11a6235f1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim as the proceedings against him had ended, due to being time-barred. They therefore considered that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and thus the interference, if any, was prescribed by law. They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protection of , territorial integrity and public safety as well as prevention of crime. As to the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Government stated that they were aware of the Court\u2019s case-law in that field. They nevertheless noted that the applicant had been convicted of generating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an organisation which was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of international organisations and states, such as the United States of America, the United Nations, the NATO and the European Union."], "id": "ac37082a-e414-4d49-82ff-1c2135061c61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting , public safety and territorial integrity, as well preventing crime. The Government further submitted that the applicant had intended to encourage the public to engage in violence and resistance against the Turkish authorities and to manipulate the crowd. Besides, following his speech, the crowd had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK. The Government further submitted that the first-instance court had applied the principles embodied in Article 10, basing itself on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts. They lastly noted that the applicant had been sentenced to prison only for ten months and he had served part of that sentence. In sum, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "b9008d20-ff8d-4b6e-bff5-d3579b968a42", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable in the present case as that provision did not guarantee a right to retain employment or to choose a profession. They further stated that, in any event, the application of the Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of protecting and was necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, the Act constituted no more than a justified security screening measure intended to prevent former employees of a foreign secret service from working not only in State institutions but also in other spheres of activity which were important to the State's national security. The Act itself did not impose collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. It provided for individualised restrictions on employment prospects by way of the adoption of \u201cthe list\u201d of positions in the former KGB which warranted application of the restrictions under Article 2 of the Act. The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in Article 3 of the Act showed that there existed a well-founded suspicion that the applicants lacked loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Given that not all former employees of the KGB were affected by the Act, Article 14 of the Convention was not therefore applicable. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "3385c88b-6360-4e01-a252-3cdf8105540f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had been . They noted that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. The Government further contended that the interference in question had pursued the aims of protecting national security, territorial integrity and public safety as well as the prevention of disorder or crime."], "id": "c3152bd7-1780-49ee-a407-2e82aac2c435", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant argued that the interference complained of was not . Investigation in defamation cases was normally instituted by way of a private prosecution. The investigation in the applicant\u2019s case had been instituted ex officio, but the prosecutor had failed to provide reasons for which he had considered that the public interest required an investigation of the case."], "id": "8c237d21-d938-41d1-aa57-ae0dd1cffb7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government conceded that the contested decisions constituted an interference with the applicant company's right to impart information under Article 10 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. It was, however, justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2. The order was , namely by the relevant provisions of the Media Act and Sections 111 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Penal Code, it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, and was necessary in a democratic society for the following reasons."], "id": "71444866-bd56-4281-b80c-77cc1f931271", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government accepted that the applicants\u2019 arrest at the site of the public event and their administrative convictions had constituted an interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and their right to freedom of expression. Such an interference constitutes a breach of Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention unless it is , pursues one or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2 of each Article, and is \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "d4acdf1b-4e4a-46b5-8392-706727ff61ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicants complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on their right to freedom of expression had not been and had not been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.'s name had not fallen within the protection of private life as the national courts had not declared any part of her criminal case file secret. She had been an active participant in the incident on 4 December 1996 and had subsequently been sentenced to a fine. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest and the information in the article had in every respect been correct. The Appeal Court had not even tried to indicate on what grounds freedom of expression could have been restricted in the present case. In any event, the restrictions imposed on the applicants had been grossly disproportionate, especially in view of their obligation to pay very considerable damages"], "id": "f0f94634-96ec-4fcf-83da-315d3aa853ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government admitted that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions had amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression. They submitted, however, that the interference had been justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It was , namely Article 212 of the Criminal Code, and pursued a legitimate aim: the protection of the \u201creputation or rights of others\u201d."], "id": "fa7807a0-a97d-4e9f-ae8a-3e14585122d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicants submit that the injunction at issue was not . The interference was not foreseeable because the detailed, casuistic and confusing case-law of the Austrian courts on Section 1330 of the Civil Code leads to unpredictable results. In the present case, the Austrian courts qualified the statements in the impugned article as statements of fact although, in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, they should have qualified them as value judgments."], "id": "5b405f64-b170-4abb-bd74-38a1ffc3dc4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression had been , notably Article 152 of the Civil Code which governed the protection of the professional reputation of both citizens and legal entities. The domestic courts found that the facts set out in the publications were not shown to have been true and that there were no grounds to exempt the applicants from responsibility by virtue of section 57 of the Mass-Media Act."], "id": "1443473d-3a39-474d-971a-85a178a9a4d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant further observed that Genoa District Court had given him a custodial sentence not , and that although he had no criminal record he had not been granted general mitigating circumstances (attenuanti generiche). The applicant alleged that he had sent his circular letter to a number of judges at Lucca District Court solely to avoid undermining the reciprocal relationships of friendship and esteem between him and those judges, and to protect himself against any distortion of the content of his letter to the CSM. He also stated that the conduct of X, who had refused any attempt to reach a friendly settlement to the dispute, had been driven by feelings of animosity towards him."], "id": "87758382-e40e-4f58-b50f-df36135ef77a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicants complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on their right to freedom of expression had not been and had not been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.'s pictures and the facts mentioned in the articles had not fallen within the protection of private life. She had not been an innocent bystander but had participated actively in the incident of 4 December 1996. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest and the information in the articles had in every respect been correct. The restrictions imposed on the applicants had been grossly disproportionate, especially in view of their obligation to pay very considerable damages."], "id": "4edc9f89-5506-40d5-b99a-0286c6b07ab3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants argued that the interference was not , because the Law on non\u2011governmental organisations (public associations and foundations) (\u201cthe NGO Act\u201d), being vague and imprecise, gave the Ministry of Justice an unlimited discretion to issue warnings to public associations without specifying clearly the scope of such discretion. This situation allowed the Ministry to request dissolution of an association for anything that it deemed to be a breach of the requirements of the NGO Act, even if it was relatively minor. Therefore, the NGO Act was not formulated with sufficient precision, which made it impossible to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the specific actions (or omissions) that could entail the forced dissolution of the Association."], "id": "262e9ab4-41be-405a-b637-d0efeef7631e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant argued that his liability for the defamatory comments published on the news website, as established by the Supreme Court, was not because there was no legal provision concerning liability of editors of web-based media. The Government submitted that the interference had a basis in domestic law and practice and referred, inter alia, to the Articles of the Penal Code, Section 26 of the Tort Law and the responsibility of the media in a democratic society."], "id": "be0ba8f0-f491-4eb3-8b55-29171823a145", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the first applicant had been prosecuted under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and thus any interference had been . They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security and public order as well as preventing crime. As to the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Government stated that by referring to the security forces\u2019 struggle against terrorism as a \u201cwar\u201d in the title of the exhibition, the first applicant had disseminated propaganda in favour of the PKK. The Government further noted that members of the PKK were defined as \u201cguerrillas\u201d by persons who had connections with or supported the PKK, and that by referring to the deceased members of the PKK as guerrillas the first applicant had considered them heroes. The Government submitted that the first applicant had not defined the persons whose photographs had been displayed as members of a terrorist organisation. The Government also argued that the exhibition had not reflected any sociological work, and that the content of the visitors\u2019 book showed that the first applicant had encouraged the public to participate in the terrorist organisation. The Government lastly noted that the exhibition had been held in Diyarbak\u0131r, where the authorities had to be alert to acts capable of fuelling violence."], "id": "e963ef9c-8008-49d2-b988-b80c27a49f44", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicant's rights under Article 10 of the Convention. They contented, however, that it was and \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d within the meaning of \u00a7 2 of Article 10. They argued in the first place that the Court of Appeal considered in detail the applicant company's submissions and set out clearly why, in the present case, Mr Kabas' interest in protection of presumption of his innocence continued beyond the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against him. Furthermore, the interpretation of section 7b of the Media Act in conformity with Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention called for an extensive understanding of the protection of the presumption of innocence. While there was certainly public interest in the discussion of the \u201cpolice information affair\u201d, Mr Kabas' right in the presumption of his innocence outweighed the applicant company's right to freedom of expression. In the impugned article the applicant company depicted Mr Kabas as already convicted and did not inform the reader that the charges against him had already thoroughly been examined by the Public Prosecutor's Office which had closed his file months ago. When weighing the respective interests, the domestic courts had furthermore had regard to the fact that Mr Kabas was not given the opportunity to comment. Moreover, the ex-post appraisal of the present case confirmed that the court's assessment was correct. As Mr Krei\u03b2l and Mr Kleindienst were finally both acquitted, the alleged assistance of Mr Kabas in their criminal acts was impossible. The Government further argued that the measures taken by the Austria courts were also proportionate."], "id": "14d36e73-7954-46de-a4d4-cd5b475c950c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant submitted that the interference at issue was not . The interference was not foreseeable because the provisions of the Civil Code 1963 and the Section 42 of the Media Act (paragraphs 23 and 26 above) could be interpreted in a number of different ways. In the present case, the Ukrainian courts qualified the statements in the impugned articles as statements of fact although, in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, they should have qualified them as value judgments."], "id": "0629acc5-294a-4e7d-840e-816641a4bef1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested his argument. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been , and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security and territorial integrity and prevention of disorder. The Government further contended that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society. They noted that in the article in question Abdullah \u00d6calan was referred to as \u201cthe ideological and political leader of the Kurdish movement\u201d and the HPG, the PJA and the KONGRA-GEL were described as \u201cfacilitators of the military, political and ideological development formed under the leadership of Abdullah \u00d6calan\u201d. According to the Government, the publication of a photograph of Abdullah \u00d6calan holding a weapon demonstrated that the purpose of the publication of the article was to advocate and propagate terrorism. The Government lastly noted that the PKK was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of states and international organisations, such as the United Nations, NATO and the United States of America, and thus represented a serious threat not only to the internal security of Turkey but also to the international public order."], "id": "4640e68d-d252-47a3-86e4-500974c8037a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant newspaper agreed that the interference was and had pursued a legitimate aim. However, it was not necessary in a democratic society because the impugned articles had merely disseminated statements made by third parties and had been part of a debate on an issue of distinct public importance, namely the management of public transport and the alleged illegal activities of public officials. The applicants had acted in good faith when publishing the article and verified the statements made by the third parties. They had considered the source to be reliable, since it was a letter addressed to the President of the country, contained many details, and official reports emanating from State transport authorities were attached to it."], "id": "8eed2948-20a0-4d9e-a4cc-d8e567c42074", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government argued that the case did not concern the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression as such but a particular form of political expression falling within the scope of Article 11 governing freedom of assembly. They had not been prevented from expressing their political views in public or sanctioned for having done so. Rather, they had been prosecuted for deliberately disregarding the rules governing the exercise of the freedom of assembly. The restriction imposed on the applicants\u2019 freedom of peaceful assembly had been based on section 6 of the Assembly Act and section 152 of the Act on Administrative Offences. Undisputedly, they had expressed a political opinion on public ground (which fell under the jurisdiction of the Assembly Act) although characterising their action as a form of artistic expression which, as a cultural event, would fall outside the scope of the Assembly Act, but would have been subject to an authorisation from the municipality, never obtained. The fact that the applicants had labelled their action as a \u201cperformance\u201d, a term foreign to the Assembly Act, was irrelevant since in the domestic jurisprudence it was the aim (i.e. the joint expression of a political opinion), the venue (i.e. public ground) and the organised nature of an event which was decisive to qualify it as an \u201corganised event\u201d falling under section 6. Obviously, the different forms which an assembly might take or the labels attached to them by the organisers could not be enumerated with absolute precision in the law but it was not contrary to the requirement of foreseeability to define an assembly by its purpose and to clarify the scope of the law by judicial interpretation. The interference was therefore ."], "id": "907ec9b9-085f-478c-9efb-d2482d2cf322", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant further contested the assertion that the interference was and pursued a legitimate aim. Firstly, he contended that the legal basis on which the interference was grounded fell short of the requisite quality in that the court had assessed facts that were not included in the notice of termination (uzteikums). In particular, he drew the Court\u2019s attention to the fact that even though the notice of termination referred solely to his email sent on 20 March 2010, the Riga Regional Court had reached its conclusions by relying on other events which had taken place before and after the impugned email. He also noted that it was only after the LETA news agency had published his views that his employer had found the email to be threatening and contrary to good morals."], "id": "0afdaf36-6e5a-4cde-81ef-83c3f2aff629", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government acknowledged that the impugned court decisions had amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression. However, the interference had been and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of A.L., as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. Referring to Kasabova v. Bulgaria (no. 22385/03, \u00a7 54, 19 April 2011) and Axel Springer AG (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 85-86, 89), the Government also claimed that the interference had been proportionate. They maintained that the States must be given a certain margin of appreciation in striking the appropriate balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life (Kasabova, cited above, \u00a7 60)."], "id": "09fd9b7a-5a35-4216-a330-a02efbafe3f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government acknowledged that the decisions of the domestic courts amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression. They were of the view that that the interference was and pursued a legitimate aim. The assertions made in the article concerned the conduct of a politician. It was accepted in the Court\u2019s case-law that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider with regard to a politician than with regard to a private individual. Where, as in the present case, journalists considered that it was their duty to alert public opinion to an important issue in the general interest, namely the alleged acceptance of a bribe, they were under an obligation to provide a sufficient factual basis for their allegations. The domestic courts had accepted, having regard to the fact that the applicants referred in their pleadings to their freedom of expression, that they had been motivated by the protection of the general interest. Moreover, the courts had focused on the essential aspect of the case, namely on the allegations of corruption advanced by the applicants."], "id": "d4f19753-33a3-48f8-b1d5-f588cda3094d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicants complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on their right to freedom of expression had not been and had not been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.\u2019s name had not fallen within the protection of private life as the national courts had not declared any parts of her criminal case file secret. She had been an active participant in the incident of 4 December 1996 and had subsequently been sentenced to a fine. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest, especially in this type of case where the person concerned had been a defendant in a high-profile criminal case. Moreover, the information in the articles had been correct in every respect. The Appeal Court had not even tried to indicate on what grounds freedom of expression could have been restricted in this case. In any event, the restrictions imposed on the applicants had been grossly disproportionate, especially in view of their obligation to pay very substantial damages in the case."], "id": "a2389712-9d4e-419d-8086-cea44f0ad24d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant political party submitted that the voters\u2019 posting photographs showing their participation in the referendum and the way they had cast their votes had constituted the expression of opinions on political matters, as protected under Article 10 of the Convention. It also maintained that providing a forum for voters to express their opinions, in the form of using a mobile telephone application, fell under the scope of the right to freedom of expression. Thus, the restriction on, and penalisation of, the use of the application had constituted an interference with its right to freedom of expression, which had neither been nor had pursued a legitimate aim."], "id": "6da0ffc3-cf4e-47c0-b17f-8de31c3b9fcc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government argued that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression demanded from the user some duties and responsibilities, which could be subject to restrictions and penalties as were and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of \u2013 with respect to the present case \u2013 public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others or for maintaining the authority of the judiciary. The statements made by the applicant were broadly reported by the mass media to whom he gave a press conference."], "id": "fe1bab62-782a-4334-b977-2573b78e27e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government accepted that the requirement for the applicants to pay damages constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression. However, as the protection of the reputation or other rights of any physical or moral person could not be excluded from the scope of Article 10 \u00a7 2, the protection of the reputation of a Local Council could legitimately form the basis of an interference with this right. Moreover, the impugned interference was and was necessary in a democratic society for the purpose of responding to the pressing social need of protecting the reputation of others in terms of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "64078030-c137-4b4a-95fd-534f455b9faa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant argued that her message on VKontakte had not contained any calls for participation; it had simply informed the readers about her intention to hold a meeting. The domestic authorities had not, however, attempted to draw a distinction between \u201ccampaigning\u201d and \u201cinforming\u201d. Moreover, the District Court\u2019s conviction judgment had contradicted its previous decision that the refusal to approve the meeting had been unlawful. The interference with the applicant\u2019s rights had not therefore been ."], "id": "c22cc3e4-c7a6-4455-93a6-b9bfcdd74ee7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested their argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicants did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of their conviction had been suspended. They further submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been , and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security and public safety as well as the prevention of disorder and crime. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, by referring to Abdullah \u00d6calan as a \u201cleading figure\u201d and an interlocutor for the State of Turkey, the applicants had conveyed to the public the idea that their client was still active. Moreover, their statements contained expressions referring to the strategy of a terrorist organisation. Noting that the applicants had not been imprisoned or subjected to any other restrictions, the Government contended that the interference in question had therefore not been disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "8c6c6162-c67f-41ca-93b1-aa3deb4b3979", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["183. The Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. First of all, they submitted that the interference complained of had been . It had been based on Law 7(I)/1998 and the relevant regulations. The relevant provisions were clear and their effects reasonably foreseeable, especially with the assistance of a lawyer. Secondly, the Government argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right pursued legitimate aims and in particular the protection of the rights of others. In this respect, they emphasised the need to safeguard the rights and interests of viewers, including children, who were vulnerable, and to protect them from abusive practices. The Government relied on the reasoning given by the CRTA in its decisions concerning the broadcasts in question. They further highlighted the need to regulate the mass media in view of the significant influence they had on people and society at large. The measures taken by the CRTA had been necessary in securing compliance with the relevant legal provisions and regulations."], "id": "434d0c6c-d615-4d56-addd-c1fa33db56ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government further submitted that the interference in question had been . They noted in this regard that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on section 23(b) of Law no. 2911 and Articles 220 \u00a7 6 and 314 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code. According to the Government, these provisions, and in particular Article 220 \u00a7 6 of the Criminal Code, fulfilled the requirement of \u201cforeseeability\u201d for the purposes of Article 11 of the Convention."], "id": "170e7ff6-f762-41d4-aae3-c9a994de7d70", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government accepted that the decision complained of by the applicant constituted an interference with her rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. Nevertheless, they argued that the interference was , namely by Articles 998-1000 of the Civil Code in force at the time. Furthermore, the interference aimed at the protection of the reputation of a third party, and was thus legitimate."], "id": "e165180c-d1ea-430a-9084-27932b618d16", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government conceded that Article 152 of the Civil Code, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in its Resolution of 24 February 2005 (see paragraph 13 above), did not authorise an apology as a remedy in a defamation action, except in certain circumstances, for instance under the terms of a friendly-settlement agreement between the parties to a civil litigation. The Government contended, however, that before the above Resolution all other courts could interpret Article 152 differently. The Government considered with reference to that provision that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been and was aimed at protecting the reputation of other persons. The fine imposed on the applicant was derisory and the obligation to make an apology could not be judged as harsh."], "id": "57469fc2-eb6b-499f-9c8f-20cab6392fa0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant newspaper agreed that the interference was and had pursued a legitimate aim. However, it was not necessary in a democratic society because the impugned article had merely disseminated statements made by a third party and had been part of a debate on an issue of public interest. The impugned statement was a quote from an open letter sent to the President of the country, the Prime Minister, the Council of Europe, the OSCE Mission in Moldova, the Moldovan Centre for Human Rights and the United States Embassy in Chi\u015fin\u0103u. Beside Mr V.S., the letter referred to at least five other judges and prosecutors involved in the criminal case. Mr V.S. had never asked the newspaper for a retraction of the statement or for a right to retort. The article had been written on the basis of detailed research. The journalist had contacted the author of the open letter and interviewed her. The journalist had also obtained a legal opinion from a lawyer and studied the verbatim record of a debate in Parliament on the criminal proceedings against Ms Duca. Mr V.S. had indeed been dismissed from his position in June 2002 and appointed as a simple prosecutor. The reasons for the demotion had never been made public; however, the investigation conducted by the journalist and the fact of the demotion of Mr V.S. could have reasonably made the journalist believe that the information in the open letter was reliable."], "id": "4432d358-c6ce-478c-8145-84c1c11cf1cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government did not deny that the applicant\u2019s conviction constituted an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. They took the view, however, that this interference was , since its legal basis lay in section 23 and sections 29 et seq. of the Act of 29 July 1881, and that it pursued a legitimate aim. On that latter point they argued that it sought to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, and to ensure the protection of the reputation or rights of others, since the statements had been directed at judges in the exercise of their duties and also undermined the confidence of citizens in the judiciary."], "id": "8dc5c707-fe70-4423-a449-de604d0e4aed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government argued that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had been compatible with the terms of Article 10. The interference was , being based on Article 212 of the Criminal Code, and pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the reputation or rights of others. It was also \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. Furthermore, the reasons advanced by the domestic courts were relevant and sufficient to justify the interference."], "id": "2962e32d-0bed-4e18-a581-05121b9e0519", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government did not contest that there had been an interference with the applicant company\u2019s freedom of expression. They submitted, however, that it was , namely under the provisions of the Civil Code (see paragraph 47 above). It pursued the legitimate aim of protecting I.\u2019s reputation. Protection of the rights guaranteed by Article 8 as well as protection of public servants from offensive attacks which were calculated to affect them in the performance of their duties were legitimate interests recognised in the Court\u2019s case-law (citing Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, \u00a7 31, ECHR 2004\u2011II, and Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, \u00a7 33, ECHR 1999\u2011I, respectively)."], "id": "d645aeae-e788-4c9f-a2ab-afd2ea846202", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant company argued that the interference with its freedom of expression \u2013 including its right to store information and to enable users to impart their opinions \u2013 was not . It submitted that there was no legislation or case-law stating that an intermediary was to be considered a publisher of content which it was not aware of. On the contrary, the applicable law expressly prohibited the imposition of liability on service providers for third-party content. In this connection, the applicant company referred to the Directive on electronic commerce, the Estonian Information Society Services Act and the Council of Europe Declaration on freedom of communication on the Internet. The Directive provided for limited and notice-based liability with take-down procedures for illegal content. Service providers were exempted from liability where, upon obtaining actual knowledge of illegal activities, they acted expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information concerned. Such removal or disabling of access had to be undertaken in the observance of the principle of freedom of expression and of procedures established for this purpose at national level (Recital 46 of the Preamble to the Directive). The applicant company argued that this law was indisputably formulated with sufficient precision to enable a citizen to regulate his conduct. According to the applicant company, its behaviour had been in full compliance with the applicable law as it had removed the defamatory comments the same day it had been notified by the original plaintiff."], "id": "445ceab4-e72e-4354-ad5d-1be1557cbc1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government submitted that the complaint under Article 10 was manifestly ill\u2011founded. They maintained that the restrictions on the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been (Article 212 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code) and had served the aim of maintaining the authority of the judiciary. In the long term it had also served the aim of maintaining public safety and prevention of crimes. They emphasised that the authority of the justice system, its stability and credibility were of essential value in maintaining public order and combating crimes. These restrictions had been necessary within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in order to maintain the authority and the credibility of the justice system (cf. Ska\u0142ka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, \u00a7 40, 27 May 2003)."], "id": "2f72c134-3587-4f8d-8cd9-4f2c5b6c688e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was and pursued a legitimate aim, to which it was proportionate. In particular, they pointed out that the applicant had been acquitted and that there was no evidence that he had paid the damages or court fees imposed (they referred to St\u00e2ngu v. Romania (dec.), no. 57551/00, 9 November 2004, and St\u00e2ngu and Scutelnicu v. Romania, no. 53899/00, 31 January 2006). Moreover, the amounts imposed by the court had been moderate."], "id": "da22cce6-1e6c-437a-b4d5-142d571801db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government submitted that under Article 11 of the Convention the right of assembly was not an absolute right and therefore could be subjected to restrictions. In Hungary, the possibility of interfering with that right was laid down in an Act of Parliament. The holding of certain assemblies and meetings on public areas must be notified three days ahead. Under section 11(2) of the Assembly Act, the police were empowered to remove from the venue those who disturbed the assembly. In the course of securing an assembly, a police officer might, upon the well-founded suspicion of an administrative or criminal offence, apprehend the perpetrator; under section 142(2) b) of Act no. LXIX of 1999 on Administrative Offences, disobedience was punishable with a fine. Thus, the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly had been restricted in compliance with the conditions ."], "id": "eabf4974-2420-4596-bb7d-0e99304bf9dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government argued that the interference was justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It was , namely by Section 6 of the Media Act and Section 111 of the Criminal Code. It pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the reputation or rights of others, protecting in particular Mr Paarhammer\u2019s reputation and the rights of the Salzburg Roman Catholic population against attacks on their religious beliefs and institutions. It was also necessary in a democratic society for the following reasons: Eight years after the election of the Salzburg archbishop there was no strong public interest in receiving the information at issue. The Government, referring to the case of Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria (judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313), argued that the margin of appreciation accorded to Contracting States was a wide one and that church-related matters were not part of a general political debate. The domestic courts had correctly found that the applicant company had not submitted facts proving the truth of the allegations at issue. It had failed to comply with the ethics of journalism, had not acted in good faith as it had not verified the origin of that document, nor had it given the person concerned an opportunity to comment. In balancing the conflicting interests, namely the applicant company\u2019s interest in the publication of the statements in question and that of the general public in receiving this information, on the one hand, and Mr Paarhammer\u2019s interest and that of the Catholic population in protecting the reputation of a dignitary of the Church, on the other, the Austrian courts had given priority to the interests of the latter. Since the applicant company was ordered to pay a moderate amount of approximately EUR 2,180, the interference was not disproportionate either."], "id": "763b5c62-0be8-421e-a4fa-f00a6421185a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim as the proceedings against him had ended, due to being time-barred. They therefore considered that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and thus the interference, if any, was . They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protection of national security, territorial integrity and public safety as well as prevention of crime. As to the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Government stated that they were aware of the Court\u2019s case-law in that field. They nevertheless noted that the applicant had been convicted of generating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an organisation which was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of international organisations and states, such as the United States of America, the United Nations, the NATO and the European Union."], "id": "96b2a992-e036-41a5-bdcb-b8b97def9332", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant maintained that his criminal conviction for the protest of 29 January 2013 had amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression. He argued that the interference had not been because Article 287 of the Criminal Code had not been applicable to his situation and that it had not been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "d31398ee-34bb-4341-8c44-cf1b56abef05", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant submitted that the decision ordering her to reveal her source was an interference under Article 10 which was not . It followed from Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that journalists could not be obliged to do so. The wording contained no exception for situations in which the source was allegedly known, and no domestic case-law supported a different interpretation. The fact that a person had stated that he was the source, or a court\u2019s own assessment of whether this was probable, could not \u2013 according to Article 125 \u2013 oblige the journalist to confirm or disprove the identity of the source."], "id": "950edfb1-80dc-423e-8466-011d9f47c581", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government did not dispute the fact that there had been an interference. They argued that it was , namely by the decree of 27 November 1991 organising the legal profession, and that it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or the rights of others; in addition, the proceedings against the applicant had been such as to \u201cmaintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary\u201d. Further, the interference had met a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the aims pursued."], "id": "5ac76328-8a5b-478b-8e8c-8819afae74d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government agreed that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression, but submitted that the interference had been , had pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary in a democratic society. The applicant had defamed V.P., not only in the letter addressed to the Prosecutor's Office, the President of Moldova and the Speaker of Parliament but also by spreading defamatory rumours amongst the villagers. The Government relied on the testimonies of witnesses called in the domestic proceedings by V.P. (see paragraph 11 above)."], "id": "ad55f635-3cb5-4842-9523-af759c62d83d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant contended that the restriction of inmates\u2019 use of the Internet in prison was not . The legislation relied on by the Government, namely point 6 of Annex 1 to the Code of the Execution of Sentences (see paragraph 30 above), which explicitly prohibited prisoners from having telephones and other means of communication such as radios, could not be regarded as formulated with sufficient precision to be foreseeable and therefore as meeting the Court\u2019s standards. The fact that none of the legal rules clearly and unambiguously stated that prisoners may not be granted access to the Internet was further supported by the fact that Article 96 of the Code of the Execution of Sentences allowed prisoners to use computers and radios (see paragraph 29 above). The Government themselves stated that the restriction on Internet use by prisoners was only implicit, and was derived systemically from the regime applicable to prisoners per se."], "id": "02020591-5762-4382-acc9-04f57a009ebe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression had been , notably Article 152 of the Civil Code. It had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of others, namely Regional Prosecutor B., and was necessary in a democratic society. They referred to the judgment of the District Court, which had established that the applicant had failed to show that his allegations were true. The penalty imposed on the applicant had not been severe."], "id": "d97bd892-c473-45c5-96a7-72192ec0dca2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant company submitted that the NTRC was obliged under the law to inform it of the reasons for denying it a licence. The mere presence of its representative during the presentation of competitive bids and a points-based vote which, moreover, indicated only a total score did not constitute proper provision of a reasoned decision. The NTRC's letters announcing the outcome of the calls for tenders could not be considered as notification of reasons either, since they failed to state the grounds for the relevant decisions but simply announced them. By failing to provide reasons for its decisions explaining the assessment of the competitive bids, the NTRC made it impossible to establish whether the licensing criteria contained in section 50 of the Broadcasting Act were met when it awarded broadcasting licences. This rendered the licensing process arbitrary and not as ."], "id": "08567f0b-cd27-4af7-839e-fe2b43b9a330", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government agreed that the judgments of the domestic courts had constituted an interference with the applicant company\u2019s freedom of expression. However, they considered that the interference had been , being based on the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Information Act. It had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others."], "id": "350b2351-19f3-4cd8-a267-2f7ec4e42c1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government pointed out that the possibility of terminating a contract of employment in the event of attacks on the employer or workers was and pursued a legitimate aim: the protection of the reputation of others. The Spanish courts had considered that the applicants had gone beyond the limits inherent in the exercise of their freedom of expression, to the extent of damaging the reputation of the employer and of other workers. The comments had not been published in the media but in the confined environment of a company, and concerned individuals working there, namely the human resources manager and work colleagues, that is to say persons with no public duties. The extent of acceptable criticism when directed against a private individual was narrower than that directed against authorities or public institutions (contrast Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, \u00a7 133, 14 September 2010). That context had aggravated the damage caused by the newsletter to the reputations of the persons concerned, since all its potential addressees knew the individuals who were criticised or caricatured."], "id": "978f9b2d-0bb4-4833-9f18-7f0bacf871bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression under Article 10. They claimed in this connection that the petitions that had been the subject matter of the criminal proceedings in the instant case had been submitted as part of a collective action organised by the PKK, a terrorist organisation, as could be seen from their virtually identical wording and the timing of their submission. In these circumstances, the criminal investigation initiated in relation to those petitions had been and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the prevention of disorder. They also argued that even if an interference were to be found on the facts, the applicants had been acquitted at the end of the criminal proceedings and there had therefore been no violation of their right to freedom of expression."], "id": "f648dfd7-0995-4d31-aa15-f102130dd1b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had been compatible with the terms of Article 10. The interference was , being based on Article 212 of the Criminal Code and pursued a legitimate aim, i.e. the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The statement that the mayor had put \u201cextralegal pressure on the prosecution service\u201d was directed against his personal dignity and had debased him."], "id": "30d6feb4-0802-4a28-a4a7-285ba107949b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant submits that his conviction amounted to an interference with his right to be free to exercise his religion together with all those who turned to him for spiritual guidance. He further considers that his conviction was not . In this respect he affirms that the Treaty of Peace of Athens remains in force. The Greek Prime-Minister accepted that at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the 1923 Treaty of Peace of Lausanne. Moreover, the Court of Cassation has recently confirmed the continued validity of the Treaty of peace of Athens and legal scholars hold the same view. The Muslims had never accepted the abrogation of Law no. 2345/1920. The applicant lastly contends that his conviction was not necessary in a democratic society. He points out that the Christians and Jews in Greece have the right to elect their religious leaders. Depriving the Muslims of this possibility amounts to discriminatory treatment."], "id": "a448a047-c32c-4766-a821-884155fb0ff7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government contested this complaint. While they accepted that the above measures constituted an interference with the applicant company's rights under Article 10 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, they argued, however, that the interference was , pursued the legitimate aim of protecting effectively the reputation or rights of others and was proportionate to the aim pursued. The Government referred in this regard to the domestic courts' findings which they considered relevant and sufficient. The Government in particular pointed out that, while the underlying expert opinion in itself basically was a value judgment, the impugned article did not refer to the matter as a legal dispute but built the expert opinion up to an irrevocable verdict on the Carinthian Governor. Thus, the article did not mention the existence of a counter-expert opinion. Moreover, as regards the distortion of the expert opinion, the applicant company could not prove that it had complied with its obligation to safeguard journalistic diligence as it had relied on a press release prepared by a political party whose views were known to be often contrary to those of the Carinthian Governor without examining the truth behind these statements. The Government finally argued that the interference was also proportionate as the Austrian courts merely ordered the applicant company to black out the impugned passages in the remaining issues of \u201cDer Standard\u201d still to be disseminated and the publication of the judgment."], "id": "2d0d37f9-1c02-4645-9257-c00eaff80be2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government agreed that there was an interference by a public authority with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression on account of the coercive measures taken against them. In their view the interference was . As the seizures mainly served the purpose of obtaining evidence the Freedom of the Press Act was not applicable. The conditions for the search as prescribed by the Coercive Measures Act were met, given that the investigation concerned suspected public defamation which carried a maximum sentence of two years\u2019 imprisonment. It was true that the records of the coercive measures taken in the homes of Ms Soini and Ms Mikola only referred to \u201cother investigations\u201d. This deficiency \u2013 due to the number of different offences of which a large number of persons were suspected \u2013 was corrected in the proceedings before the District Court."], "id": "64457a9c-27e6-4e65-8f0d-2fa49d6bff14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant went on to argue that her dismissal had not been . The disciplinary proceedings against her had not complied with the Labour Code 1986 \u2013 a fact established by the first\u2011instance court \u2013 because she had not been properly asked to give explanations for her conduct and because the persons who had taken part in the proceedings had not been duly constituted disciplinary authorities. The alleged breaches of discipline to which the Government alluded in their observations had not been laid down in any statute or internal rule of the BNR; they had been breaches of non\u2011existent rules issued by bodies that by law did not exist. As evident from the minutes of its meeting of 5 October 1998, the editorial board had not formally resolved to bar Ms V.N. from taking part in the applicant\u2019s show. However, even if it had done so, its resolution would have amounted to censorship and would have been invalid. The NRTC had found that the BNR\u2019s internal rules had not clearly set out the powers of its collective bodies, and those rules did not identify clearly the roles of the various persons who were to take part in radio shows. There had therefore been no clear legal basis for holding the applicant liable."], "id": "77cd7b1b-f4f0-4cf6-9d73-a6aa86344a67", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["13. The Government contested his argument. They claimed at the outset that he did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of his conviction had been suspended. The Government further submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been , had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the State as a whole and had been necessary in a democratic society. They noted that the article in question glorified the PKK and promoted hatred, hostility and the use of arms, militancy and revenge. They lastly contended that the circumstances of the case were similar to the case of S\u00fcrek v. Turkey ((no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, ECHR 1999\u2011IV) in which the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention."], "id": "476fd58d-54f3-4929-81a1-377d28ec3d93", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government acknowledged that the impugned court decisions amounted to an interference with the applicant company\u2019s right to freedom of expression. However, the interference was and pursued an aim recognised as legitimate by the Court, namely, the protection of the private sphere (News Verlags GmbH & Co.KG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, \u00a7 44, ECHR 2000\u2011I). The question at issue between the parties in the present case was whether the interference had been proportionate, and in particular whether the balancing exercise undertaken by the national courts of the applicant company\u2019s right to freedom of expression against X\u2019s right to respect for his private life was in conformity with the criteria established by the Court\u2019s case-law. In that connection regard had to be had to the role of the person concerned, the purpose of the publication and the severity of the sanction imposed on the press."], "id": "b8ad2cbe-6497-48bf-bb39-e92e096d530d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government submitted that, if the Court were to conclude that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of peaceful assembly, this interference was . The applicant blocked Mashtots Avenue with a group of people and, by doing so, violated public order, which was qualified as minor hooliganism and fell within the ambit of Article 172 of the CAO."], "id": "77a55550-8129-4662-8a7a-3208344f73ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government submitted that by organising an unauthorised public event, the applicant had committed an administrative offence. The police had warned her that the public event had been unlawful and had demanded that it be stopped. She had not complied. She had also refused to go to the police station. Her escorting to the police station and her administrative arrest had therefore been justified by the need to stop the administrative offence and to hold her liable. Both the escorting and the arrest had been performed in accordance with the procedure . She had been released as soon as all the requisite procedural documents had been drawn up. The length of her arrest had been within the statutory limits: it had lasted for four hours and fifteen minutes, which had subsequently been deducted from her penalty."], "id": "e08c6e55-5bce-416c-ac1c-3e94f1ae3047", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["85. The Government did not contest that the impugned judgments constituted an interference with the applicant company\u2019s rights under Article 10 of the Convention and submitted that it had been , in particular by the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, that it had followed the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others and that it had been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "85b66ecc-24ea-4c5b-9e50-82fdbb4b7fcd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the allegedly arbitrary denial of Latvian citizenship through naturalisation was a punitive measure imposed on him because he had imparted ideas and exercised his right of assembly in order to criticise the government\u2019s position. He further complained that the aforementioned infringements of his rights, contrary to the requirements of Article 10 \u00a7 2 and Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, were not , did not pursue a legitimate aim and were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society. Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention read as follows."], "id": "9f3edffd-cec0-4bd7-b4b5-411980f3e4a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government maintained that the interference was and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of others. They referred to case-law in which the Court had presupposed that a public body could also fall within \u201cthe protection of the reputation or rights of others\u201d, for example, Romanenko and Others v. Russia, cited above, \u00a7 39; Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, \u00a7\u00a7 50 and 54, 24 April 2007; and Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239. They further contended that since it was recognised that the reputation of the police may be a legitimate aim, the same should apply to several other public bodies. The conditions at a public hospital constitute an issue of considerable public interest and entail a need for wider limits for public scrutiny, but this is partly for other reasons than for a public body exercising power in the traditional sense. Public interest may therefore be deemed to be interconnected with the relevance of the activities of the hospital to the life and health of individuals. Allegations made on a factually incorrect basis will affect the patient\u2019s confidence in the treatment offered and may weaken the possibilities of the hospital to function in an optimal manner. In addition, it would amount to unfounded arbitrariness in the protection of the health interests of the contracting States if they were to have the possibility of interfering with attacks on the reputation of private hospitals but not of public hospitals."], "id": "eb418b7f-74b8-4097-b0aa-85e4a9e6ce24", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants submitted that the manner in which the NRTC had applied its criteria for evaluating candidates for broadcasting licences had been arbitrary. Firstly, those candidates had had no direct contact with the NRTC, which had engendered delay and confusion. Secondly, the points system adopted by the NRTC had not been properly operated. It was natural to expect that each candidate would be allotted a certain number of points, that later a ranking would be made, and that the candidate obtaining the highest number of points would be granted a licence. However, the NRTC had eschewed such allotting of points, instead merely informing the candidates that they would or would not be granted a licence. The procedure followed had not been public and transparent. The NRTC had not disclosed the reasons for its decisions and the candidates had not been told why some of them had been approved and others not. Their evaluations had never been made public. These deficiencies had not been addressed or remedied in the ensuing judicial review proceedings, which had deprived judicial review of all practical meaning. For all these reasons, the applicants were of the view that the interference with their freedom of expression had not been ."], "id": "664e918c-b339-487f-9334-883189bbd262", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant noted that there was no dispute over whether there had been an interference with her right to freedom of expression. She agreed that the interference had been , even if she contended that Chapter 24, section 8, of the Penal Code failed to meet the standards of the Court\u2019s case-law. The applicant also claimed that the interference had not been necessary in a democratic society. There had to be a pressing social need for the interference."], "id": "5e306d82-520a-4fe3-8bc5-6f25263572b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants contested the Government\u2019s view that the interference was . They stressed that the impugned article concerned a public trial. The District Court had held at least nine hearings before the impugned article was published. The applicants were surprised that neither the Government nor the Supreme Court had mentioned the principle of the public nature of legal proceedings, given that the case related exclusively to the disclosure of the identity of a defendant in such proceedings. Finnish legislation contained no provision which required the accused person\u2019s consent prior to publication of his or her name or picture. At the relevant time the Constitution Act had not included a separate provision on the protection of privacy. The defendant\u2019s identity in a trial had never before been considered as belonging to a person\u2019s private life within the meaning of Chapter 27, Article 3a, of the Penal Code, and this principle still applied to public legal proceedings. For example, in its decision no. 2005:136 the Supreme Court majority had reached the opposite conclusion with regard to the publication of a convicted person\u2019s name, ruling that \u201ca criminal offence is not the private matter of the individual who committed the offence\u201d. In the applicants\u2019 view, the Government defined the concept of private life too broadly when they claimed that information was part of private life unless specifically found otherwise. This claim contradicted the provisions of the Public Nature of Court Proceedings Act."], "id": "e1fcd937-8db7-4489-8485-c4815da1920e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government averred that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was and pursued a legitimate aim, to which it was proportionate. In particular, they pointed out that the applicant had been acquitted and that there was no evidence that he had paid the damages or court fees imposed (they referred to St\u00e2ngu v. Romania (dec.), no. 57551/00, 9 November 2004; and St\u00e2ngu and Scutelnicu v. Romania, no. 53899/00, 31 January 2006). Moreover, the amounts imposed by the court had been moderate."], "id": "cad0abb7-9880-4ed6-af90-9ae5a81355a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicant company submitted that the refusal to allocate it any broadcasting frequencies amounted to interference with the exercise of its rights under Article 10 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan, cited above, and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov, cited above). The interference had not been , as required by the Convention, on account of the unforeseeability of the transitional legislation passed by the national parliament. The applicant company further pointed out that the Italian courts had applied the legislation in question and had found that compensation should be calculated with effect from 1 December 2004, contrary to what the ECJ had held in its judgment."], "id": "a532f8e9-0833-4108-a548-d438d702bed2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant disagrees with the Government\u2019s arguments. He submits that his conviction amounted to an interference with his right to be free to exercise his religion together with all those who turned to him for spiritual guidance. He further considers that his conviction was not . In this respect he affirms that the Treaty of Peace of Athens remains in force. The Greek Prime-Minister accepted that at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the 1923 Treaty of Peace of Lausanne. Moreover, the Court of Cassation has recently confirmed the continued validity of the Treaty of peace of Athens and legal scholars hold the same view. The Muslims had never accepted the abrogation of Law no. 2345/1920. The applicant lastly contends that his conviction was not necessary in a democratic society. He points out that the Christians and Jews in Greece have the right to elect their religious leaders. Depriving the Muslims of this possibility amounts to discriminatory treatment."], "id": "1ec1c9ed-d559-4f6d-a9e2-c6bcee5e5f71", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in respect of the decision of 7 April 2003, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. According to Article 286 of the CAO, the court's decision to impose an administrative penalty was final and not subject to appeal except for the cases . Such an exception in respect of cases concerning offences under Article 172 of the CAO was provided by Article 294 of the CAO. This Article prescribed two possibilities to have the court's decision quashed, either by requesting the prosecutor to lodge a protest or by lodging an appeal directly with the chairman of a superior court. Thus, if a party had applied to a prosecutor but the latter refused to lodge a protest, then this party was entitled to appeal to the chairman of a superior court. Moreover, a party was entitled to appeal immediately to the chairman of a superior court without having first applied to a prosecutor. The applicant was informed about this possibility, since the decision of 7 April 2003 stated that \u201cit was subject to review by the Chairman of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal\u201d. However, he used only the first of these two possibilities and did not apply to the Chairman."], "id": "268381c9-82a2-438f-963e-ae7defca3ff9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicant's conviction for publication of the second article indisputably amounted to an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. The Court accepts that this interference was ; in particular, by Articles 214.1 and 283.2.2 of the Criminal Code. For the purposes of the following analysis, the Court will also accept the Government's submission that the interference pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining public safety. Accordingly, it remains to be determined whether the interference was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "3da1b65d-fc75-4572-b2ac-cbb6385b781e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s judicial-review complaint against the refusal to approve the location of her public event had been examined before the planned date of that event and had been allowed in part. The domestic courts had found, in particular, that the town administration had failed to provide her with a well-reasoned proposal to change the location of the event. Moreover, no writ of execution had been issued. The Government further submitted that the domestic courts had had to assess whether the contested decision had been lawful and well-reasoned, and whether the procedure for adopting it had been complied with. However, the courts had no competence to examine the \u201creasonableness\u201d of any proposal to change the location."], "id": "8023b497-7cbe-4f18-8c3e-5108b93cfa46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government maintained that compulsory military service in Turkey was necessary in order to protect national and public security. They stated that any action taken against this obligation would amount to a provocation to disobey the law. In this connection, they noted that the applicant, by distributing the leaflet concerning the conscientious objector O.M.U in a public area, committed the offence of inciting others to evade military service."], "id": "92131b59-463e-44d1-8b06-7225414dba59", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government said that, on the contrary, the actions of the domestic authorities had not interfered with the first applicant\u2019s rights under Article 10. The searches had been unproductive, as the sole document seized was not one the first applicant had used as a source for his newspaper article. Any interference had, in any event, been , namely Article 65 of the Criminal Investigation Code, and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder or crime. It had also been necessary in a democratic society and was proportionate to the aim pursued. The approach followed in Goodwin v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 27 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II) could not be applied in the instant case. Firstly, the first applicant had not been required to reveal his source on pain of a fine, but had merely been subjected to a search that had resulted in the seizure of a single document. Secondly, the aim pursued by the interference in the instant case was far more important than that of protecting the economic interests of a private undertaking, as in Goodwin. The investigation into an allegation of breach of professional confidence was of direct relevance to the proper functioning of public institutions. The prevention and punishment of that offence thus constituted a \u201cpressing social need\u201d that justified the interference."], "id": "0ee7adf2-de49-4e43-8e01-3dd1e6252733", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government conceded that there had been interference with the applicants' rights, but that it was and sought to protect the reputation and rights of others. Furthermore, the interference had been necessary and proportionate within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention. The article had quoted and commented on excerpts from various Austrian newspapers. In a total of eighteen quotations it had referred to headlines and passages from various other articles reporting statements which had actually been made in connection with Hermann Maier's accident. The impugned statement, attributed to Stefan Eberharter, was the only fictitious statement amongst all those quotations. As the Austrian courts had rightly pointed out, in those circumstances only a highly concentrated reader could have been expected to realise that this passage was pure fiction with comic exaggeration. The offending statement conveyed a negative image of Mr Eberharter's person in a striking and blatant manner. Even considering the satirical nature of this statement, the limits to the guarantees under Article 10 of the Convention had clearly been transgressed as there was no factual basis for the reproach of envy and inappropriate glee. The Government also referred in this regard to the judgment in Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal (no. 37698/97, ECHR 2000\u2011X) and the decision in \u00d6sterreichische Schutzgemeinschaft f\u00fcr Nichtraucher and Rockenbauer v. Austria (no. 17200/91, Commission decision of 2 December 1991, unreported). Mr Eberharter's interest in protection against statements which seriously affected his image as a sportsman had outweighed the applicants' interest in embellishing their article, which was of no particular public interest, by means of the impugned statement. Moreover, the interference with the applicants' rights had been proportionate as the fine imposed on the first applicant was a suspended penalty and the amount of compensation the second applicant had been ordered to pay was minor."], "id": "34226075-59aa-4bf1-b2c3-7528cc36e0e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government noted that the material that had been seized from the applicant had been likely to promote racist and anti-Turkish propaganda and promote ill-will between the two communities on the island. Any limitation of the applicant\u2019s rights had been and was justified under the second paragraph of Articles 9 and 10 as being necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order and for the safeguarding of national security and/or territorial integrity."], "id": "426e088c-2dcd-4c63-ac24-4b903f9b8d32", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government argued that the interference was . Section 38(1) of the 1881 Act was an integral part of the published and accessible legislation. Moreover, case-law had established that the impugned prohibition applied to all documents from criminal case files and had set its scope, which included extracts from such documents (they cited Tourancheau and July, cited above, \u00a7 26). Lastly, the domestic courts had examined the relevant publications in the light of Article 10 of the Convention (see paragraph 47 above)."], "id": "9ada5a37-fda9-4255-a4f3-055d09b48513", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant association argued that the public exhibition of a painting contributed to a debate between the artist, the exhibitor and the public and was therefore protected under Article 10 of the Convention. It accepted that the impugned interference was , but maintained that the interference had been neither necessary nor proportionate. It submitted that the Government's submissions as regards the protection of morals were irrelevant as in the present case the domestic courts had based their decisions merely on Mr Meischberger's prevailing personal interests as protected under section 78 of the Copyright Act. Mr Meischberger could not, however, claim any personal interest worth protecting as the painting obviously did not state or suggest that the way in which he was portrayed corresponded to his actual behaviour. The painting presented the artist's personal history in an allegorical way and depicted, among several other well-known persons, the painter himself and some of his friends and benefactors. All these persons were depicted engaging in sexual acts, reflecting the painter's conception of the interrelation between power and sexuality. Mr Meischberger had been one of the figures who had characterised the history of the FP\u00d6 party in the past few years, and he had been portrayed with the other three members as an allegory of that party, which had always strongly criticised the painter's work. Furthermore, Mr Meischberger and, in any event, the actions he considered libellous were not recognisable after the painting had been partly damaged. In the applicant association's view, the fact that he had instituted proceedings only after the painting had been partly damaged demonstrated that rather than protecting his personal interests he was aiming to discredit the painter's work."], "id": "2b02b7b6-dd6f-4995-99d6-df134a19ca6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant association submitted, in particular, that the issue of the civil injunction was not . The legal prerequisites of the provisions referred to by the domestic courts had not been met. It was not true that the dissemination of the film footage interfered with the C. company\u2019s rights. Furthermore, the applicant association\u2019s actions had not been unlawful as the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression \u2013 which was, in the instant case, enforced by the constitutionally proclaimed right to animal protection \u2013 outweighed the C. company\u2019s interests."], "id": "02e459c9-ddb4-4487-ade2-d3cf60a8ac86", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government argued that were the Court to find that Article 10 was applicable and had been infringed, the interference in question was , specifically Chapter 12 of the Land Code, and that it served the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others, including those of the landlord, other tenants and third parties. As to the question whether the measure had been \u201cnecessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 10, they claimed that a fair balance had been struck between the landlord's right to property and its interest in maintaining order and good conditions on the property, on the one hand, and the applicants' right to receive information by means of a private satellite dish, on the other. Moreover, the proceedings had been fair at every level, the two instances involved having given extensive and detailed reasons after holding hearings and inspecting the satellite installation in question. Thus, having regard also to the margin of appreciation, the alleged interference had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and \u201cnecessary\u201d in terms of Article 10 \u00a7 2."], "id": "39539793-bc6e-4605-9f37-73d298247e7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government conceded that there had been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression, albeit one and pursuing the legitimate aim of the protection of the rights of others. In their view, the authorities had acted within their margin of appreciation essentially because by displaying the comments the applicants had exceeded the limits of freedom of expression as guaranteed under the Convention."], "id": "adcb65c6-79a2-483f-9ae4-5c5b8ad0d7ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government asserted that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was , namely by Article 11 (e) of Law no. 2935 dated 25 October 1983, and that it pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and crime and protecting national security as permitted by Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They maintained that the measure taken against the newspaper was within the authorities' margin of appreciation and that it was justified given the specific circumstances of the case. They submitted in this connection that vital interests of the State were at stake and that the decision to ban was in response to a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "9c298410-67d3-409f-a87c-b993676c58d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that the measure was , namely by Section 20 \u00a7 1 of the Media Act. It was foreseeable for the applicant company. This was implicitly conceded by the applicant company as otherwise it would not have requested, on 23 September 1997, that Section 20 \u00a7 4 of the Media Act be applied by analogy. Thereby the applicant company acknowledged that this provision was not applicable as such and that only by applying Section 20 \u00a7 4 by analogy, Section 20 \u00a7 1 \u2013which was in principle applicable \u2013 would no longer apply. "], "id": "e26cdcef-6f11-40f6-96a9-ae89dafdf732", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant complained that she had been compelled to disclose information that had enabled a journalistic source to be identified, in violation of her right to receive and impart information as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. In her submission, the interference with her freedom of expression was not , did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not necessary in a democratic society. The applicant further asked the Court to clarify the duties of the State under this provision in these circumstances. Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "ea771672-d44d-46c2-b022-521b659ed313", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim, as the proceedings against him had become time-barred. They therefore argued that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and thus the interference, if any, had been . They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public order and national security. The Government lastly submitted that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, given that the content of the book in question had promoted hatred, hostility, the use of arms, militancy and revenge."], "id": "58295261-e344-4f69-ad85-71b60229a6db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression had been . They referred to the Advocacy Act and the Advocate's Code of Professional Conduct. It had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of the judiciary and had been necessary in a democratic society. The penalty imposed on the applicant had not been severe. It had been proportionate to the disciplinary offence committed by the applicant."], "id": "a1260a65-9d96-402a-8e80-73dac5be9984", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government conceded that the liability to pay damages amounted to an interference with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression. The interference was nonetheless , having a basis in Chapter 27, Article 3a, of the then Penal Code and section 10, subsection 1, of the Constitution Act in force at the material time. The grounds relied on by the Finnish courts were consistent with the legitimate aim of protecting X\u2019s private life."], "id": "4212de9e-16ee-4d45-9d87-b0e85263e011", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government stressed that the applicants were convicted of the crime of agitation against a national or ethnic group, in accordance with Chapter 16 Section 8 of the Penal Code, and that all five justices of the Supreme Court reached the conclusion that this penalty was within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "a74df24e-fb79-4ee5-8aa5-b726a97ac7e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicant did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of his conviction had been suspended. They further claimed that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression, given that the proceedings against him had ended with the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment. The Government submitted that should the Court conclude that there had been an interference, that interference had been and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security, territorial integrity and public safety, as well as preventing disorder and crime. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, as a politician, the applicant had showed his support for a terrorist organisation\u2019s activities by chanting the slogans noted in the first-instance judgment. Taking into account the necessity to fight against terrorism, the Government contended that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been proportionate."], "id": "159f765c-3a86-487e-b74b-c594ed1f996d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government were sceptical about the applicants\u2019 argument that the text of the second applicant\u2019s article had made no allusion to Mr V., but had rather criticised the course of the regional election campaign and various violations committed by regional law-enforcement agencies during that campaign. In that connection, the Government contended, firstly, that the applicant had never complained to the Central Electoral Commission of Russia or to any law-enforcement body at any level of jurisdiction about the course or results of elections in the Primorksiy Region, or about any act or omission by law-enforcement agencies during those elections. According to the Government, the applicants had not attempted \u201cto establish, in accordance with a procedure , the credibility of their ideas concerning elections in the Primorskiy Region and the role in them of law\u2011enforcement agencies\u201d. Secondly, the Government stated that the applicants could have expressed their criticism by accompanying the second applicant\u2019s article with a photograph of \u201cinanimate, depersonalised objects\u201d, such as the building of the prosecutor\u2019s office of the Primorskiy Region or the regional electoral commission, a statue of Justice in a one-dollar banknote, or they could have refrained from using any illustrations at all."], "id": "8706cd02-8e96-467a-8a02-c404b2c2422f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicants agreed that the interference was and had pursued a legitimate aim. However, it was not necessary in a democratic society because the impugned articles had merely disseminated statements made by third parties and had been part of a debate on an issue of distinct public importance, namely the management of public transport and alleged illegalities committed by public officials. The applicants had acted in good faith when publishing the article and verified the statements made by the third parties. They had considered the source to be reliable, since it was a letter addressed to the President of the country, contained many details, and official reports emanating from State transport authorities were attached to it. Of course it had been impossible for them to verify the statement according to which Mr Stepaniuc had telephoned the Minister of Public Transport."], "id": "37d38290-ac49-471d-afe7-ccfeb7488eb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant company complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on its right to freedom of expression in its case had not been as the Penal Code provision applied had not defined adequately the scope of private life. Nor had the restrictions been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. B. had not been an innocent bystander but had participated actively in the incident of 4 December 1996. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest, especially since the case had been very newsworthy. Moreover, the information in the articles had in every respect been correct."], "id": "a96a737e-0d0a-4b15-9006-79866d55f0dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty clearly did not fall under sub\u2011paragraphs (a), (d), (e) or (f) of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention. Nor could it be said to fall under sub\u2014paragraph (b): there was no evidence of non\u2011compliance with a lawful order of a court and the applicant\u2019s detention could not have been to secure the fulfilment of an obligation because, at the time his arrest, there was no unfulfilled obligation on the applicant (see Vasileva v. Denmark, no. 52792/99, \u00a7 36, 25 September 2003)."], "id": "7d91604d-9e09-4633-947d-89dc1af043dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicants complained that their freedom to receive information had been breached because the restrictions imposed on them either had not been or had been more far-reaching than necessary in a democratic society. Moreover, they claimed that the consequences \u2013 the eviction from their flat and the move to another town \u2013 had been disproportionate to the aims pursued. They relied on Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "3a6568ba-d19a-4ba7-ad51-54656ddde398", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government submitted that the interference complained of by the applicant had been , pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary in a democratic society to achieve that aim. The restrictions imposed on the applicant had been necessary as they had met a pressing social need, namely the protection of the legal profession. This profession played a special role in the system of administration of justice. The decisions of the domestic courts constituted an appropriate reaction to defamatory accusations made by the applicant against advocate J.Z., accusations which had been devoid of any factual foundation and had been made in bad faith."], "id": "b044a207-713c-45c5-8bf5-3ef320d8c82b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government did not dispute the fact that the applicants' conviction for the offence of handling information protected by the secrecy of a judicial investigation or by a duty of professional confidence constituted interference with their right to freedom of expression. In their opinion, that interference was , namely by Articles 226-13 and 321-1 of the Criminal Code, which fulfilled the conditions of accessibility and foreseeability required by the Court (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999\u2011I). The Government considered, however, that the interference constituted a measure that was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others and for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Without disputing the fact that the aim of the applicants' work had been to inform the general public about an affair of state that was of interest to public opinion, they considered that it prejudiced the presumption of innocence in respect of G.M. The publication of the book just a few days after the death of Fran\u00e7ois Mitterrand had given it a certain commercial and media impact, thereby increasing the prejudice sustained by G.M. Moreover, the affair had been a very sensitive one and the book had contained precise reproductions of a number of documents from the case file."], "id": "1b487bbd-fef1-451b-b1f0-b2c67e9af26d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government were further of the view that the interference with the applicant's rights had been , namely the Constitution of 1991, the Persons and Family Act of 1949 and the Political Parties Act of 1990. It had been intended to safeguard a wide range of public interests. All three levels of court had lawfully and justifiably refused to register the association."], "id": "a7c54922-c8c8-4c9d-bd72-38523c350f51", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant company alleged a violation of its right to freedom of expression. It submitted that the domestic courts' injunctions prohibiting it from distributing the book Le Grand Secret had not been , had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d; it further complained that the \u201cexorbitant\u201d award of damages which it had also been ordered to pay had not been proportionate to the aim pursued. It relied on Article 10 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "517df59a-a149-41ad-9083-95b6bb9b6342", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government maintained that the applicants\u2019 dismissal from their posts, following their statement of 24 February 2008, was compatible with Article 10 of the Convention. Their dismissal was as it had been based, in particular, on section 40, subsection 1, point (j), of the Diplomatic Service Act which provided that a diplomat should be dismissed from office if he violated any of the restrictions prescribed in section 44 of the Act. One of those restrictions was that a diplomat had no right to use his official capacity and work facilities for the benefit of political parties or non\u2011governmental organisations, or in order to carry out other political or religious activity. Contrary to what the applicants claimed, at the relevant time the existence of a single element made the provision applicable. This Act was both accessible and foreseeable and the notions used in it were sufficiently clear. The Act had been designed to cover relations within the diplomatic service and it was thus designed for professionals. The applicants had had from 11 to 15 years\u2019 professional experience as members of diplomatic corps. Had they been uncertain about the content of the Act, they could have sought advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Taking into consideration the applicants\u2019 positions and professional experience, they had to be aware of the legal framework regulating their service, including the restrictions. They had also been well aware of the political situation in Armenia, the character of their public statement and its possible impact. The applicants could, and must, have foreseen the consequences of their statement, especially as the ambassadors who had issued the original statement had been dismissed from their posts the day before and their dismissal had been widely reported in the media."], "id": "82422eb0-34c0-4056-8e18-1b8175dc66f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the interference had pursued several of the legitimate aims listed in the second paragraph of Article 10: the protection of public safety, or crime, and the protection of the reputation or rights of others, namely those of the victims of the crimes committed by the applicant and of their families. On the latter point, they emphasised that the applicant\u2019s release on licence had caused much emotion not only among the victims\u2019 families but also, more broadly, within the local population, particularly because, on the one hand, on leaving the prison the applicant had given a speech in Basque stating that his joy at being free was not complete because the French State did not recognise the Basque Country, and on the other hand, a few months later he had taken part in a demonstration in support of Basque prisoners, during which he had denounced the injustice of the situation of those political prisoners and stated that they should be released. According to the Government, therefore, the aim had been to prevent any act or comment likely to offend the victims\u2019 families and any further criminal activity. With reference to the judgment in the case of Leroy v. France (no. 36109/03, \u00a7 36, 2 October 2008), the Government observed that in the Court\u2019s view, the legitimacy of the aims pursued by the interference should be assessed in the light of the sensitivity of the endeavour to combat terrorism and the need for the authorities to remain vigilant about acts liable to increase the attendant violence."], "id": "515507df-2e15-4da4-96f9-f5166f9a307c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government drew attention to the Constitutional Court\u2019s findings that the restriction at issue, having regard to the historical experience of Hungarian society, had been a response to a \u201cpressing social need\u201d in pursuit of the legitimate aims of the and the protection of the rights of others. That court had been satisfied that these aims could not have been achieved by less severe means than those of the criminal law. Moreover, it had found that the restriction had been proportionate to the aims pursued since it had been limited in scope, extending only to some well-defined forms of the public use of such symbols, which entailed identification with, and the intention to propagate, the totalitarian ideologies represented by them. It had been satisfied that the use of such symbols for scientific, artistic, educational or informational purposes was not prohibited."], "id": "b456b39e-a15b-4e24-b21e-a3b3fd6f199e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government argued that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression demanded from the user some duties and responsibilities, which could be subject to restrictions and penalties as were prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of \u2013 with respect to the present case \u2013 public safety, for the or crime, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others or for maintaining the authority of the judiciary. The statements made by the applicant were broadly reported by the mass media to whom he gave a press conference."], "id": "ea4e92f3-3a27-4261-af02-6d914d2cb1cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression under Article 10. They claimed in this connection that the petitions that had been the subject matter of the criminal proceedings in the instant case had been submitted as part of a collective action organised by the PKK, a terrorist organisation, as could be seen from their virtually identical wording and the timing of their submission. In these circumstances, the criminal investigation initiated in relation to those petitions had been prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the . They also argued that even if an interference were to be found on the facts, the applicants had been acquitted at the end of the criminal proceedings and there had therefore been no violation of their right to freedom of expression."], "id": "e5b11a7f-d08d-48c4-8130-c6528036e076", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["176. The applicant\u2019s case is troubling, since his intransigence has led to his spending a substantial period of time in prison for what is \u2013 in itself \u2013 usually a relatively trivial offence (see paragraph 100 above). However, the applicant\u2019s imprisonment is the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law in full knowledge of the consequences, through conduct which he knew full well not only goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society but also is liable to be alarming and morally and otherwise offensive to other, unwarned members of the public going about their ordinary business. Having regard to the considerations set out above and to the wide margin of appreciation, the Court finds that the reasons for the measures adopted by the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts, and in particular those adopted in respect of his arrest in 2011, were \u201crelevant and sufficient\u201d and that the measures met a pressing social need in response to repeated anti-social conduct by the applicant. It cannot be said that the repressive measures taken in reaction to the particular, repeated form of expression chosen by the applicant to communicate his opinion on nudity were, even if considered cumulatively, disproportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued, namely the and crime. In particular, Article 10 does not go so far as to enable individuals, even those sincerely convinced of the virtue of their own beliefs, to repeatedly impose their antisocial conduct on other, unwilling members of society and then to claim a disproportionate interference with the exercise of their freedom of expression when the State, in the performance of its duty to protect the public from public nuisances, enforces the law in respect of such deliberately repetitive antisocial conduct. Even though, cumulatively, the penalties imposed on the applicant undoubtedly did entail serious consequences for him, the Court cannot find in the circumstances of his case, having regard in particular to his own responsibility for his plight, that the public authorities in Scotland unjustifiably interfered with his exercise of freedom of expression. Accordingly, no violation of Article 10 of the Convention has been established."], "id": "1194e603-d78a-4272-a716-2735d3e4c850", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had been prescribed by law. They noted that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. The Government further contended that the interference in question had pursued the aims of protecting national security, territorial integrity and public safety as well as the or crime."], "id": "12c6cfbd-3394-4861-807a-5bef02af167c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of national security and territorial integrity and the and crime. They further submitted that the TKP/ML was a terrorist organisation, and that slogans praising that organisation had been chanted during the public gathering in question. Submitting that section 7 of Law no. 3713 had been amended in 2013, the Government left the issue of the necessity of the interference in a democratic society to the Court\u2019s discretion."], "id": "f2b02896-556c-40a4-b5e7-e32ba103b167", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested his argument. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security and territorial integrity and . The Government further contended that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society. They noted that in the article in question Abdullah \u00d6calan was referred to as \u201cthe ideological and political leader of the Kurdish movement\u201d and the HPG, the PJA and the KONGRA-GEL were described as \u201cfacilitators of the military, political and ideological development formed under the leadership of Abdullah \u00d6calan\u201d. According to the Government, the publication of a photograph of Abdullah \u00d6calan holding a weapon demonstrated that the purpose of the publication of the article was to advocate and propagate terrorism. The Government lastly noted that the PKK was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of states and international organisations, such as the United Nations, NATO and the United States of America, and thus represented a serious threat not only to the internal security of Turkey but also to the international public order."], "id": "bbf73e21-f16e-41cd-9969-ef4782788075", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government alleged that in view of the temporary and transient nature of the \u201cdetention\u201d, there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to her private life or home. In any event, any interference by the authorities had been in accordance with the law and necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, and for the or crime. The authorities had not transgressed the principles of reasonableness and proportionality."], "id": "890d293b-de29-4845-9971-e3b5a5f5259c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government submitted that the banning measures provided for by the Law of 1881, as amended, and fleshed out by the subsequent case-law pursued a legitimate aim, namely the , and were most frequently used against racist publications or publications inciting people to violence. The applicant association submitted that the provisions in question reflected discriminatory ideas based on the nationality of the authors of a publication and on language."], "id": "8298fb45-f1a8-48ee-9f9b-dfce32299ba5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested their argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicants did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of their conviction had been suspended. They further submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security and public safety as well as the and crime. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, by referring to Abdullah \u00d6calan as a \u201cleading figure\u201d and an interlocutor for the State of Turkey, the applicants had conveyed to the public the idea that their client was still active. Moreover, their statements contained expressions referring to the strategy of a terrorist organisation. Noting that the applicants had not been imprisoned or subjected to any other restrictions, the Government contended that the interference in question had therefore not been disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "28346b43-0a2f-4626-aaa8-68c7a3935019", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government further submitted that the civil injunction was necessary to protect the C. company\u2019s personality rights as well as its right to respect for its home and to its freedom of occupation. The interference with these rights was of a particular weight because the film footage had been unlawfully made under false pretences. The injunction was further necessary for the prevention of crime. The applicant association had agitated against the C. company to such a degree that criminal offences had already been committed. There were fears that the further dissemination of the film by the applicant association would lead to the commitment of further crimes. Finally, the civil injunction was necessary for the , as the danger existed that the dissemination of the film material by the applicant could lead to demonstrations involving violent acts."], "id": "10c2fdf4-5a23-4619-b93d-91be84f8950a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government further submitted that the interference complained of had been justified in order to safeguard order and security within the penitentiary, which included preventing criminal offences and thwarting escape attempts. The interference thus pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public safety, the or crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as set out in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "ee55a913-b5a8-48e1-89a5-9fdc11a83ad6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant submitted that in any event the impugned article could not have had the effect of inciting people to hatred or violence since the journal in which it was published had been confiscated by the order of Istanbul State Security Court on 2 January 1994 before it could be distributed and sold to the public. The applicant affirmed that with the confiscation order any alleged threat to the or crime had already been averted."], "id": "bba1adce-62dd-4a1d-a48c-48588b62ef77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government concluded that both the general measures taken in relation to the assembly as a whole and the individual measures taken against the applicant personally had been justified under Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They submitted that the measures in question had complied with domestic law, had been necessary \u201cfor the or crime\u201d and \u201cfor the protection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d and had remained strictly proportionate."], "id": "e48727bb-58e3-47bd-a11c-cd6875e59f69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They submitted that the interference with her right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of national security and public order, as well as the and crime. The Government further submitted that in her speech the applicant had legitimised the PKK and called for a moment of silence for the terrorists who had died during the conflicts with the Turkish Armed Forces. Besides, following her speech, the crowd had made a \u201cV\u201d sign. The Government took the view that, having regard to the content of her speech and to the fact that the applicant was not a politician, her speech could not be protected as political discourse. They further submitted that the first-instance court had assessed the circumstances of the event as a whole and had had regard to the other speakers\u2019 speeches and the slogans chanted by the crowd when it had convicted the applicant. The Government also contended that the investigation against the applicant had not only been based on her acts during the event of 21 March 2007 but also on the books and documents found in her house. They lastly noted that the applicant had been sentenced to imprisonment of only one year, the minimum possible sentence under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. In sum, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "d6b2e391-f21a-42c3-9388-1c3001504ec0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that the contested provision had been inserted into the Criminal Code because twentieth-century dictatorships had caused much suffering to the Hungarian people. The display of symbols related to dictatorships created uneasy feelings, fear or indignation in many citizens, and sometimes even violated the rights of the deceased. To wear the symbols of a one-party dictatorship in public was, in the Government\u2019s view, tantamount to the very antithesis of the rule of law, and must be seen as a demonstration against pluralist democracy. In line with the Constitutional Court\u2019s position in the matter, the Government contended that the measure in question pursued the legitimate aims of the and the protection of the rights of others."], "id": "29a6ce1b-0cc6-4c73-9b82-b5124b737a37", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "territorial integrity", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim as the proceedings against him had ended, due to being time-barred. They therefore considered that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and thus the interference, if any, was prescribed by law. They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protection of national security, and public safety as well as prevention of crime. As to the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Government stated that they were aware of the Court\u2019s case-law in that field. They nevertheless noted that the applicant had been convicted of generating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an organisation which was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of international organisations and states, such as the United States of America, the United Nations, the NATO and the European Union."], "id": "af6e0ee4-94cc-4046-a5b7-63f3f971151a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "territorial integrity", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government acknowledged the existence of an interference in the instant case but submitted that it was justified under the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention. The interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had been based on Article 6 of Law no. 3713 as well as Additional section 2 of Law no. 5680. The interference had been in the interests of national security, and the protection of the rights of others owing to the disclosure of the identities of certain public officials."], "id": "c3f2b5e0-0c7a-4e8c-a6b4-207f93d5f292", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "territorial integrity", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicant did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of his conviction had been suspended. They further claimed that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression, given that the proceedings against him had ended with the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment. The Government submitted that should the Court conclude that there had been an interference, that interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security, and public safety, as well as preventing disorder and crime. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, as a politician, the applicant had showed his support for a terrorist organisation\u2019s activities by chanting the slogans noted in the first-instance judgment. Taking into account the necessity to fight against terrorism, the Government contended that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been proportionate."], "id": "3644df8e-c885-43a5-a517-3ed2f20df597", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "territorial integrity", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government noted that the material that had been seized from the applicant had been likely to promote racist and anti-Turkish propaganda and promote ill-will between the two communities on the island. Any limitation of the applicant\u2019s rights had been prescribed by law and was justified under the second paragraph of Articles 9 and 10 as being necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order and for the safeguarding of national security and/or ."], "id": "484ced68-c148-4c33-aa0b-24d62654e026", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "territorial integrity", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had been prescribed by law. They noted that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. The Government further contended that the interference in question had pursued the aims of protecting national security, and public safety as well as the prevention of disorder or crime."], "id": "24a2f3e7-c277-4e1e-8f72-79db6fcf8a78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "territorial integrity", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of national security and and the prevention of disorder and crime. They further submitted that the TKP/ML was a terrorist organisation, and that slogans praising that organisation had been chanted during the public gathering in question. Submitting that section 7 of Law no. 3713 had been amended in 2013, the Government left the issue of the necessity of the interference in a democratic society to the Court\u2019s discretion."], "id": "99786726-f74a-49e6-aa66-a80fabcc0aa5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "territorial integrity", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government argued that Article 10 of the Convention had not been violated. According to them it is of essential importance that the freedom of expression not only stipulates the right to hold opinions, but also imposes duties and responsibilities, and therefore cannot be interpreted as allowing the promotion or dissemination of the ideas of ethnic hatred, hostility and the superiority of one nation vis-\u00e0-vis other ethnic groups. The Government admitted that by imposing an administrative punishment there was interference with the applicant's freedom of expression; however it had been justified by the necessity to protect the democratic values on the basis of which Lithuanian society is based. Stressing the sensitivity of the questions related to national minorities and after the re-establishment of independence on 11 March 1990, the Government submitted that \u201cLithuanian calendar 2000\u201d was clearly promoting the extreme ideology of nationalism, which rejected the idea of the integration of civil society, incited ethnic hatred and intolerance, and questioned territorial integrity and promoted national superiority, which had been proved by the notes sent by the embassies of the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation. By withdrawing the publication from distribution and imposing an administrative warning on the applicant, the authorities had sought to prevent the spreading of ideas which might violate the rights of ethnic minorities living in Lithuania as well as endanger Lithuania's relations with its neighbouring countries. In view of the clear threat to these legitimate interests posed by the publication, as well as the minor nature of the penalty ordered against the applicant, the Government considered that the interference had been compatible with the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention."], "id": "7a0be0e8-7216-467b-a13e-059d3eaf0c29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "territorial integrity", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security, public safety and , as well preventing crime. The Government further submitted that the applicant had intended to encourage the public to engage in violence and resistance against the Turkish authorities and to manipulate the crowd. Besides, following his speech, the crowd had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK. The Government further submitted that the first-instance court had applied the principles embodied in Article 10, basing itself on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts. They lastly noted that the applicant had been sentenced to prison only for ten months and he had served part of that sentence. In sum, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "22d9344e-de10-4a17-9df6-09f8307bb8a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "territorial integrity", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They submitted at the outset that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, as he had failed to raise his Convention grievances before the domestic authorities. As regards the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint, the Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security, public safety and , as well preventing disorder and crime. The Government further submitted that the slogans chanted had incited violence and that the concert had turned into a meeting of a terrorist organisation. The Government also noted that the applicant had been on the concert\u2019s organising committee, and not simply a member of the audience. According to the Government, the applicant had had a responsibility to prevent disorder and to protect public safety: a responsibility which he had failed to discharge, as he had manipulated the crowd by chanting slogans. Noting that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on his participation in a propaganda event in favour of the DHKP/C \u2011 a terrorist organisation that had committed heinous acts \u2013 and on his chanting slogans in favour of that organisation, the Government concluded by stating that the applicant\u2019s conviction had responded to a pressing social need and had therefore been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "547ae2a5-f8af-46f4-9b4f-18b8654ee4ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "territorial integrity", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that in democratic societies, in which several religions coexisted within one and the same population, it was necessary to place restrictions on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion or belief in order to reconcile the interests of the various groups and ensure that everyone\u2019s beliefs were respected. Rules in this sphere could vary from one country to another in accordance with national traditions and the requirements imposed by the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others and to maintain public order. Accordingly, the choice of the extent and form such regulations took had to be left up to a point to the State concerned, as it depended on the specific domestic context. They referred in this context to Leyla \u015eahin v. Turkey ([GC], no. 44774/98, \u00a7\u00a7 106-09, ECHR 2005\u2011XI). The Government interpreted the cases of Cha\u2019are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France ([GC], no. 27417/95, \u00a7 84, ECHR 2000\u2011VII) and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (25 November 1996, \u00a7 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V) to mean that where questions concerning the relationship between State and religions were at stake, on which opinion in a democratic society might differ widely, the role of the national decision-making body had to be given special importance. Given that Said Nursi\u2019s books incited religious discord and proclaimed religious superiority and could therefore provoke serious religious clashes with unpredictable negative consequences, the ban on their publication and dissemination had pursued the aims of protecting and public safety in Russia, public order and the rights of others. Moreover, it had been necessary in a democratic society, taking into account the tense ethnic situation in the country and the possible negative impact of those books on non-religious citizens."], "id": "ffc91dfb-f057-42b5-a0ac-a91ff2f473bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "territorial integrity", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested his argument. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security and and prevention of disorder. The Government further contended that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society. They noted that in the article in question Abdullah \u00d6calan was referred to as \u201cthe ideological and political leader of the Kurdish movement\u201d and the HPG, the PJA and the KONGRA-GEL were described as \u201cfacilitators of the military, political and ideological development formed under the leadership of Abdullah \u00d6calan\u201d. According to the Government, the publication of a photograph of Abdullah \u00d6calan holding a weapon demonstrated that the purpose of the publication of the article was to advocate and propagate terrorism. The Government lastly noted that the PKK was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of states and international organisations, such as the United Nations, NATO and the United States of America, and thus represented a serious threat not only to the internal security of Turkey but also to the international public order."], "id": "9780559d-8782-47cd-976c-d9f5d4ef72ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government submitted that the complaint under Article 10 was manifestly ill\u2011founded. They maintained that the restrictions on the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been prescribed by law (Article 212 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code) and had served the aim of maintaining the authority of the judiciary. In the long term it had also served the aim of maintaining and prevention of crimes. They emphasised that the authority of the justice system, its stability and credibility were of essential value in maintaining public order and combating crimes. These restrictions had been necessary within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in order to maintain the authority and the credibility of the justice system (cf. Ska\u0142ka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, \u00a7 40, 27 May 2003)."], "id": "dc93f41b-cdea-4730-8442-b81f7ecc59e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They submitted at the outset that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, as he had failed to raise his Convention grievances before the domestic authorities. As regards the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint, the Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security, and territorial integrity, as well preventing disorder and crime. The Government further submitted that the slogans chanted had incited violence and that the concert had turned into a meeting of a terrorist organisation. The Government also noted that the applicant had been on the concert\u2019s organising committee, and not simply a member of the audience. According to the Government, the applicant had had a responsibility to prevent disorder and to protect public safety: a responsibility which he had failed to discharge, as he had manipulated the crowd by chanting slogans. Noting that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on his participation in a propaganda event in favour of the DHKP/C \u2011 a terrorist organisation that had committed heinous acts \u2013 and on his chanting slogans in favour of that organisation, the Government concluded by stating that the applicant\u2019s conviction had responded to a pressing social need and had therefore been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "5c8dc8c1-ce39-4361-85cf-a187ac4a1f12", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They submitted that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he had not raised his Convention grievances before the domestic authorities. As regards the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint, the Government submitted that the interference with his right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security, and the rights of others, as well as preventing disorder and crime. Noting that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on his participation in an illegal demonstration which had turned into a propaganda event in favour of the PKK and on the fact that he had acted together with and led the other demonstrators, the Government claimed that the present case was different from the case of Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05, 1 February 2011). They concluded that the applicant\u2019s conviction had responded to a pressing social need and had therefore been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "f3eba7b8-27ea-4abe-9a12-95c91be5a831", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government argued that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary in a democratic society. The applicants\u2019 convictions had been based on Article 215 of the Criminal Code and had been justified by the need to protect national security, and to prevent disorder and crime. The Government further considered that the interference had been proportionate to its aims, as the applicants had received minor fines and the second applicant\u2019s sentence had subsequently been suspended for five years."], "id": "18bcc925-5d39-4a07-9636-fd62ef0cc751", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had been prescribed by law. They noted that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. The Government further contended that the interference in question had pursued the aims of protecting national security, territorial integrity and as well as the prevention of disorder or crime."], "id": "e5126748-0166-4bfb-a1ca-87cc8909c56c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government argued that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression demanded from the user some duties and responsibilities, which could be subject to restrictions and penalties as were prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of \u2013 with respect to the present case \u2013 , for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others or for maintaining the authority of the judiciary. The statements made by the applicant were broadly reported by the mass media to whom he gave a press conference."], "id": "c3babb02-c3dc-4e1a-b125-9b5be0263a42", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the interference had pursued several of the legitimate aims listed in the second paragraph of Article 10: the protection of , prevention of disorder or crime, and the protection of the reputation or rights of others, namely those of the victims of the crimes committed by the applicant and of their families. On the latter point, they emphasised that the applicant\u2019s release on licence had caused much emotion not only among the victims\u2019 families but also, more broadly, within the local population, particularly because, on the one hand, on leaving the prison the applicant had given a speech in Basque stating that his joy at being free was not complete because the French State did not recognise the Basque Country, and on the other hand, a few months later he had taken part in a demonstration in support of Basque prisoners, during which he had denounced the injustice of the situation of those political prisoners and stated that they should be released. According to the Government, therefore, the aim had been to prevent any act or comment likely to offend the victims\u2019 families and any further criminal activity. With reference to the judgment in the case of Leroy v. France (no. 36109/03, \u00a7 36, 2 October 2008), the Government observed that in the Court\u2019s view, the legitimacy of the aims pursued by the interference should be assessed in the light of the sensitivity of the endeavour to combat terrorism and the need for the authorities to remain vigilant about acts liable to increase the attendant violence."], "id": "1dad8c90-a447-4b69-a781-a515ad71accf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government maintained that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression was compatible with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 10. The interference was based on Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the applicant\u2019s conviction was necessary in order to maintain national security and . The Government also stressed that the applicant\u2019s speech contained provocative views."], "id": "d4ee71b9-359f-4c02-8917-18eb69c9e78f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicant's conviction for publication of the second article indisputably amounted to an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. The Court accepts that this interference was prescribed by law; in particular, by Articles 214.1 and 283.2.2 of the Criminal Code. For the purposes of the following analysis, the Court will also accept the Government's submission that the interference pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining . Accordingly, it remains to be determined whether the interference was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "b2451b66-0885-448f-a51c-ee0e1dac5934", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government alleged that in view of the temporary and transient nature of the \u201cdetention\u201d, there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to her private life or home. In any event, any interference by the authorities had been in accordance with the law and necessary in the interests of national security, , and for the prevention of disorder or crime. The authorities had not transgressed the principles of reasonableness and proportionality."], "id": "04fb5820-f63b-496d-865f-0426a5e1fedb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Government also argued that, even assuming there had been interference with the applicant\u2019s rights, such interference was prescribed by sections 7 and 8 of the Public Gatherings Act; it aimed at ensuring , preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others. The interference had been necessary since the applicant had made unsubstantiated statements accusing judges of criminal offences, attacking their reputation and honour, and thus undermining the authority of the judiciary. The dispersal of the demonstration had also been justified, since the applicant and others had acted in violation of the Public Gatherings Act. In any event, the Public Gatherings Act expressly prohibited public events in the immediate vicinity of court buildings, including the buildings of the Supreme Court of Russia."], "id": "a7db9400-b7e3-4fcc-bd1a-ee2694f74317", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that in democratic societies, in which several religions coexisted within one and the same population, it was necessary to place restrictions on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion or belief in order to reconcile the interests of the various groups and ensure that everyone\u2019s beliefs were respected. Rules in this sphere could vary from one country to another in accordance with national traditions and the requirements imposed by the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others and to maintain public order. Accordingly, the choice of the extent and form such regulations took had to be left up to a point to the State concerned, as it depended on the specific domestic context. They referred in this context to Leyla \u015eahin v. Turkey ([GC], no. 44774/98, \u00a7\u00a7 106-09, ECHR 2005\u2011XI). The Government interpreted the cases of Cha\u2019are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France ([GC], no. 27417/95, \u00a7 84, ECHR 2000\u2011VII) and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (25 November 1996, \u00a7 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V) to mean that where questions concerning the relationship between State and religions were at stake, on which opinion in a democratic society might differ widely, the role of the national decision-making body had to be given special importance. Given that Said Nursi\u2019s books incited religious discord and proclaimed religious superiority and could therefore provoke serious religious clashes with unpredictable negative consequences, the ban on their publication and dissemination had pursued the aims of protecting territorial integrity and in Russia, public order and the rights of others. Moreover, it had been necessary in a democratic society, taking into account the tense ethnic situation in the country and the possible negative impact of those books on non-religious citizens."], "id": "14125d2d-d269-446d-a5b4-72a07d638a59", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights had been lawful, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been proportionate to that aim. The domestic legal provisions governing the notification and conduct of public events struck a fair balance between the interests of the organisers of and participants in such events on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of all others \u2013 in particular, by providing for adequate measures to prevent and punish infringements of public order and ."], "id": "9edfeb7d-661f-4899-851d-e78c75a40e51", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government considered that the restriction was proportionate to the aims pursued. Granting access only to specific websites that constituted the official databases of legislation and the database of judicial decisions was justified by the demands of security. Making additional websites available and technically as secure as possible would incur additional expense. In view of the fact that all websites contained references, search engines, links (including to social networks), and the like, and having regard to the fact that websites were updated on a daily basis, it was impossible to completely avoid or prevent security vulnerabilities. It could not be ruled out, for technical reasons, that prisoners could misuse the Internet. Thus, granting prisoners access to additional websites would increase the risk that they might obtain information prejudicial to the realisation of the objectives of imprisonment. The effort needed to reduce the risks arising from such additional access \u2013 such risks could not be completely eliminated \u2013 would be excessive in comparison with the benefits gained by granting prisoners wider access to the Internet. Thus, the distinction between permitted and prohibited websites was a carefully weighed compromise between the applicant\u2019s rights and ."], "id": "f4afe8fe-48c6-4f8b-ac5f-c5d6126b7221", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicant did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of his conviction had been suspended. They further claimed that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression, given that the proceedings against him had ended with the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment. The Government submitted that should the Court conclude that there had been an interference, that interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security, territorial integrity and , as well as preventing disorder and crime. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, as a politician, the applicant had showed his support for a terrorist organisation\u2019s activities by chanting the slogans noted in the first-instance judgment. Taking into account the necessity to fight against terrorism, the Government contended that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been proportionate."], "id": "9967db42-a3d7-4424-a050-50529b774ad5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested their argument. They claimed at the outset that the applicants did not have victim status, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, given that the pronouncement of their conviction had been suspended. They further submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security and as well as the prevention of disorder and crime. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, by referring to Abdullah \u00d6calan as a \u201cleading figure\u201d and an interlocutor for the State of Turkey, the applicants had conveyed to the public the idea that their client was still active. Moreover, their statements contained expressions referring to the strategy of a terrorist organisation. Noting that the applicants had not been imprisoned or subjected to any other restrictions, the Government contended that the interference in question had therefore not been disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "4612a779-3451-44b8-be05-63ab64a54a32", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government noted that the material that had been seized from the applicant had been likely to promote racist and anti-Turkish propaganda and promote ill-will between the two communities on the island. Any limitation of the applicant\u2019s rights had been prescribed by law and was justified under the second paragraph of Articles 9 and 10 as being necessary in a democratic society in the interests of , for the protection of public order and for the safeguarding of national security and/or territorial integrity."], "id": "f5fd1dba-cb03-4900-9b08-604d228da63f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim as the proceedings against him had ended, due to being time-barred. They therefore considered that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and thus the interference, if any, was prescribed by law. They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protection of national security, territorial integrity and as well as prevention of crime. As to the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Government stated that they were aware of the Court\u2019s case-law in that field. They nevertheless noted that the applicant had been convicted of generating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an organisation which was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of international organisations and states, such as the United States of America, the United Nations, the NATO and the European Union."], "id": "2f364b45-3a54-4067-8b1e-d44fe14ff05d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression had had a legal basis and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security, and territorial integrity, as well preventing crime. The Government further submitted that the applicant had intended to encourage the public to engage in violence and resistance against the Turkish authorities and to manipulate the crowd. Besides, following his speech, the crowd had chanted slogans in favour of the PKK. The Government further submitted that the first-instance court had applied the principles embodied in Article 10, basing itself on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts. They lastly noted that the applicant had been sentenced to prison only for ten months and he had served part of that sentence. In sum, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "2bcd20bd-0bb1-468a-8007-eb29c0432321", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government further submitted that the interference complained of had been justified in order to safeguard order and security within the penitentiary, which included preventing criminal offences and thwarting escape attempts. The interference thus pursued the legitimate aims of protecting , the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as set out in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "7e8620c0-3588-4abd-985e-03251c280ee3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant emphasised that the self-declarations did not advocate the use of violence against the State or against individual persons. As the Government themselves had confirmed, the PKK's activities had been largely peaceful at the relevant time. The national courts did not establish a real threat to public order or safety by the PKK in general or the self declaration campaign, nor did they examine or find any proven actual impact of the PKK on the national security or . None of the decisions reviewed the legality of the ban on the PKK or questioned its necessity in a democratic society. Insofar as the Government relied on the European Union's list of terrorist organisation, the applicant submitted that these listings, according to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, were unlawful and could not be the basis for criminal consequences on individuals. The national courts had failed to determine whether the interference with freedom of expression reflected a pressing social need in the individual case. Regardless of necessary considerations on other levels, for instance the determination of the penalty, they had ruled that freedom of speech had to generally take second place and there was no weighing on this stage."], "id": "9cde3a00-a2e4-4d85-b556-9b641f58ca77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicants considered that national law did not provide sufficient safeguards against censorship or undue political influence. Thus, neither the national legislation nor TRM's internal regulations defined the concept of \u201ceditorial policy\u201d. They claimed that the State had not discharged its under Article 10 because it had failed to enact legislation which would offer safeguards against abusive interferences by public authorities and which would clearly indicate the scope and the limits of the discretion enjoyed by those authorities. Moreover, the Parliament, by refusing to modify Law No. 1320-XV in the way recommended by the Council of Europe, had maintained the State's control over the Public Company, which was precisely the cause of censorship. By these actions and omissions the State had also infringed the right of the population to be informed. The Parliamentary Assembly and the international experts' reports supported the view that national law was unsatisfactory in that it gave overall control of TRM to the Government and did not provide adequate safeguards of independence."], "id": "27745153-8e10-4665-b0c8-a1f3a03e7f46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["157. The applicant considered that the State had failed to provide him with access to information in violation of his rights under Article 8. The Court observes that, in addition to the primarily negative undertakings in Article 8 of the Convention, there may be inherent in effective respect for private life. In determining whether or not such a positive obligation exists, it will have regard to the fair balance that has to be struck"], "id": "fa9fcb6f-99fb-4273-853c-ac661b2e3a10", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government claimed that the intelligence agency did not hold the information requested (they referred to the intelligence agency\u2019s letter of 23 September 2008 mentioned in paragraph 10 above). They added that freedom to receive information merely prohibited a State from restricting a person from receiving information that others wished or might be willing to impart to him; that freedom could not be construed as imposing on a State, in the circumstances of the present case, to collect and disseminate information of its own motion (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, \u00a7 53, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I)."], "id": "2e4152df-521d-4f27-890a-333aa7ed99ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government submitted that in the event that the Court was minded to find Article 10 applicable to the case, the State\u2019s authorities would be responsible only in respect of their arising under that provision and not for any direct interference with the applicant\u2019s rights. In the present case these obligations had been fully complied with. In the Polish legal system all individuals were free to express their views. Private parties were free to create and shape their relations in compliance with the principle of freedom of economic activity that governed commercial relations in the free market in a democratic society."], "id": "92771235-4116-41d7-9f83-c5624a66a457", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant further maintained that States have under Article 10 of the Convention. Since, in the present case, the Hungarian authorities had not needed to collect the impugned information, because it had been ready and available, their only obligation would have been not to bar access to it. The disclosure of public information on request in fact falls within the notion of the right \u201cto receive\u201d, as understood by Article 10 \u00a7 1. This provision protects not only those who wish to inform others but also those who seek to receive such information. To hold otherwise would mean that freedom of expression is no more than the absence of censorship, which would be incompatible with the above-mentioned positive obligations."], "id": "64445e61-bbd6-425a-9e0c-49376b6be832", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government further took the view that, as the Chamber had found in paragraph 78 of its judgment, the present case had to be examined from the perspective of the State\u2019s (in the light of Rommelfanger v. Germany, no. 12242/86, Commission decision of 6 September 1989, Decisions and Reports 62). The Government argued that the State had fulfilled its obligations in the present case."], "id": "334374ed-35e9-43ac-9bbe-fec6af71e154", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government contended that the applicants could not rely on the moratorium on the Act on the Re-establishment of the State of Lithuania as it never came into effect since the precondition of the USSR opening bilateral negotiations was not respected (paragraphs 14-17 and 67-68 above). The applicants were aware of this as they and the Soviet Union had continued to insist that Lithuania renounce that Act (paragraphs 14, 19 and 20 above). In any event, the Act itself did not fall within the proposed moratorium and its validity remained unaffected. Moreover, the Supreme Council did not suspend any of its legislative or other activities aimed at consolidating the restoration of independence. The conditional moratorium thus had no impact on the of the criminal nature of the applicants\u2019 behaviour. Instead they sought to prevent negotiations with the USSR, preferring the use of force. The recognition of this situation by the USSR and the applicants is demonstrated by the repeated demands during the periods of 29 June - 28 December 1990 and January - August 1991 that Lithuania renounce its legislation of 11 March 1990 and reinstate the Soviet Constitution."], "id": "61626769-f7e9-4633-be5e-ffa042a5d4a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["155. The applicant failed, in the context of his written submissions under Article 10, to explain the nature of his challenge to the legality of the measures taken against him. Having regard to the Court\u2019s finding in Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02. 18 March 2003, that the definition of the offence of breach of the peace as stipulated in Smith v. Donnelly (see paragraph 100 above) was sufficiently precise to provide reasonable of the actions which might fall within the remit of the offence, the Court is satisfied that the interference in the present case both had a sufficient legal basis in domestic law and was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d in the wider sense of having the quality required of \u201claw\u201d in a democratic society."], "id": "93d8bdff-67c4-4696-9a14-8c62365eb364", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government agreed that the first applicant\u2019s conviction, the fines imposed on him, and the obligation to pay compensation and legal expenses to the former Prime Minister constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression. However, the interference had a basis in Finnish law, in particular in Chapter 24, section 8, of the Penal Code which fulfilled the criteria of precision, clarity and . The first applicant had consulted a lawyer before publishing the book and he had thus been aware of the legal risks connected with the publishing. The interference was thus \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the private life and reputation of others."], "id": "46060b6a-3c81-4bca-9288-d4ffbbdfef14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants argued that the domestic legislation concerning the liability of the press for defamation lacked clarity and and that the domestic courts had disregarded the relevant legislative guarantees against punishment for unverified statements made by journalists. They submitted that the courts had not taken into account the fact that they had not disseminated information about G. T., that the second applicant had not given his permission for the publication of the material, that they had sufficiently distanced themselves from the publication, and that G. T. had not used the opportunity of asking the editorial board for a retraction before bringing defamation proceedings in the courts."], "id": "6ef0c337-1b79-4beb-b274-80069b168e55", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government did not dispute the fact that the applicants' conviction for the offence of handling information protected by the secrecy of a judicial investigation or by a duty of professional confidence constituted interference with their right to freedom of expression. In their opinion, that interference was prescribed by law, namely by Articles 226-13 and 321-1 of the Criminal Code, which fulfilled the conditions of accessibility and required by the Court (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999\u2011I). The Government considered, however, that the interference constituted a measure that was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others and for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Without disputing the fact that the aim of the applicants' work had been to inform the general public about an affair of state that was of interest to public opinion, they considered that it prejudiced the presumption of innocence in respect of G.M. The publication of the book just a few days after the death of Fran\u00e7ois Mitterrand had given it a certain commercial and media impact, thereby increasing the prejudice sustained by G.M. Moreover, the affair had been a very sensitive one and the book had contained precise reproductions of a number of documents from the case file."], "id": "f3328685-ddb7-4bd4-b9c0-873d0f027a43", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicant company submitted that the refusal to allocate it any broadcasting frequencies amounted to interference with the exercise of its rights under Article 10 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan, cited above, and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov, cited above). The interference had not been prescribed by law, as required by the Convention, on account of the un of the transitional legislation passed by the national parliament. The applicant company further pointed out that the Italian courts had applied the legislation in question and had found that compensation should be calculated with effect from 1 December 2004, contrary to what the ECJ had held in its judgment."], "id": "cd9c9256-b4da-4a5c-858a-3711c1e97ae7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicant disputed, in essence, that the domestic law applied in his case had met the criteria of and accessibility, or, in other words, that his conviction had been \u201clawful\u201d within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. In this connection, the Court notes firstly that, as it has already held above, the State Secrets Act, taken together with Presidential Decree no. 1203, were in themselves sufficiently precise to enable the applicant to foresee the consequences of his actions. In so far as the applicant complained of the extensive and therefore unforeseeable interpretation of the said legal instruments by the domestic courts, which had allegedly relied on an unpublished ministerial decree, it is clear from the facts of the present case that the applicant, by virtue of his office, had access to Decree no. 055, read it and signed a document to that effect in autumn 1996 (see paragraph 19 above), that is, prior to the commission of the offences imputed to him. Against this background, the Court rejects the applicant's argument concerning the alleged lack of accessibility and foreseeability of the domestic law applied in his case."], "id": "42deeef7-3da9-483a-9f4b-a0170f90a386", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant company submitted that there had been a disproportionate interference with its freedom of expression. At the end of the proceedings, it had had to pay Ms L. a very high sum in damages (more than fifty times the average annual wage in Ireland) as well as her high legal costs, including those incurred on appeal. It was a very far-reaching interference with its right to freedom of expression that was not \u201cprescribed by law\u201d within the meaning of this Court\u2019s case-law, since the domestic legal framework failed to meet the criteria of accessibility, and clarity. The domestic law in force at the time allowed the jury in a defamation case practically unlimited discretion in assessing damages. According to the applicant company, as seen in the present case, the trial judge was not permitted to offer any useful or meaningful guidance to the jury, such as relevant comparisons or even a range of figures. While the 2009 Act provided for guidance to be given to juries in relation to damages, it did not fundamentally alter the domestic system. There was even a risk that the amount given to Ms L. would be taken as setting a benchmark in future defamation cases."], "id": "104862b7-310f-4fc9-b59a-efcdd9c0b25d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants did not dispute that the District Court\u2019s judgment had a basis in national law, namely the Law on Civil Wrongs (Cap. 148, see paragraph 35 above). However, they maintained that the relevant national law failed to satisfy the requirement because in their view the test concerning the defence of qualified privilege, as applied by the district court and Supreme Court in the present case, was too vague and uncertain."], "id": "e8e2e287-2428-4adf-be7e-988a7ec3d44e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant further submitted that Russian law did not define the term \u201ccampaign for participation\u201d. The Constitutional Court had explained in its Ruling no. 15-\u041f of 30 October 2003 that \u201ccampaigning\u201d meant \u201ccalling for participation\u201d. It did not explain, however, the difference between \u201ccalling for participation\u201d and disseminating information about a forthcoming public event, its preparation and the advancement of the approval procedures. In the absence of clear legal criteria for distinguishing between \u201ccampaigning\u201d and \u201cdisseminating information\u201d, any information about a public event, its aims, type, location, time and estimated number of participants could be qualified by the authorities as campaigning for participation in that event. The domestic law therefore lacked clarity and ."], "id": "ffc2688c-5951-4455-bb01-b62383710bfe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that there had been an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression on account of, inter alia, the national courts' failure to state by which laws the continued confiscation was justified. He submitted that, by virtue of the lack of certainty, neither the accessibility nor the requirements of that provision had been satisfied. Article 10 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "96f19063-78d2-45e6-b882-9045589de571", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant contended that the legal basis for the restriction of his freedom of expression was not sufficiently foreseeable as required by the Court\u2019s case-law. He alleged, in particular, that Slovakian law, as interpreted and applied by the domestic courts, does not adequately define what is defamation in that it does not distinguish between value judgments and facts and between public officials and private persons. The of the restriction could also be questioned because the applicant had justifiably believed that the national courts would proceed in compliance with the case-law under the Convention relating to the notions of fair comment and burden of proof in similar cases."], "id": "339893c5-1da2-4b23-8f44-1553af6b8ad4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government argued that the case did not concern the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression as such but a particular form of political expression falling within the scope of Article 11 governing freedom of assembly. They had not been prevented from expressing their political views in public or sanctioned for having done so. Rather, they had been prosecuted for deliberately disregarding the rules governing the exercise of the freedom of assembly. The restriction imposed on the applicants\u2019 freedom of peaceful assembly had been based on section 6 of the Assembly Act and section 152 of the Act on Administrative Offences. Undisputedly, they had expressed a political opinion on public ground (which fell under the jurisdiction of the Assembly Act) although characterising their action as a form of artistic expression which, as a cultural event, would fall outside the scope of the Assembly Act, but would have been subject to an authorisation from the municipality, never obtained. The fact that the applicants had labelled their action as a \u201cperformance\u201d, a term foreign to the Assembly Act, was irrelevant since in the domestic jurisprudence it was the aim (i.e. the joint expression of a political opinion), the venue (i.e. public ground) and the organised nature of an event which was decisive to qualify it as an \u201corganised event\u201d falling under section 6. Obviously, the different forms which an assembly might take or the labels attached to them by the organisers could not be enumerated with absolute precision in the law but it was not contrary to the requirement of to define an assembly by its purpose and to clarify the scope of the law by judicial interpretation. The interference was therefore prescribed by law."], "id": "3e2d8750-c136-49d4-9152-aac932c41050", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government agreed that the applicant\u2019s conviction and the fines imposed on her constituted an interference with her right to freedom of expression. However, the interference had a basis in Finnish law, in particular in Chapter 24, section 8, of the Penal Code which fulfilled the criteria of precision, clarity and . The applicant and the publisher had consulted a lawyer before publishing the book and they had thus been aware of the legal risks connected with the publication. The interference was thus \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the private life and reputation of others."], "id": "f71a1b87-3e64-486c-8463-8905c67db3df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant company contended that the law in force lacked . Article 96a of the Code of Criminal Procedure gave the public prosecutor and the police an unfettered discretion to determine whether to order the surrender of information, without any limits as to the grounds on which to do so or the methods to be used. In particular, it was entirely silent on the subject of interferences with the journalistic privilege of source protection."], "id": "ce967f1f-b536-4d84-84c5-8cc55d0bbcdb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government argued that Article 96a of the Code of Criminal Procedure satisfied the requirements of and accessibility. In defining the groups entitled to specific protection, the third paragraph of that Article referred to other Articles of that Code, namely Articles 217, 218 and 219, none of which mentioned journalists. Moreover, guidance as to the interpretation of that provision was to be found in its drafting history and in a policy rule accessible to the public."], "id": "68e2a7bc-3afc-40c0-87c4-e1fadaad60b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government argued that the interference served legitimate aims, namely the and the non-disclosure of confidential information. The applicant association argued that these interests could have been protected by anonymising the copies of the decision. The Court considers that the interference in question can be seen as having pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the rights of others."], "id": "933705da-f649-436d-854b-54522910f273", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government drew attention to the Constitutional Court\u2019s findings that the restriction at issue, having regard to the historical experience of Hungarian society, had been a response to a \u201cpressing social need\u201d in pursuit of the legitimate aims of the prevention of disorder and the . That court had been satisfied that these aims could not have been achieved by less severe means than those of the criminal law. Moreover, it had found that the restriction had been proportionate to the aims pursued since it had been limited in scope, extending only to some well-defined forms of the public use of such symbols, which entailed identification with, and the intention to propagate, the totalitarian ideologies represented by them. It had been satisfied that the use of such symbols for scientific, artistic, educational or informational purposes was not prohibited."], "id": "8c5875a0-61f4-45c8-9539-313c3a58502e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government acknowledged the existence of an interference in the instant case but submitted that it was justified under the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention. The interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had been based on Article 6 of Law no. 3713 as well as Additional section 2 of Law no. 5680. The interference had been in the interests of national security, territorial integrity and the owing to the disclosure of the identities of certain public officials."], "id": "e8da5826-ae97-4c16-91d4-8893b5c69c4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government acknowledged that the applicant's conviction and sentence constituted an interference with the applicant's freedom of expression under Article 10 \u00a7 1. However, that interference was justified under Article 10 \u00a7 2. It was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d (Article 127 of the CC) and had pursued a legitimate aim (the to elect the President of Ukraine on the basis of free and fair voting arrangements). The interference had also been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. As to the last point, they stated that the Court's case-law (Ahmed and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998\u2011VI, p. 2376, \u00a7 52) stressed the importance of ensuring the free will of the people during elections and the need to protect democratic society from interferences, such as the one at issue, with that process. The dissemination of information about a presidential candidate was in the interests of the electorate. However, where false information was imparted, this could have a damaging effect on a candidate's reputation and effectively prevent him from conducting an efficient electoral campaign."], "id": "77f7badb-24cc-4d40-a959-166d2046debc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government were of the opinion that the restriction on access to the requested information had served the legitimate aim of the . The protection of personal data constituted a legitimate aim in itself, irrespective of whether the reputation of the person concerned had also been at stake. The measure could also be regarded as necessary for the protection of the reputation of others within the meaning of Article 10, since the research carried out by the applicant NGO was critical of the professional activities of ex officio defence counsel."], "id": "636c0418-c2e8-4490-96c3-61990aa38287", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that the contested provision had been inserted into the Criminal Code because twentieth-century dictatorships had caused much suffering to the Hungarian people. The display of symbols related to dictatorships created uneasy feelings, fear or indignation in many citizens, and sometimes even violated the rights of the deceased. To wear the symbols of a one-party dictatorship in public was, in the Government\u2019s view, tantamount to the very antithesis of the rule of law, and must be seen as a demonstration against pluralist democracy. In line with the Constitutional Court\u2019s position in the matter, the Government contended that the measure in question pursued the legitimate aims of the prevention of disorder and the ."], "id": "c03bdb60-9184-4cec-905f-cd6f0f0cedf5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant also disagreed with the Government that the interference had pursued the legitimate aim of prevention of crime and . She emphasised that the information she had reported on served a legitimate public interest and contributed to the public debate on solidarity regarding the implementation of austerity measures. No personal information that did not serve that purpose had been revealed and no claims had been lodged in that regard by the individuals concerned. Therefore, there had been no reason to consider that any further disclosure of data by the applicant would be in breach of any Article 8 rights. After all, if the aim had been to prevent further disclosure of personal data, why had the police, having copied all the files, returned the data storage devices to the applicant without deleting any files or information contained therein?"], "id": "bfce50a1-698d-4a32-b647-054811915daa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government argue that the display was irritating, while the applicant insisted that the display was lawful (see paragraphs 24 and 27 above). The Court will therefore examine if the display could have created a pressing social need to restrict the use of the symbol, for the . The Court emphasises at this juncture that in the interpretation of the meaning of an expression, for the determination of the proportionality of a specific restrictive measure, the location and the timing of the display of a symbol or of other expressions with multiple meanings play an important role."], "id": "d806b567-24ee-43b7-9b62-c6034786f505", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government in turn reiterated the above position in their observations before the Court, acknowledging that part of the applicant\u2019s actions, namely his complaints to various authorities, were protected under Article 10 of the Convention. However, they emphasised that the applicant\u2019s conduct had also involved the public dissemination of damaging statements in respect of a third party. Such action was not covered by the protection of Article 10 and the sanctions that had been imposed were justified as they fell within the permissible limitations on the right to freedom of expression, had pursued a legitimate aim, namely , and had been proportionate to the applicant\u2019s conduct in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "36a4318c-a028-4115-83ec-e8b5d708928a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant accepted that preventing the \u201cdisclosure of information received in confidence\u201d was one of the grounds which justified interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 10. However, he did not share the respondent Government\u2019s view that publication of the paper had jeopardised \u201cnational security\u201d and \u201cpublic safety\u201d. In his view, the disclosure of the report had not been liable to undermine the country\u2019s fundamental and vital interests. In addition, the applicant argued that Article 293 of the Swiss Criminal Code did not encompass the and hence, in the instant case, the reputation of the ambassador who had written the report in question. He added that the relevant authorities had not instituted any defamation proceedings against him, although they could have done so."], "id": "52028667-50b5-4f33-a4d7-85a4496f023c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["183. The Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. First of all, they submitted that the interference complained of had been prescribed by law. It had been based on Law 7(I)/1998 and the relevant regulations. The relevant provisions were clear and their effects reasonably foreseeable, especially with the assistance of a lawyer. Secondly, the Government argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right pursued legitimate aims and in particular the . In this respect, they emphasised the need to safeguard the rights and interests of viewers, including children, who were vulnerable, and to protect them from abusive practices. The Government relied on the reasoning given by the CRTA in its decisions concerning the broadcasts in question. They further highlighted the need to regulate the mass media in view of the significant influence they had on people and society at large. The measures taken by the CRTA had been necessary in securing compliance with the relevant legal provisions and regulations."], "id": "0f32b7ce-9680-434b-a9f8-04db83f62bc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government conceded that there had been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression, albeit one prescribed by law and pursuing the legitimate aim of the . In their view, the authorities had acted within their margin of appreciation essentially because by displaying the comments the applicants had exceeded the limits of freedom of expression as guaranteed under the Convention."], "id": "745b936f-6a39-4795-b3de-0727a9ee17d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the reputation of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the first applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression. They further submitted that that interference had been based on Article 484 of the Civil Code. The legitimate aim pursued by the authorities had been the and the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, as provided by the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention."], "id": "35f05c82-0e54-4293-be58-bf2392c368ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the reputation of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government were of the opinion that the restriction on access to the requested information had served the legitimate aim of the protection of the rights of others. The protection of personal data constituted a legitimate aim in itself, irrespective of whether the reputation of the person concerned had also been at stake. The measure could also be regarded as necessary for the within the meaning of Article 10, since the research carried out by the applicant NGO was critical of the professional activities of ex officio defence counsel."], "id": "f371a094-639d-4405-8b16-030276e8df14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the reputation of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant submitted that the domestic courts had failed to strike a fair balance between the right to freedom of expression and the . They had wrongly regarded the allegations, which he had made on behalf of and as spokesperson of his political party, as statements of fact and had required that he prove their veracity to the criminal standard. However, he had neither possessed nor been able to obtain any evidence to prove his allegations (\u0441\u043e\u043c\u043d\u0435\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435). Given his prior experience in a similar case, in which the same trial judge had refused to admit proposed evidence (see paragraphs 31 and 32 above), the applicant had had no reasonable grounds to believe that the court would take a different approach in the impugned proceedings. In any event, the factual basis for his allegations which were the subject of application no. 64659/11 had been the fact that Mr S.M. had belatedly submitted his declaration of assets, failing to specify the origin of shares worth EUR 300,000 (see paragraph 8 above). He further referred to public rumours, which have been shown to be true in 2015, that wiretapping equipment had, in fact, been misused. His questions had been based on allegations that had been brought to his attention and had fallen within the limits of acceptable criticism in the context of the political debate, which, as was commonly known, the political opposition had launched at the time regarding the issues in dispute. The submitted material (see paragraphs 9 and 22 above) sought to assist the Court to obtain a clearer picture about that debate. In any event, the domestic courts had not been bound by the parties\u2019 proposals and had been entitled to establish all the facts and adduce the relevant evidence of their own motion. However, they had based their findings about the falsity of the applicant\u2019s allegations only on Mr S.M.\u2019s statement. If the opposition could only hold press conferences if there was irrefutable evidence about irregularities by State officials, it would be deprived of its crucial role of informing and alerting the public about allegations of irregular conduct by officials."], "id": "57ea287d-af07-4b0f-b90c-784a92713da9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the reputation of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government pointed out that the possibility of terminating a contract of employment in the event of attacks on the employer or workers was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim: the . The Spanish courts had considered that the applicants had gone beyond the limits inherent in the exercise of their freedom of expression, to the extent of damaging the reputation of the employer and of other workers. The comments had not been published in the media but in the confined environment of a company, and concerned individuals working there, namely the human resources manager and work colleagues, that is to say persons with no public duties. The extent of acceptable criticism when directed against a private individual was narrower than that directed against authorities or public institutions (contrast Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09, \u00a7 133, 14 September 2010). That context had aggravated the damage caused by the newsletter to the reputations of the persons concerned, since all its potential addressees knew the individuals who were criticised or caricatured."], "id": "f4489eee-3e3c-4ee7-9809-fde9b7bd2478", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the reputation of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government argued that according to the \u201cquotation case-law\u201d of the Austrian courts, the publication of a statement which satisfies the definition of an offence may lead to sanctions against the medium concerned unless there is any objective reason, such as e.g. the protection by a basic right, justifying such statement. In the present case, having carefully weighed the freedom of expression against the , the second instance court set out comprehensively the arguments in favour of the application of section 33 of the Media Act. It rightly considered that the statement \u201cspiritually depraved\u201d amounted to an offence and violated the concerned person's right to reputation. Referring to case-law of the Court of Appeal, the Government asserted that the correct quotation of an insult of one person by another person was protected by Article 10 of the Convention and did not justify forfeiture. In the present case, however, the applicant company had not reported about the pending defamation proceedings in a neutral way but had identified itself with the content of the quoted statements. The Government referred in this regard to the Court of Appeal's findings as regards the structure and style of the article and, furthermore, to the article's subtitle which wording between the lines in their opinion called the rejection of the reproach of being \u201cspiritually depraved\u201d into question. A victim's right would be almost completely void without an adequate protection against abuse of quotations, if a medium was free to publish and add to defamation by third persons. The applicant company had not been deprived of the possibility to inform the public about the fact that criminal proceedings against Mr Heller were pending. Finally, the forfeiture was principally a safeguarding measure containing elements of minor punishment. It appeared proportionate as most of the issues of the weekly magazine had, in any way, already been published. The applicant company had not sufficiently substantiated the alleged damage resulting from the forfeiture."], "id": "af61c256-5e1f-4607-a1f8-68dd8a71c69c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the reputation of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government contended that the injunction issued against the applicant constituted an interference with his rights under Article 10 of the Convention which was, however, justified under \u00a7 2 of this provision. It had a legal basis, namely Section 1330 of the Civil Code, and pursued the legitimate aim of . As to the necessity of the interference, they argued that the Austrian courts classified the applicant's statements as statements of facts. An essential element for this classification was that the applicant had not given any explanation for his statements which was thus not discernible as a value judgment. There was no factual basis to enable the reader to evaluate himself why the applicant had come to his conclusions. Therefore, it appeared legitimate that the Austrian courts attributed to the statements at issue the meaning usually conveyed by similar reproaches, namely that the plaintiffs had been guided by improper and unlawful motives. The applicant himself had endorsed this interpretation as, in his appeal with the Regional Court, he had argued why the teachers' conduct had allegedly been unlawful. However, the Austrian courts, after comprehensive evaluation of all evidence, came to the conclusion that these accusations were factually incorrect. The measures taken by the Austrian courts were proportionate, as the applicant was merely ordered to refrain from making further such statements which did not hinder him to express his opinion in other less defamatory or insulting words. The Government finally argued that, even assuming that the statements at issue were value judgments, the interference was proportionate as the applicant's statements were unsubstantiated and the details of the underlying conflict were not known to the public. Such extremely harsh, excessive and generalising criticism was not justified by the applicant's interest in several-day excursions abroad."], "id": "958f8a10-efbc-485c-b4f2-0d9662455628", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the reputation of others", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government emphasised that the applicants had not been convicted for expressing strong criticism of the police, but exclusively for having taken it upon themselves to make the very specific, unsubstantiated and extremely serious accusation against the named chief superintendent that he had intentionally suppressed evidence in the murder case. The Danish Supreme Court had fully recognised that the present case involved a conflict between the right to impart ideas and the right to freedom of expression and the , and it had properly balanced the various interests involved in the case in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention."], "id": "b1cccf5f-c8a3-48ec-a2b6-95b5ce981d75", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s disciplinary punishment had been lawful and justified for the and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. They argued that the applicant had complained to the public prosecutor that the prison authorities had breached the law by refusing to give him the parcel, which had not been true. The Government further stressed that, in imposing the sanction, the authorities had taken into consideration the applicant\u2019s overall conduct, notably his previous disciplinary offences and the fact that he had submitted other complaints or requests containing denigrating language to various institutions."], "id": "687ea05d-04d2-4146-931a-69ef9d2ce131", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government maintained that the interference pursued one or more legitimate aims: the , in so far as the first applicant\u2019s own safety was concerned by the bomb threats, and the interests of national security with regard to all the applicants. In each case the interference was moreover \u201cnecessary\u201d for the achievement of the legitimate aim or aims pursued."], "id": "b98c6bff-1c6d-4fb0-8525-6bee89c8b594", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government further submitted that the civil injunction was necessary to protect the C. company\u2019s personality rights as well as its right to respect for its home and to its freedom of occupation. The interference with these rights was of a particular weight because the film footage had been unlawfully made under false pretences. The injunction was further necessary for the . The applicant association had agitated against the C. company to such a degree that criminal offences had already been committed. There were fears that the further dissemination of the film by the applicant association would lead to the commitment of further crimes. Finally, the civil injunction was necessary for the prevention of disorder, as the danger existed that the dissemination of the film material by the applicant could lead to demonstrations involving violent acts."], "id": "33266b24-40b2-4055-829c-56374e088ce8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government agreed that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. However, they submitted that it had been lawful, as it had been based on the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences, and had pursued the legitimate aims of (i) maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary and (ii) the . As to whether the interference had been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d, the Government argued that the applicant, when raising her challenge, should have presented arguments regarding alleged bias with caution, rather than in a manner that had undermined the court\u2019s authority; moreover she should have abstained from making offensive statements. However, the applicant had cited personal reasons for her distrust of Judge M., which had come across as disrespectful of the judge and the court in general. None of the reasons she had given for her challenge had been supported by any evidence \u2013 indeed, they had gone far beyond what had been needed to support the challenge and into general unproven allegations about the judge\u2019s conduct. When the judge had warned the applicant that making false statements could constitute grounds for holding her in contempt, the applicant had not desisted but rather had continued making her statements, and had embarked upon a dispute with the judge. As to proportionality, although the maximum punishment possible had been fifteen days of imprisonment, the applicant had been sentenced to five days only. The appropriateness of this punishment had been confirmed by the First Vice\u2011President of the Court of Appeal."], "id": "e8574005-e78e-4a49-8515-192346db4903", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim as the proceedings against him had ended, due to being time-barred. They therefore considered that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and thus the interference, if any, was prescribed by law. They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protection of national security, territorial integrity and public safety as well as . As to the necessity of the interference in a democratic society, the Government stated that they were aware of the Court\u2019s case-law in that field. They nevertheless noted that the applicant had been convicted of generating propaganda in favour of the PKK, an organisation which was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of international organisations and states, such as the United States of America, the United Nations, the NATO and the European Union."], "id": "40168ea3-b39d-45bb-9cb5-887a3e659bf9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant also disagreed with the Government that the interference had pursued the legitimate aim of and protection of the rights of others. She emphasised that the information she had reported on served a legitimate public interest and contributed to the public debate on solidarity regarding the implementation of austerity measures. No personal information that did not serve that purpose had been revealed and no claims had been lodged in that regard by the individuals concerned. Therefore, there had been no reason to consider that any further disclosure of data by the applicant would be in breach of any Article 8 rights. After all, if the aim had been to prevent further disclosure of personal data, why had the police, having copied all the files, returned the data storage devices to the applicant without deleting any files or information contained therein?"], "id": "897a6930-4c55-49cb-8613-0526f8e669d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant said that while university authorities, including vice-chancellors\u2019 offices and deaneries, were unquestionably at liberty to use the powers vested in them by law, the scope of those powers and the limits on them were also defined by law, as were the procedures by which they were to be exercised and the of authority. In the instant case, the Vice-Chancellor had not possessed the authority or power, either under the laws in force or the Students Disciplinary Procedure Rules, to refuse students \u201cwearing the headscarf\u201d access to university premises or examination rooms. In addition, the legislature had at no stage sought to issue a general ban on wearing religious signs in schools and universities and there had never been support for such a ban in Parliament, despite the fierce debate to which the Islamic headscarf had given rise. Moreover, the fact that the administrative authorities had not introduced any general regulations providing for the imposition of disciplinary penalties on students wearing the headscarf in institutions of higher education meant that no such ban existed."], "id": "1c94fcde-8478-4159-b2b3-318d5bc1df9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to impart information", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant contended, first of all, that the refusal to register the newspaper under the suggested title amounted to an interference with his and ideas. Such interference was not \u201cprescribed by law\u201d since the national law, including the Mass Media Act, did not permit refusal of registration for the reasons referred to by the Government. A newspaper title could not reasonably be defined as \u201ctrue\u201d or \u201cfalse\u201d, or be otherwise consistent with \u201cthe real state of affairs\u201d. Furthermore, Russian law contained no clear requirement for strict coherence between the title of a newspaper and its specialisation. The applicant further argued that, even if it had been lawful, the refusal of registration was not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "7359ae3a-8b0f-4304-9ad8-a5bc6ee172bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to impart information", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government conceded that the denial of a broadcasting licence to Glas Nadezhda EOOD had amounted to an interference with the applicants' and ideas. In their view, however, this interference had been authorised under the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Convention. The licensing of radio broadcasters had been specifically envisioned by the Radio and Television Act 1998. It had been entrusted to a special body, the NRTC, charged with protecting freedom of expression. Moreover, the law regulating licensing had been sufficiently clear in its terms. The NRTC's decision had been based on quite detailed and publicly announced criteria. The NRTC had clearly indicated, as could also be seen from the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 March 2002, which of those criteria had not been met by Glas Nadezhda EOOD. Some of the criteria were formal, while others had related to the utility and the feasibility of the proposed radio station. This could not be seen as unlawful, arbitrary or discriminatory, as indicated by the former Commission in its decision in the case of Verein Alternatives Lokalradio Bern et Verein Radio Dreyeckland Basel v. Switzerland (no. 10746/84, Commission decision of 16 October 1986, Decisions and Reports 49). The decision to refuse the licence had been based on the failure by Glas Nadezhda EOOD to meet a number of the announced criteria. This decision had been the result of a detailed examination and had been reviewed by two levels of court."], "id": "b02d8dec-ec90-4d4a-98f5-d5fc23fe5200", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to impart information", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicants submitted that the judgment against a news magazine for having published information that had already been disclosed in other media and for illustrating it with related photographs amounted to an interference in its of public interest. They considered that this judgment was extremely serious and unprecedented, and that it had to be regarded as an excessive interference with its freedom of expression and information, with a clearly chilling effect."], "id": "3471e4be-02bd-4f73-9ed3-61151008786a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to impart information", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["119. The applicant company submitted firstly that it had sustained pecuniary damage as a result of the permanent loss of the programme in issue. Since the programme concerned a topical issue and had not been screened within a short time after being produced, it would now never be broadcast. However, it was difficult for the applicant company to put a precise figure on the damage sustained and to produce relevant supporting documents. That being so, the Court considers that the finding of a violation of the Convention will constitute sufficient redress for the damage sustained under this head, and the same applies to the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant company as a result both of the restriction of its and of the impact which the interference may have had on the programme\u2019s reputation for credibility."], "id": "5d5affd5-c96d-4956-b7dc-69369feed642", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to impart information", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["110. The applicant company alleged a violation of its right to freedom of expression, and especially its and ideas. It complained in particular that for a period of almost ten years the Government had not allocated it any frequencies for analogue terrestrial television broadcasting. It submitted that the failure to apply Law no. 249/1997 (see paragraphs 56-61 above), the failure to enforce the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgments nos. 420/1994 and 466/2002 (see paragraphs 54-55 and 62 above) and the duopoly existing in the Italian television market were in breach of Article 10 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "fa1a1dc6-21a6-42e3-8e4f-6db248e4221d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to impart information", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government observed that the applicant company currently offered its customers a series of channels broadcasting varied content, including horror films and adult films. In practical terms, it operated a limited system, since its programmes could be viewed only by using a decoder which it supplied to its customers. This served to illustrate the manner and scope of the benefit drawn by the applicant company from its and ideas in a democratic society."], "id": "ad563157-300a-49e3-9e02-fdc540276f35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to impart information", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government submitted that both Article 10 of the Convention (in referring to \u201cduties and responsibilities\u201d as well as to formalities, conditions and penalties) and the domestic law permitted the State to put in place a framework containing the procedure of and conditions of the information flow. While Article 10 of the Convention included the , Russian law provided for constitutional \u201cfreedom of mass information\u201d along with the freedom of expression and freedom of thought. The Constitutional Court also recognised a higher degree of responsibility relating to the exercise of the freedom of mass information on a professional scale."], "id": "dfbb161f-79b5-4163-a3ff-86e004aaa825", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to impart information", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant company submitted that the advance viewing of the programme in issue by the Brussels Court of Appeal in order to monitor its content before it was broadcast, and the subsequent banning of the programme as a preventive measure, had infringed freedom of expression, freedom of the press and , all of which were guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "05b3489d-1bfa-45be-8609-6baf1a0a5c1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to impart information", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicants also claimed that the principle of the free choice of the means of imparting information \u2013 the corollary of \u2013 could not be contested without emptying that freedom of its substance. In that connection, they alleged that they had been free to illustrate the impugned article with relevant photographs. This had indeed been the case for the published photographs. With regard to the consequences of the article, the applicants denied that it could have disclosed anything that had not already been revealed to the public by the British, American, German and French press and audio-visual media and on the Internet. They therefore urged that the impact of the article be placed in perspective. They also argued that after the contested publication the Prince had officially acknowledged his paternity in a large-scale media operation, at the same time acknowledging the existence of another child."], "id": "0ef9d157-5fd1-4103-b660-8b8002269af5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to receive information", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicants complained that their had been breached because the restrictions imposed on them either had not been prescribed by law or had been more far-reaching than necessary in a democratic society. Moreover, they claimed that the consequences \u2013 the eviction from their flat and the move to another town \u2013 had been disproportionate to the aims pursued. They relied on Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "767fbd3c-2a6d-4de0-802e-269da62c8226", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to receive information", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government claimed that the intelligence agency did not hold the information requested (they referred to the intelligence agency\u2019s letter of 23 September 2008 mentioned in paragraph 10 above). They added that merely prohibited a State from restricting a person from receiving information that others wished or might be willing to impart to him; that freedom could not be construed as imposing on a State, in the circumstances of the present case, positive obligations to collect and disseminate information of its own motion (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, \u00a7 53, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I)."], "id": "e9000d0a-d1b8-4632-805a-03d5df89f064", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of morals", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government submitted that the aim pursued by the interference had been twofold \u2013 arising from the Christian faith and shared by a substantial part of the Lithuanian population, and protection of the right of religious people not to be insulted on the grounds of their beliefs (see paragraph 54 above). The applicant company did not contest that submission (see paragraph 60 above). The Court therefore accepts that the impugned interference sought a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "bd9d6037-4cda-477a-b0bd-1fcdf79959ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of morals", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant association argued that the public exhibition of a painting contributed to a debate between the artist, the exhibitor and the public and was therefore protected under Article 10 of the Convention. It accepted that the impugned interference was prescribed by law, but maintained that the interference had been neither necessary nor proportionate. It submitted that the Government's submissions as regards the were irrelevant as in the present case the domestic courts had based their decisions merely on Mr Meischberger's prevailing personal interests as protected under section 78 of the Copyright Act. Mr Meischberger could not, however, claim any personal interest worth protecting as the painting obviously did not state or suggest that the way in which he was portrayed corresponded to his actual behaviour. The painting presented the artist's personal history in an allegorical way and depicted, among several other well-known persons, the painter himself and some of his friends and benefactors. All these persons were depicted engaging in sexual acts, reflecting the painter's conception of the interrelation between power and sexuality. Mr Meischberger had been one of the figures who had characterised the history of the FP\u00d6 party in the past few years, and he had been portrayed with the other three members as an allegory of that party, which had always strongly criticised the painter's work. Furthermore, Mr Meischberger and, in any event, the actions he considered libellous were not recognisable after the painting had been partly damaged. In the applicant association's view, the fact that he had instituted proceedings only after the painting had been partly damaged demonstrated that rather than protecting his personal interests he was aiming to discredit the painter's work."], "id": "19a73b72-446b-4706-b185-29d434ff3f63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to hold opinions", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant complained that the refusals by the Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot authorities to allow him to cross the \u201cgreen line\u201d in order to participate in bi-communal meetings had prevented him from exercising his right to freedom of expression, including the and ideas and to receive and impart information, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "55c3ac6f-d8c1-43ee-bb5f-f25977312e5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to hold opinions", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicants complained of an interference with their , the opinion in question being that an employee should be allowed to choose to be represented by a trade union in negotiations with the employer. The Court does not, however, consider that any separate issue arises under Article 10 that has not already been dealt with in the context of Article 11 of the Convention. It is not, therefore, necessary to examine this complaint separately."], "id": "d71f6cd3-f60c-44c6-b806-9f81fee36f94", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom to hold opinions", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant NGO contended that, in view of the Court\u2019s case-law, Article 10 was applicable in the circumstances of the present case. In the applicant NGO\u2019s view, unless access to information was included in the right to receive and impart information and the right to , States could easily render these rights devoid of substance by denying access to important data on matters of public interest. Access to information was a conditio sine qua non for the effective exercise of the right to freedom of expression, just as without access to a court, the right to a fair trial would be meaningless (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, \u00a7 35, Series A no. 18). The applicant NGO argued that access to information was inherent in the right to freedom of expression, since rejecting access to data impeded the realisation of that freedom."], "id": "9d0206e3-0274-4d44-9922-ee0e973c9689", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "10", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government accepted that the administrative liability imposed on the applicants for holding demonstrations constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression. However, they considered that the restrictions on the promotion of homosexuality in general and the enforcement of these restrictions against the applicants in particular had been in accordance with law and had been necessary in a democratic society for the and morals and the rights of others. In the present case, the Government claimed to have enjoyed the wide margin of appreciation generally available to the Contracting States when regulating freedom of expression in relation to matters liable to offend intimate personal convictions within the sphere of morals or, especially, religion."], "id": "5f4428f1-ee63-4e33-a812-d9894510ee59", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government submitted that all rallies planned by Ilinden had in fact taken place. As the time and the place of those rallies had coincided with official ceremonies celebrating historical events, the authorities had tried to balance the rights of the applicants with those of the other organisations and participants in those events. The authorities had complied with their under Article 11 and had ensured that the events proceeded smoothly."], "id": "2465f79c-c6e4-41ba-b2a4-da41c2ac3aff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted that the planned rally had in fact taken place, with the participation of about three thousand people, tourists and officials, including representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of \u201cthe former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia\u201d. The authorities had complied with their under Article 11 and ensured that the event proceeded smoothly. The web page of UMO Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN indicated that all events planned by them for 2008 had taken place normally."], "id": "38c47351-a4d4-49cb-b078-debb70e7505b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government further took the view that, as the Chamber had found in paragraph 78 of its judgment, the present case had to be examined from the perspective of the State\u2019s (in the light of Rommelfanger v. Germany, no. 12242/86, Commission decision of 6 September 1989, Decisions and Reports 62). The Government argued that the State had fulfilled its obligations in the present case."], "id": "e432c2bb-b8f1-435e-9240-62e238fdb901", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government further argued that the bans had been prescribed by law, namely section 12(2)(2) of the Meetings and Marches Act. Also, the measures complained of had pursued a wide range of legitimate aims: protecting national security and public safety, guaranteeing public order in the local community, protecting the rights and freedoms of others and preventing disorder and crime. They had also been necessary in a democratic society, because the authorities had acted in conformity with the laws of the country, their actions had not been arbitrary and they had complied with their to guarantee the citizens\u2019 rights under Article 11 of the Convention. Referring to the case of Gustafsson v. Sweden (judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011II, pp. 652\u201153, \u00a7 45), the Government submitted that the Contracting States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in their choice of the means to be employed to attain a legitimate aim."], "id": "30347754-4b8c-405a-87fe-3fba02181fdd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government further argued that the dispersal of the assembly had been necessary in the interests of , for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the prevention of disorder or crime, and had been proportionate to the aims pursued. They submitted in particular that the police had not intervened in the assembly until the moment when participants had started to disturb public order. Besides, the first applicant herself had admitted in the court proceedings that she had insulted public authorities during the protest."], "id": "86bc17a8-c3ef-4027-bbe6-79d3d511b27d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants complained in particular that the charges against them had been altered at the last hearing of their trial. They had initially been accused of separatism and undermining the integrity of the State but on the day of the judgment, 8 December 1994, the Court had asked them on the spot to prepare their defence against a new charge, namely belonging to an illegal armed organisation. It had then dismissed their application for additional time to prepare their defence against the new charge. The applicants submitted that they had not been able to defend themselves properly and present their evidence against the new charge."], "id": "3a9cb683-4e94-4aa4-9878-3770906ab765", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government responded that the applicants had not specified the particular ideas or matters of conscience which they wished to express. Accordingly, this aspect of the case was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. They had been convicted under Articles 68 and 70 of the Criminal Code for their anti-state activities not because of any manifestation of their beliefs. If there had been an interference under these Convention provisions, it was justified for the protection of , public order and the rights and freedoms of others, as well as for the prevention and punishment of crime. The applicants were not prosecuted for their political beliefs or communist party affiliations, but for their anti-state activities, in contravention of Article 17 of the Convention, against which the young democracy of Lithuania had been entitled to defend itself (cf. the aforementioned \u017ddanoka case, \u00a7 100)."], "id": "fa4960e4-ef2d-4418-b6ba-6e0b9d476707", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government further argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, if any, was prescribed by law. The applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on Article 220 \u00a7 7 of the Criminal Code and the wording of that provision met the accessibility and foreseeability requirements within the meaning of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The interference in question had the legitimate aims of protecting and public order as well as preventing crime."], "id": "ccd50b39-1726-4e63-b591-982e9819fef5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant also contended that the fact that the domestic courts had considered that the principles promoted by the association had been very general and had given rise to the possibility of their being classified as belonging to the domain of political parties could not have amounted to sufficient and compelling evidence of a threat to or to public safety and order. There had also been no similarity between the activities listed by the founding members of the association in the organisation\u2019s articles of association and the activities carried out by political parties as defined by Law no. 14/2003 on political parties."], "id": "4c1e3365-c2b0-4301-8925-135fd5cd71ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government further argued that the bans had been prescribed by law, namely section 12(2)(2) of the Meetings and Marches Act. Also, the measures complained of had pursued a wide range of legitimate aims: protecting and public safety, guaranteeing public order in the local community, protecting the rights and freedoms of others and preventing disorder and crime. They had also been necessary in a democratic society, because the authorities had acted in conformity with the laws of the country, their actions had not been arbitrary and they had complied with their positive obligations to guarantee the citizens\u2019 rights under Article 11 of the Convention. Referring to the case of Gustafsson v. Sweden (judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011II, pp. 652\u201153, \u00a7 45), the Government submitted that the Contracting States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in their choice of the means to be employed to attain a legitimate aim."], "id": "e64100da-b7a9-420f-89be-ace0b144ed09", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government maintained that the interference pursued one or more legitimate aims: the prevention of crime, in so far as the first applicant\u2019s own safety was concerned by the bomb threats, and the interests of with regard to all the applicants. In each case the interference was moreover \u201cnecessary\u201d for the achievement of the legitimate aim or aims pursued."], "id": "ffcdd76e-4f4d-4bcf-ac0c-b9f7a8e7fece", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government submitted that they were at a loss to understand the reason why the first applicant should claim at all that the Security Police\u2019s registration and filing of information concerning threats against her were not in her best interests but, on the contrary, entailed a violation of her rights under the Convention. The information that had been released to the other four applicants was highly varied in nature. Most of it appeared to have been found in the public domain, such as the media. The Government were unaware of the origins of each and every piece of information, and therefore could not comment on that particular aspect. They noted, however, that from today\u2019s perspective the information seemed either fairly old or quite harmless and that the interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, namely the protection of ."], "id": "e596eb47-c13b-4056-9277-2122862727fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant submitted, firstly, that the requirements of minimum membership and regional representation were not justified under the second paragraph of Article 11. In particular, they were unreasonable and did not pursue any legitimate aim. The imposition of such requirements on political parties could not be justified by the interests of or public safety. Nor were they necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "ff8117d9-87f9-42dc-b96b-94f70a5e5dea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government contended that the very fact that after its registration the applicant party could effectively strive towards power and thus get hold of the mechanisms to achieve its separatists ideas posed an immediate threat to , the State\u2019s sovereignty, the country\u2019s territorial integrity and the nation\u2019s unity. This threat was much graver than that stemming from the holding of a meeting. In the light of all the evidence, the Constitutional Court\u2019s findings that the applicant party treated the Pirin region as non\u2011Bulgarian land and that its activity was going as far as attempting the secession of this territory from Bulgaria were fully warranted."], "id": "bc005280-134f-47ff-99a2-f557b43d59b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants further submitted that, contrary to what was suggested by the Government, HADEP had never done anything to damage the indivisible unity of Turkey or harboured that aim. What it had sought to achieve in particular was to ensure that citizens of Kurdish origin had the rights to be educated in their mother tongue, to listen to radio and watch television programmes in the Kurdish language, to sustain their culture and to exercise their democratic right to participate in the political arena. Furthermore, HADEP had always advocated democracy as well as equality between people. By doing so it had never posed a danger to . Nevertheless, the clich\u00e9 \u201cindivisible unity of the State with its nation\u201d had always been used as a legal obstacle to curtail the above-mentioned democratic rights."], "id": "af02c9b1-488e-4e8f-a464-cc3f9c16b6b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants argued that by refusing to register Ilinden the authorities had infringed their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The refusal of the courts had been based on deliberately erroneous findings in respect of the relevant facts and a misconstruction of the applicable law. It was clear that freedom of association could not be subjected to restrictions other than those which were provided for by law for the protection of and public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "f580fb92-8614-4e9e-9c52-5f4aba72a489", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government argued for their part that the Court could not be criticised for making use of its right to reclassify the offences with which the applicants had been charged to arrive at a characterisation that was less serious for the applicants than the charge initially preferred by the prosecution. They pointed out that the offences covered by Article 125 of the Criminal Code carried the death penalty whereas those covered by Article 168 carried prison sentences. In their view, it was wrong in the instant case to talk of a recharacterisation of the offence in so far as Articles 125 and 168 appeared in the same section of the Criminal Code entitled \u201cCrimes against the State\u201d. Article 168 was a \u201ccommon provision\u201d relating to all the other provisions in that section and covered anyone who \u201cform[ed] an armed gang or organisation \u2026 with the intention of committing any of the offences defined in Article 125 ...\u201d. Article 125 defined a crime in terms of the ends pursued, requiring a serious prejudice, whereas Article 168 defined a crime in terms of the means deployed to achieve those ends. The truth was that the applicants\u2019 conviction on the basis of Article 168 of the Criminal Code rather than that of Article 125 had been the result of the criminal courts\u2019 assessment of the evidence and their consideration of the defence\u2019s arguments."], "id": "9d90f4ab-1296-4b10-8507-5503dda11aa1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s argument that the dissolution of the Association had pursued a legitimate aim in the interests of or public safety, that is, for the prevention of disorder and crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In his view, the courts had failed to establish any instances of actual disorder or any violation of the rights of others. He stressed that the domestic decisions had referred to a merely hypothetical danger whose prevention could not be seen as a legitimate aim under the Convention."], "id": "1340cfae-7241-4b8f-9050-67b1e7c16c3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants submitted that the courts were special courts. They asserted that the military judges who sat on those courts were dependent on the executive, being appointed by a joint decree of the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister, subject to the approval of the President. The assessment, promotion and security of tenure of those judges were within the control of the executive branch and, in turn, the army. The ties binding them with the executive and the army made it impossible for them to discharge their functions on the bench in an independent and impartial manner."], "id": "6e2aa38f-12e7-40d6-826f-583552824d2f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained that the criminal proceedings before the Ankara Court were unfair, that that court was not independent and impartial, and of infringements of their freedom of expression and freedom of association; they also asserted that in the enjoyment of the rights thus breached they had been the victims of discrimination on the ground of their political opinions."], "id": "369ce136-2936-4169-9426-64d6e2fbc3ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government submitted that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly had been precise and foreseeable. They also submitted that the demonstration had been organised in breach of the provisions of national law. The Government argued that the dispersal of the demonstration had pursued the aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others and preventing disorder, and had been in the interests of ."], "id": "df0b3d88-a68d-4ffd-89e9-2f8fcbf41067", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government did not argue that there had not been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly other than to submit that the case was not within the scope of Article 11. Even assuming that the applicant\u2019s acts had fallen within the scope of Article 11, they submitted that the State authorities\u2019 acts and decisions had had the legitimate aims of protecting , territorial integrity, public safety and public order as well as the prevention of crime. They argued that interfering with the demonstrations in question, which had incited people to violence and which had been organised by members of the PKK, a terrorist organisation, had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been necessary in a democratic society. They stressed that the applicant had not been convicted for taking part in a funeral."], "id": "bfe767f1-3e81-45b8-8304-9049a1ea681f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government asserted that the witnesses concerned had not been listed among those that the applicants had asked to be examined during the hearing in the Court. They added that the court had also taken account of other evidence when establishing that the applicants belonged to the PKK. Its refusal to examine some of the witnesses for the prosecution had been justified by the threats that had been made against them, not excluding their physical elimination by the PKK, as had happened to a witness against one of the applicants\u2019 co-defendants, killed in prison by other inmates who were members of the PKK."], "id": "978b7241-601a-4e79-93b3-8975dbadd22c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government emphasised the need to have particular regard to the context in Turkey when the decision was taken to establish national security courts, pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution. In view of the experience of the armed forces in the anti-terrorism campaign, the authorities had considered it necessary to strengthen those courts by including a military judge who was supposed to provide them with the necessary expertise and knowledge to deal with threats to the security and integrity of the State. The Government asserted that the impartiality and independence of military judges sitting on national security courts had been guaranteed by the Constitution."], "id": "30cb1161-0f26-4611-bdfc-c037cc0ccc6c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["121. The applicants submitted that the refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was not necessary in a democratic society. They asserted that all the arguments put forward by the Government were without foundation and unsubstantiated and that they did not correspond to a \u201cpressing social need\u201d. There was nothing in the file to show that the applicants had intended or carried on or sought to carry on activities capable of undermining Moldovan territorial integrity, or public order. "], "id": "c179de30-f40d-443f-85d6-e6099ebde6ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicants submitted that the interference was not prescribed by law because the national courts failed to give them clear indications on how to proceed to obtain registration, and construed arbitrarily the constitutional restrictions on freedom to associate. The interference was not necessary in a democratic society either, because the national courts did not have before them any evidence showing that the registration of Ilinden would endanger Bulgaria\u2019s sovereignty or . However, those courts accepted uncritically the \u201cofficial position\u201d on the so\u2011called \u201cMacedonian question\u201d and justified the refusal on grounds that had nothing to do with the principles of democracy."], "id": "162d6a1a-c6af-4d74-8c3c-b2036300614d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant contended that he was not aware of any relevant law regulating the matters of which he complained and that there was no legal protection against arbitrary interference by the public authorities with his rights. In this connection he argued that the respondent Government had made no effort at all to indicate the grounds on which such interference might have been justified, nor had they shown it to be ."], "id": "59562406-afd5-4272-9ee5-e9f0e6423e6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["190. The applicants further submitted that neither dispersal nor prosecution and conviction of the first to sixth applicants had been since: (i) the protest action had been peaceful; the protesters had not attacked the loggers, the MG staff or the police, which meant that the authorities were required to display a degree of tolerance; the applicants referred to the cases of Oya Ataman v. Turkey (no. 74552/01, \u00a7\u00a7 41 and 42, ECHR 2006\u2011XIV) and Bukta and Others v. Hungary (no. 25691/04, \u00a7 37, ECHR 2007\u2011III); (ii) the protest had taken place in a park and caused no disturbance to city life; and (iii) allowing private security guards to disperse a peaceful assembly could not be considered necessary in a democratic society and neither could the use of violence."], "id": "fd1af8da-4690-4dfa-bff9-b1e9d557fa13", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant further argued that there had been no legitimate aim in punishing his conduct during the funeral and the demonstration, which had consisted of him walking in front of a coffin, making a \u201cV\u201d sign and applauding. Even assuming that there had been a legitimate aim in his criminal convictions, they had in any case not been . In that regard, the applicant submitted that he had not used or advocated violence and had not incited other people to hatred or violence. The applicant therefore argued that his criminal convictions had not corresponded to any pressing social need. In that connection, the applicant referred to a number of the Court\u2019s judgments, such as Incal v. Turkey (9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011IV), \u0130sak Tepe v. Turkey (no. 17129/02, 21 October 2008), Unay v. Turkey (no. 5290/02, 21 October 2008), A\u00e7\u0131k and Others v. Turkey (no. 31451/03, 13 January 2009) and G\u00f6zel and \u00d6zer v. Turkey (nos. 43453/04 and 31098/05, 6 July 2010)."], "id": "9c6212f9-7c52-4305-aa70-7d025bb98bd6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the allegedly arbitrary denial of Latvian citizenship through naturalisation was a punitive measure imposed on him because he had imparted ideas and exercised his right of assembly in order to criticise the government\u2019s position. He further complained that the aforementioned infringements of his rights, contrary to the requirements of Article 10 \u00a7 2 and Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, were not prescribed by law, did not pursue a legitimate aim and were disproportionate and not . Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention read as follows."], "id": "8190d76c-67d9-4c27-9823-87daab556837", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants submitted that the interference with their right to freedom of assembly stemmed from the Regional Governor\u2019s order which banned the rallies that they had planned and which was enforced by the police. As a result, the applicants were forced to change their initial plan to celebrate near the Rozhen Monastery. The police also interfered with their rights by carrying out unusually lengthy checks of their vehicles (which delayed the event by almost two hours), and preventing them from approaching the Monastery and from organising the event in Melnik as planned. Those interferences were neither lawful nor ."], "id": "69eb8f1d-a27f-424b-b13b-4acb64607ed9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants maintained that the domestic authorities had refused to recognise the applicant association as a religious entity in both sets of proceedings despite the fact that it had existed and operated for many years before the 2007 Act had entered into force. They argued that the interference with their rights under this head had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been ."], "id": "8f326afc-128f-47a1-83fc-caa3f2dc1e46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that the applicants, together with other members of the National Bolsheviks Party, had effected a forcible and unauthorised entry into the premises of the President\u2019s Administration, had held an unauthorised assembly there, had voiced unlawful demands for the President\u2019s resignation, had hampered the normal functioning of the President\u2019s Administration and had destroyed State property there. Their protest had not been peaceful and had amounted to a criminal offence of mass disorder. They had been therefore lawfully prosecuted for participation in mass disorder involving destruction of State property. Their arrest, detention and conviction had pursued the legitimate aim of investigating criminal offences and punishing those responsible and had been ."], "id": "1e25bb83-e441-4ef1-9665-3ac63e288720", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicants argued that the refusal to register the Civic Committee had not been in accordance with the law, that it had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been . The applicants also alleged that their case concerned several aspects of the national legislation and administrative practice which run counter to the principles embodied in Article 11 of the Convention."], "id": "17483c3a-d176-4e5b-af46-4fc90e96a6ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant contested the Government's submissions on every point. First, he disagreed that the ban on the public events he had sought to hold had been imposed in accordance with the law. He pointed out that neither the Assemblies Act nor any other legislative instrument provided for a ban on public events. The restrictions set out in section 8(1) of the Act on holding events in venues which were unsuitable for safety reasons required the authorities to suggest another venue, as set out in section 12 of the Act, and not to ban the event. In any case, even if the Court were to accept that the alleged impossibility of avoiding public disorder at any venue could provide a justification for the ban under domestic law, the applicant maintained that the ban did not comply with two other requirements of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, in that it had failed to pursue a legitimate aim and had not been ."], "id": "4a1245ef-a3a4-466c-930f-01b10a4560b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants claimed that the right to freedom of religion encompassed the expectation that members would be allowed to associate freely without arbitrary State intervention. Therefore, the State was prohibited from regulating State-Church relationships arbitrarily; any interference in that sphere had to be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be . The requirements relating to the registration of Churches had to be objective and reasonable, because in this matter the State was required to remain neutral and impartial. Consequently, if a religious community met the legal requirements it had to be entitled to be registered as a Church, and the registration procedure had to offer guarantees of fairness."], "id": "aae58c80-94a0-43ee-859e-509a364f453a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the right to freedom of association was not absolute and might be subject to restrictions, as provided by Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They reiterated that, in accordance with the norms and principles of public international law, the right to strike could also be restricted. For instance, Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the ICESCR (see paragraph 19 above) allowed the banning of strikes by members of the police, army and State administration, and permitted restrictions on the right to strike of other people when it was ."], "id": "8f3dd979-f840-485a-a4c6-c088b1e3f175", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant additionally submitted that the interference had not been . He referred to the principles developed in Court's case\u2011law on this issue and argued that he had been penalised solely for the ideas expressed in the association's articles. The association had not engaged in any action which could characterise it as propagating violence or undemocratic principles. The idea of a monarchy and the related insignia were not undemocratic or violent, as evidenced in particular by the fact that the name of the coalition which had ruled the country as between 2001 and 2005 had been \u201cNational Movement Simeon II\u201d, after the former heir to the throne Simeon Saxe-Coburggotski, who had become prime minister. Even before his starting into office in 2001 Bulgaria's coat of arms had featured a crown, whereas the public debate over the form of government \u2013 republic or monarchy \u2013 continued. While the Constitution indeed needed stability, it was by no means carved into stone. Its amendment could be envisaged for the purpose of bringing it in line with the dominant public views on the form of government, whereas suppressing any ideas in this respect could harm democracy and constituted unfettered majority rule."], "id": "d82926bd-74fa-4b5f-b71a-ea9007693d78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to peaceful assembly. He claimed that the ban repeatedly imposed by the Moscow authorities on holding the Pride March and the picketing had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been . He relied on Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "813c0313-1907-4d53-9379-58694207f94f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicants maintained that the State\u2019s interference had not been justified and . They stated that there had been no legitimate aim justifying the dissolution of the Association, nor had the reasons given by the Constitutional Court been relevant or sufficient. Having regard to the Court\u2019s case-law, they argued that the Court had found restrictions imposed on freedom of expression and freedom of association by the Contracting States necessary only in two types of cases: in cases of threats of use of violence and in cases of justification of the use of violence."], "id": "3277139f-cf6b-43a9-9908-45c7a7138eb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant complained under Article 11 of the Convention of a violation of his right to freedom of association, arguing that the rejection by the domestic courts of the application for registration of the association founded by him and four other associates had not been and that the courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for that restriction. The relevant part of the aforementioned Article reads as follows:"], "id": "1b47c547-f330-4b6d-832d-5beca5724356", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government submitted that the police intervention in the demonstration after 5 p.m. was prescribed by law, namely Articles 7 and 14 of the Law on Freedom of Assembly, pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others, and was as the demonstrators had behaved aggressively and had intended to continue an unlawful demonstration. The Government noted that the demonstration took place without any police intervention from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., which was the period notified by the organisers. However, as the demonstrators had refused to disperse after 5 p.m., the time the assembly was supposed to end, despite numerous warnings by the police, the latter had to intervene."], "id": "64d5fbd4-bcad-41a2-9a47-42ac27524955", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicants submitted that the legislative amendments described by the Government were relevant for the general measures which Bulgaria was bound to adopt in execution of the judgment in United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN and Others (cited above), but had no bearing on the interferences in issue in the present case. Those interferences had been neither lawful nor . During UMO Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN\u2019s first re\u2011registration attempt the Sofia City Court had failed to give them instructions concerning the purported irregularities in the party\u2019s registration documents and had refused to allow them to adduce additional evidence. In view of the trivial nature of the irregularities on which the court had based its decision and of its earlier refusal to allow the applicants to rectify those irregularities, its refusal to register the party had been excessive. Moreover, the proceedings had been accompanied by a hostile campaign by the authorities against the party\u2019s registration. The applicants and about five thousand other members of the party had been targeted in an unprecedented campaign of harassment by the police; some of them had been intimidated into signing declarations renouncing their membership. As a result, the authorities had obtained and had submitted to the Sofia City Court sixty\u2011six such declarations. During the second re\u2011registration attempt the national courts had not taken into account the binding effect of this Court\u2019s judgment in United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN and Others (cited above). The Sofia City Court had in part relied on reasons that had been found problematic in that judgment. The Supreme Court of Cassation had based the refusal to register the party on the lack of an up\u2011to\u2011date list of members, contrary to the express indications given by the Committee of Minister\u2019s Secretariat, and had not clearly disavowed the problematic reasoning given by the Sofia City Court."], "id": "1510a16a-8b7f-44d6-bb61-7d3d3b6d7f2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["163. The applicants claimed that the interference had not been prescribed by law or . It had been established by the Presnenskiy District Court on 16 August 2002 that the Moscow Justice Department had not invoked the dissolution proceedings before the Golovinskiy District Court as a ground for refusing re-registration. Furthermore, the four criminal investigations between June 1996 and April 1998 had found no criminal activity on the part of the applicant community. In April 1999, after a detailed expert study, the Ministry of Justice had granted re-registration to the federal organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses, of which the applicant community had been a member. Likewise, 398 communities of Jehovah's Witnesses in other Russian regions had been granted registration or re-registration during the same period."], "id": "e58b108a-555a-4e5e-819b-7b851ed1795d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicants complained under Article 11 of the Convention that UMO Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN had been declared unconstitutional and as a result dissolved. They submitted that this interference with their freedom of association had not been prescribed by law, as in its interpretative judgment no. 7 of 1996 the Constitutional Court had held that restrictions of freedom of speech \u2013 which, in the applicants\u2019 view, applied mutatis mutandis to freedom of association \u2013 would only be justified if the speech in issue posed an immediate threat of violent overturning of the constitutional order and democracy. The applicants further submitted that the interference had not been , as the Constitutional Court had failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for declaring the applicant party unconstitutional."], "id": "a28c4329-5899-4bf7-aad9-ba5c7ac3436b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["220. The applicant argued that, since the criminal proceedings against him had been politically motivated, such interference could not be considered as prescribed by law. As regards the dispersal of the demonstration, none of the concerns raised in the Armenian Ombudsman\u2019s report regarding the lawfulness of the police operation had been addressed either during the investigation or in the Government\u2019s observations. All the evidence provided by the police had been considered reliable and their actions, without a proper examination and assessment, had been considered lawful by the courts, which had failed to carry out an objective and thorough establishment of the facts. Neither the interference with the expression of his political opinions, nor the dispersal of the demonstration were . As regards the latter, a number of questions remained unanswered. In particular, the disproportionate manner in which the demonstration had been dispersed, resulting in more than one hundred persons injured; the failure of the police to communicate with the opposition leader when the latter proposed to listen to their demands; the reasons for choosing such an early hour to carry out such a large-scale police operation, moreover, assuming that it had been a search and seizure operation, it being prohibited under the rules of criminal procedure; the failure to video record a police operation involving such a large number of police officers, while hindering and restricting journalists from video recording those events; the reasons why all the participants in the sit-in had been dispersed, as well as why Freedom Square had remained closed for any gatherings by the opposition for the following 38 months, if the purpose of the police operation had only been to carry out a search and seizure of illegal weapons."], "id": "c95acf68-b78c-4e60-a2e2-e19dd7e76ec0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicants submitted that the interference was not prescribed by law because the national courts failed to give them clear indications on how to proceed to obtain registration, and construed arbitrarily the constitutional restrictions on freedom to associate. The interference was not either, because the national courts did not have before them any evidence showing that the registration of Ilinden would endanger Bulgaria\u2019s sovereignty or national security. However, those courts accepted uncritically the \u201cofficial position\u201d on the so\u2011called \u201cMacedonian question\u201d and justified the refusal on grounds that had nothing to do with the principles of democracy."], "id": "a69b08b4-d3b2-4cd7-bb26-70c37728033e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["85. The applicant party further maintained that where the confiscation of the assets of a political party forced it to curtail its expenditure and cease its activities on account of the resulting financial hardship, such a measure could not be considered to be proportionate to any legitimate aims pursued, if such aims ever existed. The applicant party stressed that while the Government had argued that the amounts confiscated were relatively low in comparison with the party\u2019s income, that consideration had no relevance to the \u201ctest of proportionality\u201d set by the Court. The adverse consequences of the impugned sanctions imposed on the party had already been brought to the Court\u2019s attention (see paragraph 66 above). Those consequences had been brought about by the Constitutional Court\u2019s subjective and restrictive interpretation of the legal requirements on expenditure and the formalities regarding the provision of supporting documentation, and did not as such concern any abuse, corruption or other financial crime on the part of the party. In view of the nature of the irregularities in question, including those concerning documentation, it would have been more proportionate to issue warnings or give prior notice for rectification, but the relevant Act did not provide for such a possibility. In those circumstances, it could not be accepted that the sanctions imposed had been ."], "id": "bfe44c8a-fa40-481e-a2ca-73618ff74ca6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government did not argue that there had not been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly other than to submit that the case was not within the scope of Article 11. Even assuming that the applicant\u2019s acts had fallen within the scope of Article 11, they submitted that the State authorities\u2019 acts and decisions had had the legitimate aims of protecting national security, territorial integrity, public safety and public order as well as the prevention of crime. They argued that interfering with the demonstrations in question, which had incited people to violence and which had been organised by members of the PKK, a terrorist organisation, had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been . They stressed that the applicant had not been convicted for taking part in a funeral."], "id": "00979996-1b15-40ca-96b8-87d674523da1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicants argued that UMO Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN\u2019s dissolution had not been , because it was a democratic political party. There was nothing in its activity or in the activities of its leaders of members which could suggest hostility towards the democratic form of government. Nor had it made any calls for the use of violence."], "id": "6b55efda-e30b-4ec4-b7ff-8d8e60abe724", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that the interference had been . In this connection, they pointed out that although the Association had been registered as a public association, it had engaged in religious activities that only religious organisations were allowed to perform under domestic law. Lastly, the Government noted that the Association had not kept accounting records, contrary to the requirements of domestic law, a situation that would inevitably lead to money laundering."], "id": "cbc8b1f0-86b5-4cac-99bd-7c61d68873f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants complained that during their detention at the Buiucani Police Station their mobile telephones were taken away from them and that the police officers searched through their telephones\u2019 memory and deleted audio and video files of sounds and images of the demonstration. According to them, the police deleted materials which would have been inconsistent with the latter\u2019s version of the events. This fact constituted an interference with their right to private life and correspondence which was not prescribed by law and was not ."], "id": "e44bd337-e1b0-4868-9ee2-d27de7db081d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant also complained that the interference with his right to freedom of expression had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been . He argued that it was important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards unlawful peaceful gatherings (he referred to Nurettin Aldemir and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32124/02 and 6 others, 18 December 2007). Consequently, it was also important to show the same degree of tolerance towards articles published on the Internet about preparations for such peaceful gatherings. The Russian authorities had shown zero tolerance in his own case, however. Furthermore, by blocking access to his VKontakte account, they had blocked access to other material published thereon which had not been found to be illegal. The judicial review of the blocking decision had been superficial: the domestic courts had not applied the \u201cproportionality\u201d or the \u201cnecessity in a democratic society\u201d tests."], "id": "a34c366f-abcf-4d79-9546-af291518b06c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of peaceful assembly as he was convicted of minor hooliganism under Article 172 of the CAO. In any event, even assuming that there had been an interference, it was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and was since the applicant was found to have committed reprehensible acts."], "id": "4839c6b5-0665-4c0d-aef3-331b61734155", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government acknowledged that the refusal to register the applicant group constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of religion. In their view, the interference was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and all the refusals of registration had been based on the relevant legal provisions. The interference pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of protecting public order (they referred to Kimlya, cited above, \u00a7 97). The Government justified the interference as having been for suppressing manifestations of religious discord (they referred to Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, 25 November 1996, \u00a7 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V, and Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, \u00a7 50, Series A no. 295\u2011A). They also claimed that similar waiting periods were provided for by the laws of some other Member States. According to their information, Austrian law set the waiting period at twenty years, Latvian law at twenty-five years, and Romania\u2019s Law no. 489 of 28 December 2006 provided that religious denominations, other than the eighteen listed in the law, may be recognised if they can prove their existence in the country for at least twelve years."], "id": "501b19b1-3037-47a0-a647-98abe9db9440", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant parties alleged that their dissolution had entailed a violation of their right to freedom of association. Describing Institutional Law no. 6/2002 on political parties (\u201cthe LOPP\u201d) as an ad hoc law, they argued that it was neither accessible nor foreseeable and complained that it had been applied retrospectively. Stating that the purpose of their dissolution had been to eliminate political debate in the Basque Country, they complained that the measure had had no legitimate aim. They argued that it could not be considered and considered it to be in violation of the principle of proportionality. The relevant parts of Article 11 provide:"], "id": "9b44e1b9-3524-49a7-b29b-7453e3c7db25", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government argued that the sanctions in question had pursued a number of legitimate aims, such as securing the fulfilment of the functions of political parties, protecting their constitutional position, ensuring respect for the \u201cprinciple of clarity\u201d in democratic societies and informing the public, and that they had also been for the achievement of those aims. The Government also argued that the amounts confiscated from the applicant party were relatively low in comparison with the latter\u2019s income for the years under review."], "id": "d7e5b545-acfa-495d-b95a-a5b26b867c89", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["187. The Government submitted that there had been an interference with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 and their freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, but that the interference had been in accordance with the law, in particular Article 71 of the Criminal Code. They submitted that the interference had been in the interests of public safety. They also argued that it had been , particularly because the applicants\u2019 actions during the events of 9 March 2001 had gone beyond the range allowed to be committed by an individual in exercising his rights under the Convention, as they had been accompanied by riotous damage, destruction of property and resistance towards the authorities. Their rally had therefore not been of a peaceful character."], "id": "1975b261-d50f-4296-8b8d-1094f0bc3595", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government submitted that the interference was and proportionate to the aim pursued. It was aimed at preventing the applicant\u2019s unlawful actions and avoiding social disorder. The sanction imposed was at the lower end of the scale of penalties prescribed for the offence committed by the applicant. The Contracting Parties enjoyed a margin of appreciation as far as the necessity of an interference was concerned and the reasons given by the domestic authorities were relevant and sufficient."], "id": "0090b78f-ea43-4e93-8e6e-83062e273b19", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s submission that the measure in question had purported to prevent a possible abuse by the association in acting as a political party and had been aimed at upholding the rules regulating political parties. In so far as the association had not existed before and neither it nor its founding members had engaged in activities of a political nature, the refusal of the registration appeared disproportionate to the aim pursued and had been un . That was all the more so since Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 allowed the State authorities to dissolve any association which had pursued goals that were different from the ones for which it had been founded."], "id": "897fbcb9-e46f-4baa-b4d2-d27deac7205a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants argued that dissolving a political party did not comply with the needs of a democratic society and made it impossible to achieve pluralism. The dissolution of HADEP was not . In support of their submissions the applicants referred to the previous political party dissolution cases decided by the Court, as well as the guidelines proposed by the Venice Commission (see paragraph 26 above)."], "id": "477ea723-2ebf-4ac3-8fce-0a3e959e2b5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government, admitting that the refusal to register the applicant as an association amounted to interference to its right to freedom of association, considers nevertheless that this interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and was . In this respect, they referred to Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 which provides that if the legal requirements for the setting up of an association are not satisfied, the request to register is dismissed. The refusal to register the applicant association in the instant case pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public order and the rights and liberties of the others, namely the rights of those who use the services of lawyers to represent their interests."], "id": "017080f1-4d51-4293-a95a-ee06ea758fbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["120. The Government submitted that the interference complained of was . In the first place, to recognise the applicant Church the State would have had to give up its position of neutrality in religious matters, and in religious conflicts in particular, which would have been contrary to the Moldovan Constitution and Moldovan public policy. It was therefore in order to discharge its duty of neutrality that the Government had urged the applicant Church to settle its differences with the Metropolitan Church of Moldova first."], "id": "9cdca133-09aa-4794-9055-062028732df8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government were of the opinion that, even assuming an interference, it had been prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim (namely, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others) and been . The interference, if any, had not constituted a hidden obstacle to a peaceful, spontaneous assembly. They referred to the case of \u00c9va Moln\u00e1r (cited above, \u00a7 39), in which the Court had established that those events \u2013 which were direct consequences of the incident discussed in the present case \u2013 had not disclosed special circumstances of the kind to which the only adequate response had been an immediate demonstration. In any event, the applicant could have exercised his right to assembly in a manner which would not have violated the criminal law. However, the applicant had opted to engage in criminal conduct, the sanction for which was nevertheless very mild, by no means disproportionate."], "id": "535f94d1-ecc4-4111-901d-ce7c190e5acc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of assembly had been prescribed by law, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public order and the rights of others and had been . They noted that the applicant had not only attended a demonstration organised in support of the PKK, which was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of international organisations, including the Court itself, but had also disseminated propaganda in its favour."], "id": "1eaa2fe2-7540-4eef-b8c9-779129c13105", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicants furthermore maintained that physical force had been used against them by police, and that that force had not been and had in any event been disproportionate to whatever legitimate aim the Government had claimed to be pursuing. While reiterating the Court\u2019s reasoning in the case of Bukta and Others v. Hungary (no. 25691/04, \u00a7 37, ECHR 2007\u2011III), they submitted that the public authorities should have shown a certain degree of tolerance towards their peaceful gatherings at the University. Lastly, in their view, the imposition of administrative fines had only served to punish them for their having exercised their rights under Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention and had been intended to have a \u201cchilling effect\u201d upon anyone who might have been willing to protest against the Government\u2019s reforms in the educational sphere."], "id": "eeb2e718-4ec4-489f-bdf2-bb5408203849", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant submitted that his conviction for minor hooliganism had been based on the fact of participation in a demonstration and therefore interfered with his rights under Article 11. In the absence of any details of the public order offence allegedly committed by him, it was the fact of participation itself which was qualified as a violation of public order. Furthermore, Article 172 of the CAO was too vague, the interference did not pursue a legitimate aim and it was not ."], "id": "566cfe0d-1be0-4471-99aa-351d2cafeda2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government further argued that the bans had been prescribed by law, namely section 12(2)(2) of the Meetings and Marches Act. Also, the measures complained of had pursued a wide range of legitimate aims: protecting national security and public safety, guaranteeing public order in the local community, protecting the rights and freedoms of others and preventing disorder and crime. They had also been , because the authorities had acted in conformity with the laws of the country, their actions had not been arbitrary and they had complied with their positive obligations to guarantee the citizens\u2019 rights under Article 11 of the Convention. Referring to the case of Gustafsson v. Sweden (judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011II, pp. 652\u201153, \u00a7 45), the Government submitted that the Contracting States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in their choice of the means to be employed to attain a legitimate aim."], "id": "a0fce4a9-54cb-4629-a1c1-ac685075268b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["121. The applicants submitted that the refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was not . They asserted that all the arguments put forward by the Government were without foundation and unsubstantiated and that they did not correspond to a \u201cpressing social need\u201d. There was nothing in the file to show that the applicants had intended or carried on or sought to carry on activities capable of undermining Moldovan territorial integrity, national security or public order. "], "id": "a2fc3c1b-bc9a-4796-82ce-1bc14297fa2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants further contended that the interference in question was not , since the slogans chanted by them had not contained any element of incitement to violence. They had not chanted the slogans \u201cLong live our Party, MLKP\u201d and \u201cVictory to the revolution, long live the MLKP\u201d and the Ankara Assize Court had established the circumstances of the case only on the basis of a police report. The allegedly illegal documents found in the homes of some of them were books, scientific articles, legal associations\u2019 leaflets, and notes regarding a non-governmental organisation and a legal political party."], "id": "ee4e0678-f5a9-40e1-87c1-34e48cc96413", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant association complained of a violation of its right to peaceful assembly. It claimed that the ban imposed on it on holding a demonstration had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been . It relied on Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "5e7b303c-9176-4dcc-82ff-82a416899d26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant further argued that there had been no legitimate aim in punishing him. His conviction and lengthy prison sentence had been a part of the Government policies to put pressure on the DTP. As to the necessity of the interference, he had not advocated violence and had not incited other people to hatred or violence during the demonstrations in question. He had been the head of the local branch of a political party and had been punished on account of his political activities. He therefore claimed that his criminal conviction had not been . Lastly, the applicant argued that the interference with his right to freedom of assembly had been grossly disproportionate given that he had been sentenced to a total of six years and three months\u2019 imprisonment, which had then been reduced to five years, two months and fifteen days\u2019 imprisonment."], "id": "fdc60f7f-0c02-4e3e-a64a-44d87149c8d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant argued that, while having been , the interference complained of had not pursued a legitimate aim. As regards its necessity, he argued that had the demonstration been authorised it would not have caused any disproportionate obstacle to the traffic. Venyige Street, with the service lane included, was wide enough to accommodate the expected number of participants, some 200; and the police could have secured access to the prison notwithstanding the on-going event. In sum, the applicant found abusive the Government\u2019s reliance on the traffic hindrance argument."], "id": "9c530017-96f6-414e-9144-4c85d7e9e557", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government accepted that the applicants\u2019 arrest at the site of the public event and their administrative convictions had constituted an interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and their right to freedom of expression. Such an interference constitutes a breach of Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention unless it is , pursues one or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2 of each Article, and is \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "83aad5f4-6e61-4d11-9dd1-a998a16cbb01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that the interference was . In particular, the applicant was convicted under Article 180.1 of the CAO for \u201cviolation of the prescribed rules for organising or holding assemblies, rallies, street marches and demonstrations\u201d. These rules were prescribed by the USSR Law on Approving Decrees of the Chairmanship of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on Making Amendments and Supplements to Certain USSR Legal Acts of 28 October 1988 and were accessible and formulated with sufficient precision."], "id": "52dd54b4-61ab-4a19-bc6b-f844a6434157", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government of Cyprus observed that the interference by the Turkish police with the peaceful assembly which was taking place in the buffer zone had not been , was unnecessary and grossly disproportionate in relation to any conduct by the applicant or any claimed public-order issue which could have arisen. The laws of the Republic of Cyprus, applicable to the area where the demonstration took place, did not permit such an interference. The respondent Government could not alter the legal system in the occupied territory and had not invoked any Turkish law that could have provided a legal basis for its agents' behaviour."], "id": "e75ebeaf-1710-4f0a-93fd-36b042e75b64", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government further submitted that the interference in question had been . They noted in this regard that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on section 23(b) of Law no. 2911 and Articles 220 \u00a7 6 and 314 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code. According to the Government, these provisions, and in particular Article 220 \u00a7 6 of the Criminal Code, fulfilled the requirement of \u201cforeseeability\u201d for the purposes of Article 11 of the Convention."], "id": "251dce4a-f62d-4e96-ba66-85ae2a1a23c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "f45242cf-23a2-4105-a61c-5f4f68e43c8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["107. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "5b19e9e8-8763-4731-ae49-8f70705dd764", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant argued that his convictions under Article 314 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code and section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 had constituted an interference with his right to freedom of assembly. He stated that the interference in question had not been , within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention, since he had been unable to foresee that his participation in the funeral of 28 March 2006 or the demonstration of 5 March 2007 and his conduct during those events would lead to his prosecution and conviction for membership of an illegal organisation and a prison sentence of seven years and eleven months. The applicant referred to the opinion of the dissenting assize court judge (see paragraph 21 above)."], "id": "1d913dbf-5de1-4a19-8ca1-ff913e431401", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government contended that the applicants had acted unlawfully by holding a public event without the authorities\u2019 approval. Its dispersal had therefore been lawful and justified. They disputed that the event held by the applicants could be qualified as genuinely spontaneous. The date of the examination of the draft law had indeed been announced two days before, making it impossible to submit a notification within the statutory time-limit. However, on that date the State Duma had examined the draft law at the second reading, while three readings were necessary for a law to be adopted. There had been sufficient time to organise a public event in accordance with the procedure before the third and final reading of the draft law by the State Duma. The facts of the present case had not disclosed special circumstances such as would warrant an immediate demonstration as the only adequate response. The applicants had therefore been lawfully fined for participating in a public event held without prior notification. The amount of fines had been reasonable."], "id": "76301613-05b0-4883-a0c2-38608ac49acd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that the interference was . In particular, the applicant was convicted under Article 180.1 of the CAO for \u201cviolation of the prescribed rules for organising or holding assemblies, rallies, street marches and demonstrations\u201d. These rules were prescribed by the USSR Law on Approving Decrees of the Chairmanship of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on Making Amendments and Supplements to Certain USSR Legal Acts of 28 October 1988 and were accessible and formulated with sufficient precision."], "id": "22e344c0-ee4c-470b-85c7-f87e709900da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government further argued that the applicants\u2019 detention had also been justified under sub-paragraph (b) of Article 5 \u00a7 1. It had been necessary to secure the fulfilment of an obligation . Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it was certain that the applicants would not have fulfilled their legal duty to comply with an order to report to a police station in their town of residence at regular intervals (Meldeauflage) or with an order not to enter a particular area (Platzverweis). The applicants had travelled several hundred kilometres in order to reach the venue of the G8 summit and had resisted the identity check. They had thus demonstrated that they would not follow orders given by the police. Having regard to the exceptional situation at hand, it had not been necessary to wait until the applicants had in fact breached such an order. Bearing in mind the great number of demonstrators present, it would not have been possible to prevent the applicants from committing offences upon their doing so. Therefore, compliance with their legal duties to follow such an order and the prevention of specific offences could only have been secured by their instantaneous detention."], "id": "43d630df-6079-4fa5-8c86-fa982122f841", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government submitted that the interference was , namely by the relevant provisions of the Assembly Act. Furthermore, it pursued the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, that is, those of other road users. As to its necessity, the Government stressed that the police had had to balance the right to assembly and the right to free movement. Since in the present case the event was likely to cause inordinate traffic congestion in both Venyige Street and the neighbouring major thoroughfare, it was the police\u2019s prerogative to restrict the applicant\u2019s Article 11 rights: the measure was thus a necessary and proportionate restriction on the right to assembly."], "id": "aa67f7d3-65c2-4d0f-9549-bbc048bfd51a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government further argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, if any, was . The applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on Article 220 \u00a7 7 of the Criminal Code and the wording of that provision met the accessibility and foreseeability requirements within the meaning of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The interference in question had the legitimate aims of protecting national security and public order as well as preventing crime."], "id": "bcdd9a40-857b-44fa-8939-4c8004a2a683", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["220. The applicant argued that, since the criminal proceedings against him had been politically motivated, such interference could not be considered as . As regards the dispersal of the demonstration, none of the concerns raised in the Armenian Ombudsman\u2019s report regarding the lawfulness of the police operation had been addressed either during the investigation or in the Government\u2019s observations. All the evidence provided by the police had been considered reliable and their actions, without a proper examination and assessment, had been considered lawful by the courts, which had failed to carry out an objective and thorough establishment of the facts. Neither the interference with the expression of his political opinions, nor the dispersal of the demonstration were necessary in a democratic society. As regards the latter, a number of questions remained unanswered. In particular, the disproportionate manner in which the demonstration had been dispersed, resulting in more than one hundred persons injured; the failure of the police to communicate with the opposition leader when the latter proposed to listen to their demands; the reasons for choosing such an early hour to carry out such a large-scale police operation, moreover, assuming that it had been a search and seizure operation, it being prohibited under the rules of criminal procedure; the failure to video record a police operation involving such a large number of police officers, while hindering and restricting journalists from video recording those events; the reasons why all the participants in the sit-in had been dispersed, as well as why Freedom Square had remained closed for any gatherings by the opposition for the following 38 months, if the purpose of the police operation had only been to carry out a search and seizure of illegal weapons."], "id": "ddb98087-9b22-420e-b2ab-08749b753037", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants argued that the interference was not , because the Law on non\u2011governmental organisations (public associations and foundations) (\u201cthe NGO Act\u201d), being vague and imprecise, gave the Ministry of Justice an unlimited discretion to issue warnings to public associations without specifying clearly the scope of such discretion. This situation allowed the Ministry to request dissolution of an association for anything that it deemed to be a breach of the requirements of the NGO Act, even if it was relatively minor. Therefore, the NGO Act was not formulated with sufficient precision, which made it impossible to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the specific actions (or omissions) that could entail the forced dissolution of the Association."], "id": "965aa790-09eb-4535-b0a7-fd16608fb95a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["116. The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 administrative detention was imposed under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and was compatible with the requirements of that provision. Their cases were examined by a court of first instance, which was the sole competent authority to do so. The sentences were imposed in a procedure and in compliance with the relevant procedural rules."], "id": "a3a577cc-469b-49bb-842f-a5dc94373a33", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["116. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "934974ca-faf2-47c5-957b-3539626dbec8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of the applicant organisation\u2019s right to freedom of assembly. Since the applicant organisation had not been informed of the Mayor\u2019s decision within the 72 hours , it automatically acquired the right to conduct the planned event by virtue of Section 12 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 7 and 8 of the Act. Being unaware of that decision on the date of the event, they had a legal right to conduct the rally as planned. The applicant organisation, however, had decided not to avail itself of this right."], "id": "76df184c-7800-40b9-8f67-fbea6df1702d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a procedure and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "36d9bbd9-9b0c-4e30-b7b6-9fe978801625", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government contended that the interference in question was , namely Law no. 2911, and that it had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting public safety. They further claimed that the measure imposed by the security forces should be regarded as answering a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "b6c7e960-6b9c-4ac9-8f49-5e897963d955", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant union submitted that the large-scale wrongful dismissal of its members by their employer had resulted in the absolute eradication of trade unionism across the whole company in less than a year. In that regard, it drew attention to the domestic courts\u2019 responsibility in failing to examine its application within the time , thus giving the employer the time to put an end to all trade-union activity in its factories by means of wrongful dismissals. It also emphasised that the domestic courts had given the employer the choice between reinstating the dismissed employees and paying compensation for their dismissal, and that in doing so, they had left the way open for the dismissal of those employees wishing to remain members of the union. In the applicant union\u2019s submission, the national legal system in force at the material time had not safeguarded trade unions\u2019 right to organise within a company, when that company had dismissed all employees belonging to a trade union and then paid them compensation for wrongful dismissal as provided by law."], "id": "17c6b7fe-d03f-4f4e-8a5d-c8605a560961", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "5a9aa600-b20d-4d10-a11b-284cfd783dbb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of peaceful assembly as he was convicted of minor hooliganism under Article 172 of the CAO. In any event, even assuming that there had been an interference, it was , pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society since the applicant was found to have committed reprehensible acts."], "id": "b4963e6a-4e53-4de0-9bfa-6785dfcafadb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicants complained under Article 11 of the Convention that UMO Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN had been declared unconstitutional and as a result dissolved. They submitted that this interference with their freedom of association had not been , as in its interpretative judgment no. 7 of 1996 the Constitutional Court had held that restrictions of freedom of speech \u2013 which, in the applicants\u2019 view, applied mutatis mutandis to freedom of association \u2013 would only be justified if the speech in issue posed an immediate threat of violent overturning of the constitutional order and democracy. The applicants further submitted that the interference had not been necessary in a democratic society, as the Constitutional Court had failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for declaring the applicant party unconstitutional."], "id": "b4403e8f-05f9-41e1-8d37-9254d4e02dae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["103. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant\u2019s right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant\u2019s rights was not and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "9c110d98-7cd8-4bad-a9be-e935ed240540", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants contested the Government\u2019s submissions. They argued that the interference was not , did not pursue a legitimate aim and was disproportionate. They further submitted that the Association was not a religious organisation and had not engaged in any religious activity. They also noted that although Article 1 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations excluded religious organisations from the ambit of the Law, it lacked clarity and accessibility."], "id": "7919c266-29ba-44f1-8f1d-33b7d292ff65", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government submitted that, if the Court were to conclude that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, this interference was . The applicant blocked Mashtots Avenue with a group of people and, by doing so, violated public order, which was qualified as minor hooliganism and fell within the ambit of Article 172 of the CAO."], "id": "8f56ea79-9ffa-47d7-b458-8eb439cc42c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government claimed that the interference in the form of dissolution of the applicant community had been justified, and had also pursued a legitimate aim. They referred to the Court's position to the effect that the State was \u201centitled to verify whether a movement or association carries on, ostensibly in pursuit of religious aims, activities which are harmful to the population\u201d (Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, 26 September 1996, \u00a7 40, Reports 1996\u2011IV) and also \u201cmay legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct... judged incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others\u201d (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, \u00a7 47, Series A no. 295\u2011A)."], "id": "7fc73825-7baf-49f6-a24b-a960647d1b4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government submitted that, if the Court were to conclude that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of peaceful assembly, this interference was . The applicant blocked Mashtots Avenue with a group of people and, by doing so, violated public order, which was qualified as minor hooliganism and fell within the ambit of Article 172 of the CAO."], "id": "e24b943b-7b47-4d8e-8a5a-3b303e30fab5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government maintained that there had been no interference with the exercise of the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly. They further submitted that, even assuming that there had been interference, it was and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting public safety. They further claimed that the measure imposed by the security forces should be regarded as answering a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. In this connection, the Government dismissed the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill\u2011treatment and claimed that, in the circumstances of the present case, the force used on the applicant had been proportionate to the aims pursued."], "id": "54172227-193b-4b75-9f30-ffb82ec7cf5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government further argued that the bans had been , namely section 12(2)(2) of the Meetings and Marches Act. Also, the measures complained of had pursued a wide range of legitimate aims: protecting national security and public safety, guaranteeing public order in the local community, protecting the rights and freedoms of others and preventing disorder and crime. They had also been necessary in a democratic society, because the authorities had acted in conformity with the laws of the country, their actions had not been arbitrary and they had complied with their positive obligations to guarantee the citizens\u2019 rights under Article 11 of the Convention. Referring to the case of Gustafsson v. Sweden (judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011II, pp. 652\u201153, \u00a7 45), the Government submitted that the Contracting States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in their choice of the means to be employed to attain a legitimate aim."], "id": "1d104fd0-1680-4f39-96a8-abe67c158d19", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government submitted that the State\u2019s interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of association had been . They stated that Article 20 of the Constitution had provided for boundaries in exercising freedom of association. The same restrictions were set out in Article 4 of the Act. They asserted that the Constitutional Court, on the basis of these provisions, had found that the Association\u2019s name and the ideology of Ivan Mihajlov which it pursued had encouraged and incited to national hatred and intolerance and had led to a denial of the free expression of the Macedonian national affiliation. They maintained that the affirmation of the ideas of the Movement, as a terrorist association, would in practice mean killings, terrorist activities and support of fascism and its ideology. That had caused disorder and public reactions, resulting in two incidents at the Association\u2019s opening ceremony. They presented a number of documents concerning Ivan Mihajlov\u2019s life and his activities; the activities of the organisation called the VMRO (\u0412\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0448\u043d\u0430 \u041c\u0430\u043a\u0435\u0434\u043e\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0420\u0435\u0432\u043e\u043b\u0443\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0440\u043d\u0430 \u041e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430) under his leadership, in particular in the period 1924-1934, and his alleged alliance with the fascist regime during the Second World War. Referring to that material, they maintained that Ivan (Van\u010do) Mihajlov (Radko) was considered as a person who used terrorist methods to impose the fascist idea of denunciation of the Macedonian people\u2019s identity and to promote the latter as a fictitious and non-existent people called \u201cMacedonian Bulgarians\u201d (\u041c\u0430\u043a\u0435\u0434\u043e\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u0411\u043e\u043b\u0433\u0430\u0440\u0438). They stated that in pursuance of that idea, he and his followers had killed and massacred a considerable number of Macedonians who had fought for the national freedom of their people. The Government stated that the creation and operation of an Association, the name, platform and programme activities of which had been inspired by the name and image of Ivan Mihajlov, had irrefutably been directed towards incitement to national hatred or intolerance, contrary to Article 20 \u00a7 3 of the Constitution, something that could result in clashes between the Macedonian people and the citizens associated with the Association. They claimed that repudiation of the identity of the Macedonian people and its statehood had been at the heart of the Association\u2019s activity. Accordingly, violent destruction of the constitutional order was the fundamental objective of the Association. As stated by the Government, the public reaction on the opening ceremony had been clear evidence that the Association would incite to national hatred. The Association\u2019s members had had recourse to brutal physical force against their adversaries, causing injuries for which they had been subsequently convicted by a court and sentenced to imprisonment. The Government submitted that the existence of the Association should be considered as an abuse of freedom of association, as its aim had not been the expression of thoughts and beliefs, but negation of the identity of the Macedonian people through promotion of the fascist ideas of Ivan Mihajlov concerning the \u201cMacedonian Bulgarians\u201d, who were unknown in history, legal science and practice. The ultimate objective of the Association was to initiate national hatred, religious unrest and a revival of the terror that Ivan Mihajlov had practiced in his time, when he executed hundreds of opponents."], "id": "5ec19ba8-f6bf-4f63-9a7a-745355f8a4ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government submitted that by organising an unauthorised public event, the applicant had committed an administrative offence. The police had warned her that the public event had been unlawful and had demanded that it be stopped. She had not complied. She had also refused to go to the police station. Her escorting to the police station and her administrative arrest had therefore been justified by the need to stop the administrative offence and to hold her liable. Both the escorting and the arrest had been performed in accordance with the procedure . She had been released as soon as all the requisite procedural documents had been drawn up. The length of her arrest had been within the statutory limits: it had lasted for four hours and fifteen minutes, which had subsequently been deducted from her penalty."], "id": "4d294592-b62b-4c64-ab1e-e73bfdea8d31", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicants submitted that the interference was not because the national courts failed to give them clear indications on how to proceed to obtain registration, and construed arbitrarily the constitutional restrictions on freedom to associate. The interference was not necessary in a democratic society either, because the national courts did not have before them any evidence showing that the registration of Ilinden would endanger Bulgaria\u2019s sovereignty or national security. However, those courts accepted uncritically the \u201cofficial position\u201d on the so\u2011called \u201cMacedonian question\u201d and justified the refusal on grounds that had nothing to do with the principles of democracy."], "id": "a27e1705-5693-4d55-9bf0-8ca247db1f4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government submitted that the interference was , namely by the relevant provisions of Act no. III of 1989 on the Right of Assembly. Furthermore, it pursued the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, that is, those of traffic users. As to its necessity, the Government referred to the expert opinion given by the Traffic Division of the Budapest Police Department and stressed that the police had had to balance between the right to assembly and the right to free movement. Since in the present case the event was likely to congest inordinately the traffic of both Venyige Street and perhaps that of Magl\u00f3di Road, the neighbouring major thoroughfare, as well, it was the police\u2019s call to restrict the applicant\u2019s Article 11 rights: the measure was thus a necessary and proportionate restriction on the right to assembly."], "id": "7fc58a26-1003-4dde-b66b-95ef06a57198", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant argued that the interference with his freedom of religion and assembly was not because the deputy head of the Chekhov Town Council had not given reasons for the refusal. If the authorities considered that holding an assembly in the place he had proposed might disturb public order, they could have suggested another place or time. An unqualified ban on services of worship in public places had been disproportionate. He further argued that the authority's apprehension that the peaceful assembly might disturb public order was unsubstantiated. In 1998 the church had held services in public in the town of Chekhov which had not caused any disturbances. Other denominations, such as the Russian Orthodox Church, were allowed to hold services in public and such worship did not provoke any disorder in the town either."], "id": "41ceaa3a-1921-4b5e-81ab-cd9eec863265", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government claimed that at about 6.30 p.m. on 31 December 2010 the applicant had been arrested in accordance with Article 27.3 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences. He was then taken to the police station as required by Article 27.2 \u00a7 1 of the Code to draw up a report on the administrative offence. His subsequent detention pending trial did not exceed the forty-eight hour time-limit set forth in Article 27.5 \u00a7 3 of the Code. They considered that the police had fully complied with the procedure . They further pointed out that the applicant had been able to challenge his detention before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow and that on 12 January 2011 it had dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal, including the point concerning the lawfulness of his detention."], "id": "c963a5cd-f998-45c0-a57b-126db8d1f685", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government submitted that the police intervention in the demonstration after 5 p.m. was , namely Articles 7 and 14 of the Law on Freedom of Assembly, pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others, and was necessary in a democratic society as the demonstrators had behaved aggressively and had intended to continue an unlawful demonstration. The Government noted that the demonstration took place without any police intervention from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., which was the period notified by the organisers. However, as the demonstrators had refused to disperse after 5 p.m., the time the assembly was supposed to end, despite numerous warnings by the police, the latter had to intervene."], "id": "9214dbd3-c8a4-40e1-8e17-9181403b614f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the allegedly arbitrary denial of Latvian citizenship through naturalisation was a punitive measure imposed on him because he had imparted ideas and exercised his right of assembly in order to criticise the government\u2019s position. He further complained that the aforementioned infringements of his rights, contrary to the requirements of Article 10 \u00a7 2 and Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, were not , did not pursue a legitimate aim and were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society. Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention read as follows."], "id": "b48b6d1f-6b78-4de7-bb7c-d57ead851af7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government, admitting that the refusal to register the applicant as an association amounted to interference to its right to freedom of association, considers nevertheless that this interference was , pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society. In this respect, they referred to Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 which provides that if the legal requirements for the setting up of an association are not satisfied, the request to register is dismissed. The refusal to register the applicant association in the instant case pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public order and the rights and liberties of the others, namely the rights of those who use the services of lawyers to represent their interests."], "id": "4270aebd-1034-4c54-99da-61f688a0914c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants alleged that their conviction under Article 314 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code, on the basis of Articles 220 \u00a7 7 and 314 \u00a7 3 of the same Code, and section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 constituted an interference with their right to freedom of assembly. They stated that the interference in question was not , within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention, since they had been unable to anticipate that their participation in the demonstrations of 17 December 2005 and 19 February 2006 and their conduct during those events would lead to them being prosecuted pursuant to these provisions and to the sentences imposed on them. They stressed in this connection that both the ESP and the SGD, in whose activities they had participated, were legal civil society organisations and that the demonstrations in question had been lawful and peaceful."], "id": "5884d89a-63b4-458e-aa57-806682da6a27", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant\u2019s initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a procedure and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities\u2019 failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "5a7f5479-50e9-4219-abdf-e551f566b0f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["160. The Government and the applicants agreed with the Chamber\u2019s finding that the interference in question was . For the purposes of the present case, the Grand Chamber can accept that the interference was prescribed by law, as interpreted by the combined civil divisions of the Court of Cassation, the highest judicial body to have ruled on the case."], "id": "c8bb61fe-5a88-4125-9c4d-0016a4ecd0f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["163. The applicants claimed that the interference had not been or necessary in a democratic society. It had been established by the Presnenskiy District Court on 16 August 2002 that the Moscow Justice Department had not invoked the dissolution proceedings before the Golovinskiy District Court as a ground for refusing re-registration. Furthermore, the four criminal investigations between June 1996 and April 1998 had found no criminal activity on the part of the applicant community. In April 1999, after a detailed expert study, the Ministry of Justice had granted re-registration to the federal organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses, of which the applicant community had been a member. Likewise, 398 communities of Jehovah's Witnesses in other Russian regions had been granted registration or re-registration during the same period."], "id": "03da654c-7620-4fb9-b8c7-0562d25477a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant argued that his conviction under Articles 220 \u00a7 7 and 314 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code had constituted an interference with his right to freedom of assembly. He stated that the interference in question had not been , within the meaning of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. In that connection, the applicant argued that the domestic courts had interpreted Article 220 \u00a7 7 extensively. He considered that he could not have foreseen that his participation in the public gatherings and expressing his opinions during those events would lead to his prosecution and conviction for aiding an illegal organisation and membership of that organisation. The offence of \u201caiding an illegal organisation\u201d should be understood as providing weapons, material or confidential information to an illegal organisation, not expressing one\u2019s opinions and attendance at public demonstrations."], "id": "091ad6d3-809d-4a29-818a-092b8fc68b9b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied his liberty in circumstances which did not follow a procedure and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "ba0f527d-03e5-479e-ab0a-b31e3a2a84d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants claimed that the right to freedom of religion encompassed the expectation that members would be allowed to associate freely without arbitrary State intervention. Therefore, the State was prohibited from regulating State-Church relationships arbitrarily; any interference in that sphere had to be , pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. The requirements relating to the registration of Churches had to be objective and reasonable, because in this matter the State was required to remain neutral and impartial. Consequently, if a religious community met the legal requirements it had to be entitled to be registered as a Church, and the registration procedure had to offer guarantees of fairness."], "id": "4ca59a77-0f70-48ea-b069-7c0d2052c31a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied his liberty in circumstances which did not follow a procedure and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for his arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "4ae36564-869f-4712-915f-d93d21a2ed1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government submitted that the interference had been , namely by the amended section 3 \u00a7 2 and section 41 of the Political Parties Act and section 2 of the Amending Act (see paragraphs 33, 34 and 54 above). In particular, the above provisions required that, by 1 January 2006, all political parties should increase their membership to 50,000 persons and the membership of their regional branches to 500 persons. It also followed from those legal provisions that if a party had not increased its membership it had to reorganise itself into a public association or be dissolved. The applicable domestic law was accessible and formulated in clear terms so that the applicant had been able to foresee that failure to comply with the above requirements would lead to its dissolution."], "id": "b61d9f70-fc7d-4ce2-ad92-2c1f4092ecfe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government submitted that under Article 11 of the Convention the right of assembly was not an absolute right and therefore could be subjected to restrictions. In Hungary, the possibility of interfering with that right was laid down in an Act of Parliament. The holding of certain assemblies and meetings on public areas must be notified three days ahead. Under section 11(2) of the Assembly Act, the police were empowered to remove from the venue those who disturbed the assembly. In the course of securing an assembly, a police officer might, upon the well-founded suspicion of an administrative or criminal offence, apprehend the perpetrator; under section 142(2) b) of Act no. LXIX of 1999 on Administrative Offences, disobedience was punishable with a fine. Thus, the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly had been restricted in compliance with the conditions ."], "id": "beb52edd-14f3-4963-9757-cb09d54feeb4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government further argued that the applicants\u2019 detention had been lawful and in accordance with a procedure . It had been based on section 55(1), paragraph 2 (a), of the PSOA. The detention of the second applicant, who had been arrested in 2002 on suspicion of dangerous interference with rail traffic, had been based, in addition, on section 55(1), paragraph 2 (c), of the PSOA."], "id": "8e1e7a16-de3e-448f-b9f5-621b4bdc01a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["117. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "3e31e160-32ae-4c0a-baba-80efd18e402d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicants pointed out that the sole reason for the St Petersburg City Court\u2019s upholding the refusal to register the applicant group as a religious organisation had been the lack of a reliable document confirming its presence in St Petersburg for fifteen years. They contended that the refusal had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d because the law did not meet the standards of clarity and foreseeability required under the Convention. Referring to Article 132 of the Russian Constitution and sections 7(2) and 11(5) of the Religions Act, the applicants submitted that the law expressly authorised local authorities to issue letters confirming the length of a group\u2019s existence and that the courts\u2019 rejection of the confirmation letter on the basis of an alleged lack of authority was unreasonable. Furthermore, whereas the Religions Act required only formal presentation of a confirmation letter, the courts had rejected it as \u201cunreliable\u201d with reference to arbitrary criteria that were not and had imposed an unforeseeable and unattainable threshold."], "id": "47d28637-996a-4143-88e7-79f4fa115d4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government submitted that the interference was , namely by the relevant provisions of the Assembly Act. Furthermore, it pursued the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, that is, those of other road users. As to its necessity, the Government stressed that the police had had to balance the right to assembly and the right to free movement. Since in the present case the event was likely to cause inordinate traffic congestion in both Venyige Street and the neighbouring major thoroughfare, it was the police\u2019s prerogative to restrict the applicant\u2019s Article 11 rights: the measure was thus a necessary and proportionate restriction on the right to assembly."], "id": "bdafc290-e3bd-4697-bbb4-4493f53109f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in respect of the decision of 7 April 2003, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. According to Article 286 of the CAO, the court's decision to impose an administrative penalty was final and not subject to appeal except for the cases . Such an exception in respect of cases concerning offences under Article 172 of the CAO was provided by Article 294 of the CAO. This Article prescribed two possibilities to have the court's decision quashed, either by requesting the prosecutor to lodge a protest or by lodging an appeal directly with the chairman of a superior court. Thus, if a party had applied to a prosecutor but the latter refused to lodge a protest, then this party was entitled to appeal to the chairman of a superior court. Moreover, a party was entitled to appeal immediately to the chairman of a superior court without having first applied to a prosecutor. The applicant was informed about this possibility, since the decision of 7 April 2003 stated that \u201cit was subject to review by the Chairman of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal\u201d. However, he used only the first of these two possibilities and did not apply to the Chairman."], "id": "25bff705-365d-4d0c-a383-98d7f9fd6d3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty clearly did not fall under sub\u2011paragraphs (a), (d), (e) or (f) of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention. Nor could it be said to fall under sub\u2014paragraph (b): there was no evidence of non\u2011compliance with a lawful order of a court and the applicant\u2019s detention could not have been to secure the fulfilment of an obligation because, at the time his arrest, there was no unfulfilled obligation on the applicant (see Vasileva v. Denmark, no. 52792/99, \u00a7 36, 25 September 2003)."], "id": "47588e29-1932-445c-851b-c2bacf4d0d51", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government firstly submitted that the applicant party\u2019s dissolution had been , namely the Constitution of 1991 and the Political Parties Act of 1990. By Article 149 \u00a7 1 (5) of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court had the power to rule on the constitutionality of political parties. The grounds for declaring the applicant party unconstitutional were Article 44 of the Constitution and section 3 of the Political Parties Act of 1990. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court had exercised its powers in a lawful manner."], "id": "57c55707-5a6e-43f8-bcb5-2c97f1a395f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicants further submitted that the interference with their rights was not . In particular, arresting and detaining persons active in opposition politics ostensibly for the administrative offence of failing to obey police orders but in reality in order to prevent their attendance of opposition rallies could not be considered as a measure prescribed by law. Furthermore, the interference did not pursue a legitimate aim, since the aim of such administrative detention was not to prevent disorder but to hinder opposition calls challenging the incumbent President. There was no history of public disorder at previous opposition demonstrations, nor was there any ban on demonstrations in April 2004 which were essentially peaceful rallies. Thus, their detention was merely a pretext to interfere unlawfully with the opposition campaign of peaceful protests."], "id": "2f448dff-9d01-470c-aba9-d83ae5b49626", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that the evacuation order that had brought the assembly to an end was . The Ordinance of 12 Messidor, Year VIII, and Article L. 2512-13 of the Code of the Territorial Authorities conferred on the Paris Commissioner of Police full powers to maintain public order. The Commissioner of Police had therefore possessed the necessary power to make the order of 22 August 1996 for the eviction of the occupants of St Bernard's Church. "], "id": "ed79572a-4610-4cdf-8e24-5bfccb083b88", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that the applicants had been escorted to the police station and then administratively arrested for the legitimate purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record. While Russian law did not establish a maximum length of time for escorting to a police station, administrative arrest was limited to three hours. That requirement had been respected in the applicants\u2019 cases, as their administrative arrest had not exceeded three hours: from 10.30 a.m. to 1.20 p.m. as regards the first applicant and from 10.30 a.m. to 1.10 a.m. as regards the second applicant. All procedural requirements had therefore been respected."], "id": "03a3de65-3ebd-4e0e-aee8-d4b95fa4e7e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant\u2019s right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant\u2019s rights was not and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "12f64294-8265-44b9-ab11-fe2cf85ac10a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants complained that during their detention at the Buiucani Police Station their mobile telephones were taken away from them and that the police officers searched through their telephones\u2019 memory and deleted audio and video files of sounds and images of the demonstration. According to them, the police deleted materials which would have been inconsistent with the latter\u2019s version of the events. This fact constituted an interference with their right to private life and correspondence which was not and was not necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "6bd07cda-a51e-48fe-8167-d38d67139908", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a procedure and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "d9407506-7f35-4220-8694-fa8200190f0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government were of the opinion that, even assuming an interference, it had been , pursued a legitimate aim (namely, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others) and been necessary in a democratic society. The interference, if any, had not constituted a hidden obstacle to a peaceful, spontaneous assembly. They referred to the case of \u00c9va Moln\u00e1r (cited above, \u00a7 39), in which the Court had established that those events \u2013 which were direct consequences of the incident discussed in the present case \u2013 had not disclosed special circumstances of the kind to which the only adequate response had been an immediate demonstration. In any event, the applicant could have exercised his right to assembly in a manner which would not have violated the criminal law. However, the applicant had opted to engage in criminal conduct, the sanction for which was nevertheless very mild, by no means disproportionate."], "id": "155221d4-1c2b-4e0b-a5d3-ee76c2f021d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of assembly had been , had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public order and the rights of others and had been necessary in a democratic society. They noted that the applicant had not only attended a demonstration organised in support of the PKK, which was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of international organisations, including the Court itself, but had also disseminated propaganda in its favour."], "id": "3293a2e9-d851-4e6d-a67d-5f0eaf940d69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government were further of the view that the interference with the applicant's rights had been , namely the Constitution of 1991, the Persons and Family Act of 1949 and the Political Parties Act of 1990. It had been intended to safeguard a wide range of public interests. All three levels of court had lawfully and justifiably refused to register the association."], "id": "cdc62f65-96c8-4571-8972-46ad048f83d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant alleged a breach of her right to freedom of peaceful assembly with other aliens for the purposes of denouncing their treatment. The interference with that right was not (as the evacuation order was illegal), and was neither justified by a legitimate aim, nor proportionate. She alleged a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "id": "12fa6b0f-43bc-4ebf-a19f-b07ad83c2d3e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a procedure and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "a6b78521-509e-42db-b808-b64316288971", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly was , namely by section 6 of the Assembly Act. It served a legitimate aim, as its purpose was to maintain public order and to protect the rights and freedoms of others, namely the undisturbed worship of all those visiting the cemetery on All Saints\u2019 Day, an activity which was itself protected by Article 9 of the Convention."], "id": "7cb9f15a-4fae-4169-a24f-e0f69358837c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government submitted that any possible interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of peaceful assembly had been . The applicants had been convicted under Article 283 \u00a7 1 of the Criminal Code, prescribing punishment for serious breaches of public order. Referring to the Court\u2019s judgment in Galstyan (cited above, \u00a7 107) and taking into account the diversity inherent in public-order offences, the Government considered that the domestic legal norm had been formulated with sufficient precision (see also the arguments developed by the Government under Article 7 of the Convention \u2013 paragraphs 188-91 below)."], "id": "d39ca12c-2089-4e2b-9d09-063f71a0b3d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s judicial-review complaint against the refusal to approve the location of her public event had been examined before the planned date of that event and had been allowed in part. The domestic courts had found, in particular, that the town administration had failed to provide her with a well-reasoned proposal to change the location of the event. Moreover, no writ of execution had been issued. The Government further submitted that the domestic courts had had to assess whether the contested decision had been lawful and well-reasoned, and whether the procedure for adopting it had been complied with. However, the courts had no competence to examine the \u201creasonableness\u201d of any proposal to change the location."], "id": "7766288e-6ca4-4006-9ebc-8af1000be9fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of assembly was . The applicants\u2019 convictions had been based on Articles 220 \u00a7 7 and 314 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code and section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. The wording of those provisions met the explicitness and predictability requirements within the meaning of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The applicants had participated in demonstrations in favour of the MLKP and had chanted illegal slogans. Moreover, the police had seized illegal items from the homes of Deniz Bak\u0131r, Metin K\u00fcrek\u00e7i, Alihan Alhan and Necla \u00c7omak, who had been found to have organic links with the MLKP and who had disseminated propaganda in favour of that organisation."], "id": "94588c42-4850-4a70-95f2-dd0988cb3dc0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant argued that her message on VKontakte had not contained any calls for participation; it had simply informed the readers about her intention to hold a meeting. The domestic authorities had not, however, attempted to draw a distinction between \u201ccampaigning\u201d and \u201cinforming\u201d. Moreover, the District Court\u2019s conviction judgment had contradicted its previous decision that the refusal to approve the meeting had been unlawful. The interference with the applicant\u2019s rights had not therefore been ."], "id": "6e8c66be-f62f-405b-9ebb-fe76459c2183", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant\u2019s initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a procedure and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities\u2019 failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "26f22857-19b9-4af9-84d3-579020567521", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicants accepted in principle that protection of and the rights and freedoms of others and the prevention of crime might depend on safeguarding the principle of secularism. However, they submitted that in pleading those aims the Government sought to conceal the underlying reasons which had led to Refah\u2019s dissolution. In reality, they argued, this had been the aim of major business concerns and the military, whose interests were threatened by Refah\u2019s economic policy, involving a reduction of the national debt to zero."], "id": "a01d78d3-5c8e-4a95-a858-18a044e5dd45", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government contended that the interference in question was prescribed by law, namely Law no. 2911, and that it had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting . They further claimed that the measure imposed by the security forces should be regarded as answering a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued."], "id": "4fa3af9e-a4a0-4189-b678-403d0c8d8b2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government did not argue that there had not been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly other than to submit that the case was not within the scope of Article 11. Even assuming that the applicant\u2019s acts had fallen within the scope of Article 11, they submitted that the State authorities\u2019 acts and decisions had had the legitimate aims of protecting national security, territorial integrity, and public order as well as the prevention of crime. They argued that interfering with the demonstrations in question, which had incited people to violence and which had been organised by members of the PKK, a terrorist organisation, had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been necessary in a democratic society. They stressed that the applicant had not been convicted for taking part in a funeral."], "id": "b6e822eb-67d7-4a50-a70b-ab4a5cc4e605", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government considered that neither Article 10 nor Article 11 of the Convention had been breached. The interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression and freedom of assembly by their detention had been justified. It had been based on section 55(1), paragraph 2 (a), of the PSOA, a provision which had been sufficiently precise to be foreseeable in terms of its application to the applicants. It had pursued legitimate aims, as the applicants\u2019 detention had been in the interest of and for the prevention of crime."], "id": "c473eb3a-90a5-4b75-8657-67b8724affc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants argued that by refusing to register Ilinden the authorities had infringed their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The refusal of the courts had been based on deliberately erroneous findings in respect of the relevant facts and a misconstruction of the applicable law. It was clear that freedom of association could not be subjected to restrictions other than those which were provided for by law for the protection of national security and , for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "3a4f2c1e-219a-4283-a565-a59922e1b627", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant also contended that the fact that the domestic courts had considered that the principles promoted by the association had been very general and had given rise to the possibility of their being classified as belonging to the domain of political parties could not have amounted to sufficient and compelling evidence of a threat to national security or to and order. There had also been no similarity between the activities listed by the founding members of the association in the organisation\u2019s articles of association and the activities carried out by political parties as defined by Law no. 14/2003 on political parties."], "id": "ce99ec58-2c55-49f3-97f1-bad1d1d17b40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Government also argued that, even assuming there had been interference with the applicant\u2019s rights, such interference was prescribed by sections 7 and 8 of the Public Gatherings Act; it aimed at ensuring , preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others. The interference had been necessary since the applicant had made unsubstantiated statements accusing judges of criminal offences, attacking their reputation and honour, and thus undermining the authority of the judiciary. The dispersal of the demonstration had also been justified, since the applicant and others had acted in violation of the Public Gatherings Act. In any event, the Public Gatherings Act expressly prohibited public events in the immediate vicinity of court buildings, including the buildings of the Supreme Court of Russia."], "id": "25e5a43d-681f-4d97-870c-1315b6e41f60", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government further argued that the bans had been prescribed by law, namely section 12(2)(2) of the Meetings and Marches Act. Also, the measures complained of had pursued a wide range of legitimate aims: protecting national security and , guaranteeing public order in the local community, protecting the rights and freedoms of others and preventing disorder and crime. They had also been necessary in a democratic society, because the authorities had acted in conformity with the laws of the country, their actions had not been arbitrary and they had complied with their positive obligations to guarantee the citizens\u2019 rights under Article 11 of the Convention. Referring to the case of Gustafsson v. Sweden (judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011II, pp. 652\u201153, \u00a7 45), the Government submitted that the Contracting States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in their choice of the means to be employed to attain a legitimate aim."], "id": "48a1fd5d-14d6-4f01-ae9d-f507fbd3d102", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government submitted in particular that the interference, lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of securing the unimpeded operation of the representative bodies of the people (that is, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others). Furthermore, they argued that the applicant had been adamant in rejecting the police\u2019s suggested compromise to limit the area in question to a secluded part of Kossuth Square, although this solution would have been reconcilable with the undisturbed work and the free movement of the MPs. The envisaged event, foreseen to involve 150 to 200 participants and sound amplification, would have constituted a large crowd in Kossuth Square, capable of disrupting Parliament\u2019s activities if spread over the entire area. In the light of this, the interference had not been disproportionate in their view."], "id": "1d017974-0e94-48aa-a5df-c90480458b41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s argument that the dissolution of the Association had pursued a legitimate aim in the interests of national security or , that is, for the prevention of disorder and crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In his view, the courts had failed to establish any instances of actual disorder or any violation of the rights of others. He stressed that the domestic decisions had referred to a merely hypothetical danger whose prevention could not be seen as a legitimate aim under the Convention."], "id": "3e9c2cb2-272c-4025-b51d-8f7177842fb1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government maintained that there had been no interference with the exercise of the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly. They further submitted that, even assuming that there had been interference, it was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting . They further claimed that the measure imposed by the security forces should be regarded as answering a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. In this connection, the Government dismissed the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill\u2011treatment and claimed that, in the circumstances of the present case, the force used on the applicant had been proportionate to the aims pursued."], "id": "017cf752-2ae9-4390-9b67-01af6641d69a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant submitted, firstly, that the requirements of minimum membership and regional representation were not justified under the second paragraph of Article 11. In particular, they were unreasonable and did not pursue any legitimate aim. The imposition of such requirements on political parties could not be justified by the interests of national security or . Nor were they necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "6bd2ecf0-b004-497a-abf2-25b36af2b10c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["187. The Government submitted that there had been an interference with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 and their freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, but that the interference had been in accordance with the law, in particular Article 71 of the Criminal Code. They submitted that the interference had been in the interests of . They also argued that it had been necessary in a democratic society, particularly because the applicants\u2019 actions during the events of 9 March 2001 had gone beyond the range allowed to be committed by an individual in exercising his rights under the Convention, as they had been accompanied by riotous damage, destruction of property and resistance towards the authorities. Their rally had therefore not been of a peaceful character."], "id": "6cfbf769-10e7-4d6c-889b-be6bc18ab3b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights had been lawful, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been proportionate to that aim. The domestic legal provisions governing the notification and conduct of public events struck a fair balance between the interests of the organisers of and participants in such events on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of all others \u2013 in particular, by providing for adequate measures to prevent and punish infringements of public order and ."], "id": "8e91ee06-68c2-4c9b-a00a-46ef3e494093", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "55dac8a9-057a-467d-b04b-57502b5a6b2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government contended that the applicants could not rely on the moratorium on the Act on the Re-establishment of the State of Lithuania as it never came into effect since the precondition of the USSR opening bilateral negotiations was not respected (paragraphs 14-17 and 67-68 above). The applicants were aware of this as they and the Soviet Union had continued to insist that Lithuania renounce that Act (paragraphs 14, 19 and 20 above). In any event, the Act itself did not fall within the proposed moratorium and its validity remained unaffected. Moreover, the Supreme Council did not suspend any of its legislative or other activities aimed at consolidating the restoration of independence. The conditional moratorium thus had no impact on the of the criminal nature of the applicants\u2019 behaviour. Instead they sought to prevent negotiations with the USSR, preferring the use of force. The recognition of this situation by the USSR and the applicants is demonstrated by the repeated demands during the periods of 29 June - 28 December 1990 and January - August 1991 that Lithuania renounce its legislation of 11 March 1990 and reinstate the Soviet Constitution."], "id": "b1f85f76-fcea-414e-94d0-1e722ca99a86", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["92. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "824d99db-ddb1-4965-9882-18d2ac241b17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicants pointed out that the sole reason for the St Petersburg City Court\u2019s upholding the refusal to register the applicant group as a religious organisation had been the lack of a reliable document confirming its presence in St Petersburg for fifteen years. They contended that the refusal had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d because the law did not meet the standards of clarity and required under the Convention. Referring to Article 132 of the Russian Constitution and sections 7(2) and 11(5) of the Religions Act, the applicants submitted that the law expressly authorised local authorities to issue letters confirming the length of a group\u2019s existence and that the courts\u2019 rejection of the confirmation letter on the basis of an alleged lack of authority was unreasonable. Furthermore, whereas the Religions Act required only formal presentation of a confirmation letter, the courts had rejected it as \u201cunreliable\u201d with reference to arbitrary criteria that were not prescribed by law and had imposed an unforeseeable and unattainable threshold."], "id": "001071dc-af19-450f-bb2d-6c9a30fb20a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicants submitted that the domestic legislation serving as a basis for their criminal conviction had not complied with the principle of . They argued in particular that each time they had been convicted for failing to stop participating in an unauthorised demonstration, despite the fact that the procedure for holding an assembly had not been clearly defined in domestic law."], "id": "141fde5a-b0e6-4328-8103-db892ca22445", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant submitted that the domestic law serving as a basis for his conviction had not complied with the principle of . In particular, he had been convicted for failing to stop participating in an unauthorised demonstration, despite the fact that the procedure for holding an assembly had not been clearly defined in domestic law. While the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned assembly, application by the authorities of certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998 resulted in a de facto system of prior authorisation."], "id": "48955a9d-ac88-43ff-ae39-9c10091cb43e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government further argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, if any, was prescribed by law. The applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on Article 220 \u00a7 7 of the Criminal Code and the wording of that provision met the accessibility and requirements within the meaning of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The interference in question had the legitimate aims of protecting national security and public order as well as preventing crime."], "id": "bdd9565e-59c9-4940-ae9b-afd713808d5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with principles of and precision: while the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation, which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998, allowed for arbitrary interference with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings."], "id": "79a0c71b-6dbf-413b-8d6e-f1b35dcb8fb7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["95. The Government submitted that the domestic legislation on freedom of assembly complied with the principle of . It clearly stipulated the procedure for the organisation and holding of assemblies and vested the police with the power to disperse unauthorised demonstrations. Failure to comply with a lawful order of the police and breach of the procedure for the organisation and holding of assemblies clearly constituted an offence under domestic law."], "id": "9d63616c-207b-4eb5-8e23-54d68ca10636", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicants argued that the protest they held was a spontaneous assembly with a limited number of participants, and therefore no prior notification of the BCEA was required by law. They complained that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with principles of and precision: the requirement of prior authorisation, which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998, allowed for arbitrary interference with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings."], "id": "1f69a816-aa98-46d1-852b-94615b9ea819", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with the principles of and precision. While the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation \u2013 which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998 \u2013 allowed for arbitrary interference with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings. The applicant also argued that his arrest and conviction under Article 310.1 of the CAO had been arbitrary. He further submitted that the authorities had not taken into consideration the fact that the organisers had given prior notice of the demonstrations to the relevant authority, and that the demonstrations had been intended to be peaceful and had been held in a peaceful manner."], "id": "dddbe019-762c-49e7-8650-561460c65e79", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["162. The applicant submitted that he had been held at the police station between around 6.30 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. on 1 March 2008 unlawfully and without any status. His so-called \u201cbringing-in\u201d (\u0562\u0565\u0580\u0574\u0561\u0576 \u0565\u0576\u0569\u0561\u0580\u056f\u0565\u056c\u0568), including the record drawn up in that respect, had been unlawful. Moreover, during that period he was questioned as a witness in the absence of a lawyer. The legal provisions regulating and defining the procedures of \u201cbringing-in\u201d and \u201carrest\u201d, relied on by the Government, failed to meet the requirements of certainty and . In particular, in accordance with Article 128 of the CCP, as interpreted by the Court of Cassation in its decision of 18 December 2009 (see paragraph 123 above), the procedural status of a suspect was effective only from the moment when the record of his arrest was drawn up. Thus, the procedure of \u201cbringing-in\u201d, which was an initial stage of deprivation of liberty of a suspect largely practised in Armenia, lacked legal certainty. Article 153 of the CCP, which defined the concept of \u201cbringing-in\u201d, was not applicable in his case, while the only other Article of the CCP which mentioned that procedure was Article 180 \u00a7 2. As a result, after having been \u201cbrought-in\u201d at 6.30 a.m. on 1 March 2008, he was kept in a state of uncertainty as a non-suspect in a police cell until, at 10.30 p.m., the record of his arrest was drawn up. The lack of legal certainty had also been acknowledged by the Court of Cassation in its above-mentioned decision, whereby it attempted to add some certainty to the status of those who, like the applicant, were brought in but no record of arrest was drawn up to enable them to obtain the status of a suspect. The applicant lastly submitted that he had been taken into custody at around 6.30 a.m. on 1 March 2008 but taken before a judge only at 7 p.m. on 4 March 2008. Thus, he had been kept at the police station for an extra twelve and a half hours, in excess of the maximum 72\u2011hour period for arrest allowed by Article 129 of the CCP. In sum, his arrest had violated the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "107d752d-3549-4f7d-bada-b8f1188e251d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with principles of and precision: while the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation, which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998, allowed for arbitrary interference with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings."], "id": "9a95b9d1-f911-4a0e-973c-53177c4d21ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with principles of and precision: while the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation, which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998, allowed for arbitrary interference with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings."], "id": "a8cf1b23-19cc-4a9e-ba78-e94198143924", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "8eae639e-f215-4660-8233-15d4a2755628", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with the principles of and precision. While the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation \u2013 which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998 \u2013 allowed for arbitrary interference with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings."], "id": "0ddfe8f5-9e69-4815-a58c-fa37b1d289ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with the principles of and precision. While the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation \u2013 which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998 \u2013 allowed for arbitrary interference with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings. The applicants also argued that their arrest and conviction under Article 310.1 of the CAO had been arbitrary. They further submitted that the authorities had not taken into consideration the fact that the organisers had given prior notice of the demonstrations to the relevant authorities, and that the demonstrations had been intended to be peaceful and had been held in a peaceful manner."], "id": "e600c09c-1ee2-4aea-9897-018f805f1ff4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant submitted that the domestic law serving as a basis for his conviction had not complied with the principle of . In particular, he had been convicted for failing to stop participating in an unauthorised demonstration, despite the fact that the procedure for holding an assembly had not been clearly defined in domestic law. While the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned assembly, application by the authorities of certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998 resulted in a de facto system of prior authorisation."], "id": "a4e78619-2a13-4e0b-8177-36ff25f14a11", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "a5603775-30ed-4b4e-9ca1-6d0b6abe88c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicants submitted that the domestic legislation serving as a basis for their criminal conviction had not complied with the principle of . They argued in particular that each of them had been convicted for failing to stop participating in an unauthorised demonstration, despite the fact that the procedure for holding an assembly had not been clearly defined in domestic law. While the Constitution required only prior notification of a planned assembly, application by the authorities of certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998 had resulted in a de facto system of prior authorisation."], "id": "c2be8c7b-77b7-4038-aef5-f6beea8a7bca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights had been lawful. The Political Parties Act established a special authorisation procedure for registration of political parties. The requirement to obtain a registration authorisation was justified by the special status and role of political parties. The Political Parties Act did not differentiate between types of registration. The same rules therefore applied to the registration of a newly established political party and to the registration of any amendments to the information contained in the Register. In all cases a political party had to submit the documents specified in section 16 of the Political Parties Act (see paragraph 44 above) and the registration authority had competence to verify those documents and decide whether to authorise or refuse registration (see sections 15 \u00a7 5, 29 \u00a7 1 and 38 \u00a7 1 of the Political Parties Act in paragraphs 43, 45 and 53 above). The fact that those provisions allowed different interpretations was not contrary to the Convention. Many laws were inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, were vague and whose interpretation and application were questions of practice. The role of adjudication vested in the courts was precisely to dissipate such interpretational doubts as remained, taking into account the changes in everyday practice (the Government referred to Rekv\u00e9nyi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, \u00a7 34, ECHR 1999\u2011III, and Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, \u00a7 65, ECHR 2004\u2011I). The Government concluded that domestic provisions governing registration of political parties met the requirements of accessibility and . In any event, the applicant had applied to the domestic authorities for instructions as to the registration procedure to be followed and had received detailed explanations. It was also significant that the lawfulness of the refusal of registration had been examined and confirmed by the domestic courts. Given that it was in the first place for the national authorities, and notably the courts, to interpret domestic law, it was not the Court\u2019s task to substitute its own interpretation for theirs in the absence of arbitrariness (they referred to Tejedor Garc\u00eda v. Spain, 16 December 1997, \u00a7 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VIII)."], "id": "254de2b5-d0fc-46d1-bb18-9c559cd4999b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with principles of and precision: while the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation, which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998, allowed for arbitrary interference with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings."], "id": "4d2b11f8-44b0-48df-8b5e-ec30d7dff368", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicants argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with the principles of and precision. While the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation \u2013 which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998 \u2013 allowed for arbitrary interference with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings. The applicants also argued that their arrest and conviction under Article 310.1 of the CAO had been arbitrary. They further submitted that the authorities had not taken into consideration the fact that the organisers had given prior notice of the demonstrations to the relevant authorities, and that the demonstrations had been intended to be peaceful and had been held in a peaceful manner."], "id": "a1bb112c-662c-45f3-ac97-dc66c8da5f0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicant party submitted that the Constitutional Court had issued warnings in relation to some of its expenses. However, it was not clear why the expenses in question had attracted warnings instead of the more serious sanction of confiscation of assets, in the absence of any guidance in the relevant Act as to when warnings, as opposed to confiscation orders, would be issued. In the applicant party\u2019s opinion, this matter was left completely to the discretion of the Constitutional Court, which compounded the problem of un ."], "id": "950b60fc-0b14-43e1-add6-da064a43207f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["109. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "4b2aa6b8-3690-4f02-a657-ab22d0ea929a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with principles of and precision: while the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation, which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998, allowed for arbitrary interference with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings."], "id": "01bd01fa-7549-4e37-9730-136f8cc4b2e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["95. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "2b50e13a-155f-42d5-ac7e-a95afeaa0107", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant further submitted that Russian law did not define the term \u201ccampaign for participation\u201d. The Constitutional Court had explained in its Ruling no. 15-\u041f of 30 October 2003 that \u201ccampaigning\u201d meant \u201ccalling for participation\u201d. It did not explain, however, the difference between \u201ccalling for participation\u201d and disseminating information about a forthcoming public event, its preparation and the advancement of the approval procedures. In the absence of clear legal criteria for distinguishing between \u201ccampaigning\u201d and \u201cdisseminating information\u201d, any information about a public event, its aims, type, location, time and estimated number of participants could be qualified by the authorities as campaigning for participation in that event. The domestic law therefore lacked clarity and ."], "id": "845dbd5f-6f2a-4075-bce3-66cd45b193af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government submitted that the domestic legislation on freedom of assembly complied with the principle of . It clearly stipulated the procedure for the organisation and holding of assemblies and vested the police with the power to disperse unauthorised demonstrations. Failure to comply with a lawful order of the police and breach of the procedure for the organisation and holding of assemblies clearly constituted an offence under domestic law."], "id": "b67bbf58-2cb4-4028-96e3-1ad417a1aefb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "90e3fa30-6b59-43b0-aa3c-fcb4909273d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicants replied that their arrest was unlawful because it was clear that section 76(3) \u00a7 1 (f) of the Courts Act did not empower bailiffs to arrest people outside a court-house; these officers could only \u201cprevent offences from being committed inside a court-house\u201d. The applicants complained that the overly extensive interpretation given to this provision by the domestic courts and the respondent Government arbitrarily expanded the territorial application of the bailiffs\u2019 powers of arrest, which did not meet the requirement of and was thus unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "4490372a-e434-4cb3-9a7f-7ca12c5ba826", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicant maintained that the authorities had interfered with his right to by interrupting the gatherings, or perceived gatherings, by arresting him and by imposing administrative liability for breaches of procedure in conducting public events or for non\u2011compliance with police orders. As regards two occasions, he contested that the events in question had constituted a public gathering. First, on 27 October 2012 he had been arrested on the pretext that he was holding a march, whereas he had merely been walking away from the venue of a static demonstration. Secondly, on 24 February 2014 at 12 noon he had been arrested while waiting in front of the court-house because he wished to attend the delivery of the judgment in a high-profile case. This gathering, if classified as one, could not have been foreseen or notified to the authorities, and it caused no disturbance which would have merited its dispersal, arrests or the ensuing prosecution."], "id": "48435382-f7ca-40e5-aba0-29e2d521669c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government considered that the interference with the applicant\u2019s had complied with domestic law and was necessary \u201cfor the prevention of disorder or crime\u201d and \u201cfor the protection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d. They claimed that on all seven occasions the applicant had attempted to conduct unauthorised public gatherings, which the police had lawfully intercepted, and that the competent courts had justifiably found him guilty of administrative offences. They did not consider that on any of these occasions there had been special circumstances absolving the protestors from compliance with the requirement of prior notification of their assembly. They gave examples of other, lawful public events in which the applicant had participated without any interference. They challenged the applicant\u2019s allegations that those assemblies had not caused any noise or nuisance, given the size of the groups at issue and the presence of the media. In particular, on 27 October 2012 (the fifth occasion) he held a march which had obstructed traffic and, contrary to what the applicant suggested, \u201cit was unlikely\u201d that some of the other events \u201cdid [not] produce any noise and cause any nuisance to the pedestrians\u201d in view of the number of people participating, their locations and time (notably the first on 5 March 2012 and the last two on 27 February 2014). They also challenged the applicant\u2019s submission that he did not obstruct traffic in the seventh episode."], "id": "466098bf-d77a-4ef6-8bce-02fd9f1e709b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["99. The applicant submitted that the Government's assertion that he did not participate in the demonstration, so that there was no interference with his right to , contradicted the findings of the domestic court, according to which he had allegedly behaved in an anti-social way during the demonstration of 7 April 2003. If he had blocked a street which had nothing to do with the demonstration, as the Government claimed, this fact would have been disclosed by the investigating authority and without any doubt would have been used in the administrative case against him."], "id": "d3e80a11-9c95-4e60-8480-460353f809ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicants argued that the authorities had interfered with their rights to and freedom of expression in two ways. Firstly, their arrest on 24 November 2007 had allegedly prevented them from attending the gathering on Chistoprudnyy Boulevard, an event which had been authorised by the Moscow authorities. Secondly, their arrest and conviction for administrative offences had been a form of retribution for them expressing their political views at the opposition rally earlier on that day. They both contended that they had not planned a march after the gathering on Academician Sakharov Prospekt, and that they had been walking towards the next gathering when the riot police had obstructed their path and arrested them without giving them an opportunity to disperse. They complained that the courts had dismissed their evidence as false when they had refused to call and examine other witnesses or, as in the first applicant\u2019s case, admit video recordings."], "id": "b6cb1a61-2416-455b-a422-76f88e0f1246", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of the applicants\u2019 rights to and to freedom of expression, as the relevant domestic authorities had not impeded their public gathering in any manner. On the contrary, the applicants and other participants of the demonstration were able to assemble freely near the Tbilisi Concert Hall and then proceeded with their march. As the organiser of the event had given a prior warning, the Ministry of the Interior deployed police units to the scene of the event. Police patrol vehicles escorted the LGBT marchers. As to the manner in which the police reacted to the clash between the marchers and counter-demonstrators, the Government admitted that that reaction had been somewhat delayed. However, they claimed that that had been done on purpose and in the marchers\u2019 best interests. Thus, the Government asserted that where a serious threat of a violent counter-demonstration exists, the domestic authorities have wide discretion in the choice of means to employ to protect assemblies. They referred to the Court\u2019s case-law in Plattform \u201c\u00c4rzte f\u00fcr das Leben\u201d (cited above, \u00a7 34). Considering the large number of counter-demonstrators and their aggressive attitude towards the demonstrators, immediate preventive measures by the police could have provoked an even greater outburst of violence. Nevertheless, the law-enforcement officers remained at the scene and instantly intervened when the verbal attacks degenerated into actual physical violence by evacuating the attacked applicants from the scene. The police officers also separated the opposing parties by standing between them, verbally warning both sides to behave in an appropriate manner. As regards the applicants\u2019 complaints of discriminatory intent under Article 14 of the Convention, the Government limited their response to noting that that provision was complementary and could not be invoked autonomously in the absence of a violation under Articles 10 and 11."], "id": "54e67b26-f236-4113-ba6f-c1d39461c111", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant complained that his right to had been violated as a result of unlawful and disproportionate interference by the police, namely the dispersal of the assembly at Freedom Square, and that he had had no effective remedy against the breach of that right. He relied on Articles 11 and 13 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant read as follows:"], "id": "9ca1e700-d53a-48f4-bab2-b2a6708bdb4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicants considered that their decision to stage the roadblocks had been as a last resort in order to defend their interests as farmers. This was a form of demonstration accepted in Europe, in situations where no other means of protecting the demonstrators\u2019 rights existed. In such circumstances, the right to should have prevailed over any resulting minimal disturbances to the free movement of goods. In this connection, the applicants alleged that Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 (see paragraph 77 above) recognised roadblocks as a form of strike action."], "id": "eb3ebb54-bf6e-47c0-aa15-bcae4c24d77e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government submitted that there was no interference with the applicant's right to guaranteed by Article 11 since he, as he claimed himself, did not participate in the demonstration in question. According to the Government, the applicant was far away from the demonstration and, simply for hooligan reasons, blocked a street that had nothing to do with it. Such actions, however, cannot be considered as necessary for the exercise of one's right to freedom of peaceful assembly."], "id": "98d58cb6-99be-47e5-8e6d-9490fb1fabfe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicant alleged a violation of his right to , referring to the measures taken as regards the assembly in general and the specific measures taken against him personally. He alleged that the crowd-control measures implemented by the police at Bolotnaya Square had in effect provoked a confrontation between the protesters and the police, and that the police had then used the incident as a pretext for the early termination of the meeting and its dispersal. He claimed, moreover, that the authorities had intended from the outset to suppress the rally in order to discourage street protest and political dissent. He argued that his own arrest at the site of the rally, his pre-trial detention and the ensuing conviction for an administrative offence had been arbitrary and unnecessary."], "id": "37de7d6e-2ca2-42e7-9b15-43637fa1215f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant alleged that there had been a violation of his rights to freedom of expression and to . He complained, in particular, that disruptive security measures had been implemented at the site of the meeting at Bolotnaya Square. He further argued that his ensuing prosecution and criminal conviction for participation in acts of mass disorder had been arbitrary and disproportionate. The applicant relied on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "1e513bd0-0b17-4285-8347-5bd48282f122", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["229. The Government did not appear to contest that the fifth applicant, regardless of the fact that proceedings against him had been discontinued, could still claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of his right under Article 11 of the Convention and that there had been an interference with that right (see paragraph 199 above). In any event, like the other applicants, the fifth applicant was removed from the site by the police, which in itself constitutes an interference with the right to , and later formally reprimanded for his actions (see paragraphs 43 and 62 above). Therefore, the applicant can continue to claim to be the victim of an interference with his right under Article 11 of the Convention."], "id": "6ac63ee0-0d99-401b-af2f-682c5d2b04af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["155. The applicant alleged a violation of his right to freedom of expression and to . He complained, in particular, of disruptive security measures implemented at the site of the meeting at Bolotnaya Square, and claimed that his ensuing prosecution and criminal conviction for participation in mass disorders had been unlawful and arbitrary, had pursued political aims, and had been disproportionate. He relied on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "0fbf26f9-29a1-4ae6-8a96-85740e0d865f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government submitted that, if the Court were to conclude that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to , this interference was prescribed by law. The applicant blocked Mashtots Avenue with a group of people and, by doing so, violated public order, which was qualified as minor hooliganism and fell within the ambit of Article 172 of the CAO."], "id": "916da82c-c0eb-40cd-a5b4-463eb327e503", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["139. The applicants claimed 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non\u2011pecuniary damage flowing from the alleged breach of their right to . They submitted that that amount, which was fifty percent higher than the amounts awarded in Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov (both cited above), was justified in view of the systemic and persistent nature of the breach of their right to freedom of assembly, which had lasted more than twenty years and had continued unabated \u2013 and had even intensified \u2013 despite two judgments of the Court. The applicants further claimed EUR 3,000 in respect of the alleged breach of their right not to be discriminated against. They requested that any amounts awarded under those heads be paid into the bank account of the second applicant."], "id": "3503c5c5-ce9a-4054-bf7b-07d5a31c6a69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. Under the 1990 Meetings and Marches Act, they could have sought judicial review of the Regional Governor\u2019s order, but had failed to do so. In support of that assertion the Government cited a decision and judgment in which the Supreme Administrative Court held that mayoral bans of rallies were subject to judicial review (\u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 8132 \u043e\u0442 14 \u0430\u0432\u0433\u0443\u0441\u0442 2007 \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 5942/2007 \u0433., \u0412\u0410\u0421, \u0406\u0406\u0406 \u043e.) and examined whether one such ban could amount to discrimination (\u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 11295 \u043e\u0442 16 \u043d\u043e\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 2007 \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 6407/2007 \u0433., \u0412\u0410\u0421, \u043f\u0435\u0442\u0447\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0435\u043d \u0441\u044a\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432). The Government further submitted that the police orders served on some of the applicants had been subject to judicial review under the Code of Administrative Procedure; there was no indication that such review had been sought. Lastly, they submitted that the applicants could have brought a claim under section 1 of the 1998 Act and sought compensation for any pecuniary or non\u2011pecuniary damage flowing from the alleged breach of their right to ."], "id": "b3312a45-a4be-4194-810f-6196ae70c235", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government accepted that the applicants\u2019 arrest at the site of the public event and their administrative convictions had constituted an interference with their right to and their right to freedom of expression. Such an interference constitutes a breach of Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention unless it is prescribed by law, pursues one or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2 of each Article, and is \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "0003f3b1-d912-470e-8b40-039378599258", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government appear to have suggested that there was no interference with the applicant organisation\u2019s right to because, not having received a copy of the Mayor\u2019s decision of 8 May 2008, it was entitled to proceed with the planned event. The Court does not, however, accept the Government\u2019s line of reasoning. The decision in question banned the applicant organisation from holding the event and the fact that a copy of it had not been served on the applicant organisation did not in any way nullify that decision. Furthermore, the applicant organisation was prevented by the police from holding the planned march, apparently on the basis of the Mayor\u2019s ban."], "id": "b57bafd2-c616-4509-ae4b-1bb5bb332b2f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["116. The applicants submitted that it was particularly important for the Court to examine the complaint under Article 14 as well. Only a ruling under that provision would spur a real solution to the problem. Otherwise, the authorities would feel encouraged to continue their practice of searching for various pretexts to restrict the exercise of the applicants\u2019 right to . In that relation, one had to bear in mind the general situation in the country in relation to the so\u2011called \u201cMacedonian question\u201d. The interference with the applicants\u2019 rights was a result of the lack of recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria and of the resulting infringement of that minority\u2019s rights. The non\u2011execution of a number of the Court\u2019s judgments in previous cases concerning Ilinden showed that even now individuals asserting a Macedonian ethnic consciousness were being denied the right to freedom of assembly and association. The Macedonian minority was the only one not recognised by Bulgaria and, as a result, suffered diverse instances of discrimination. It was precisely the refusal to recognise the existence of a Macedonian minority that lay at the source of the systematic banning and hindering of Ilinden\u2019s rallies."], "id": "4fb07a48-0a00-411e-a4a1-a17f5f17ca02", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government objected that the first applicant did not have standing under the Convention to claim a violation of its rights on account of facts which had affected some of its individual members. They stated, in particular, that a legal entity could not by its very nature claim, either in its own name or on behalf of its individual members, to have been subjected to ill-treatment or a breach of the right to respect for private life and to , within the meaning of Articles 3, 8 and 11 of the Convention."], "id": "3914c0f7-4756-4095-bede-89aa1d29df46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant alleged a breach of her right to with other aliens for the purposes of denouncing their treatment. The interference with that right was not prescribed by law (as the evacuation order was illegal), and was neither justified by a legitimate aim, nor proportionate. She alleged a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "id": "6ad41d88-78bb-4946-b546-919a236531ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["199. The Government conceded that there had been an interference with the third to sixth applicants\u2019 right to but submitted that it had complied with the requirements of Article 11 \u00a7 2. The interference had been lawful, being based on Article 185 of the Code of Administrative Offences. It had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the health of the protesters and the workers involved in the construction work: by being on the construction site, the third to sixth applicants had been interfering with the construction work and putting their and others\u2019 lives in danger."], "id": "e4335a81-bb00-4505-9937-3e27673abade", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["125. The applicants submitted that the Government\u2019s observations were almost entirely based on a report drawn up by the Blagoevgrad police. Given that it was precisely that police force who had on a number of occasions interfered with the applicants\u2019 rights and exerted pressure on Ilinden\u2019s members, the evidential value of that document was open to doubt. The applicants went on to say that the breaches of their right to found by the Court in Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov and Ivanov and Others (cited above) had persisted during the period 2004\u201109. The Court\u2019s findings in those cases held good for the events in issue in the present case as well. The authorities had continued to give the same unspecific and repetitive grounds for interfering with Ilinden\u2019s rallies despite the fact that such grounds had already been found inadequate by the Court. On certain occasions, such as that on 12 September 2004, the authorities had failed to prevent aggressive counter\u2011demonstrators from disrupting Ilinden\u2019s rallies."], "id": "1efecc11-e959-4839-b715-1c1bb125cc04", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of Peaceful Assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["136. The Government finally relied on Guideline 3.5 of the Guidelines on (second edition) prepared by the Panel of Experts on the Freedom of Assembly of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in consultation with the European Commission for Democracy though Law (the Venice Commission) of the Council of Europe, which read: "], "id": "2a5b8dc6-2d40-4777-8623-145f034dea65", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["198. The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the first and second applicants\u2019 right to . Before the domestic authorities, those applicants had explained their presence at the scene by curiosity rather than by a will to express their position through participation in an assembly. The Government referred to the applicants\u2019 statements to the police on 28 May 2010 and to the District Court to the effect that they had been merely passing by the place of the events and had been attracted there by curiosity (see paragraphs 46, 47, 52 and 53 above). The Government stressed that, in contrast to such cases as Galstyan v. Armenia (no. 26986/03, \u00a7\u00a7 100 and 116, 15 November 2007), in which the domestic authorities had punished the applicant for his conduct in the course of a demonstration, in the present case the domestic authorities had not referred to the applicants\u2019 participation in an assembly but merely to their refusal to obey the police officers\u2019 demands. Thus neither the applicants\u2019 statements before the domestic authorities nor any decisions taken by those authorities had referred to their participation in an assembly."], "id": "6fd88804-012f-41c0-bb9a-c5b9515b93af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly in public areas served to protect the rights of others, for example the right to freedom of movement or the orderly circulation of traffic. They further submitted that could not be reduced to a mere duty on the part of the State not to interfere. On certain occasions, positive measures had to be taken in order to ensure that an assembly was peaceful."], "id": "819546ce-74e8-4af6-a64f-5b35fff0983b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant alleged that there had been a violation of his rights to freedom of expression and to . He complained, in particular, that disruptive security measures had been implemented at the site of the meeting at Bolotnaya Square. He further argued that his ensuing prosecution and criminal conviction for participation in acts of mass disorder had been arbitrary and disproportionate. The applicant relied on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "96e091b8-5928-43b2-9e85-fbd1e242c790", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government claimed that there was no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to guaranteed by Article 11 as far as the decision of 7 April 2003 was concerned. The applicant was convicted of a public order offence and therefore the penalty imposed was not connected with the exercise by the applicant of her right to freedom of peaceful assembly. According to the Government, the applicant was far away from the demonstration and, simply for hooligan reasons, blocked a street that had nothing to do with it. Such actions, however, cannot be considered as necessary for the exercise of one\u2019s right to freedom of peaceful assembly."], "id": "97c9f37a-29e5-4812-94ca-9149cb103c5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to as he was convicted of minor hooliganism under Article 172 of the CAO. In any event, even assuming that there had been an interference, it was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society since the applicant was found to have committed reprehensible acts."], "id": "28d1c2a3-b06d-4a61-b49b-5db20f2c3e75", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant wanted to fly from Sheremetyevo airport to Samara to participate in the March of Dissent scheduled for the same day. The Government do not dispute that this was the purpose of his flight. Nor is there any doubt that participation in such a rally would have been an exercise of the applicant\u2019s right to . The applicant\u2019s arrest and detention, and the seizure of his passport and ticket made it impossible for him to fly that day. Having been denied access to the Samara flight, at such short notice, there would have been no other way for him to make it to Samara in time for the rally. The applicant\u2019s arrest and detention prevented him from attending the rally. There has, therefore, been an interference with his right to freedom of assembly."], "id": "c34f7f00-1ed5-48c8-a316-2717dd0e67f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["95. The Government argued that freedom of expression and were both constitutional values. However, their exercise was legitimately subject to statutory regulation, in particular under the Public Assemblies Act. Such regulation was aimed, on one hand, at providing a framework for exercising individual freedoms and, on the other, at securing public order and safety to avoid any harm to morals and the health of other citizens. The regulation sought to strike a fair balance between the interests of the organisers and participants of public events, on the one hand, and the need to secure the protection of other persons\u2019 rights and freedoms, on the other. This was done, inter alia, by putting in place adequate measures to prevent breaches of public order and safety, and procedures to ensure legal responsibility for such breaches."], "id": "dff01b5e-bcc4-43c4-be72-ef84f30c241c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicants further argued that there has been interference with their and freedom of expression. They alleged that their arrest on 14 April 2007 had prevented them from attending the meeting at the Griboyedov monument, an event authorised by the Moscow authorities. Moreover, the administrative liability imposed on them following the arrest also constituted disproportionate interference with their Convention rights."], "id": "dc48a1ff-7f2d-4523-8e2d-25d4d07ca074", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicants submitted that their arrests and detention were aimed at silencing their political opposition which they expressed by, inter alia, attending political demonstrations. They were known to be members of political parties and the timing of their detention for alleged administrative offences in late March and early April 2004 was intended to prevent them, and indeed did prevent them, from attending and encouraging others to attend public demonstrations organised during that time by their respective parties, calling for a referendum and challenging the incumbent President. This constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression and to ."], "id": "5b8bc199-6af7-4366-94a7-317f0689362b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government submitted that, if the Court were to conclude that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to , this interference was prescribed by law. The applicant blocked Mashtots Avenue with a group of people and, by doing so, violated public order, which was qualified as minor hooliganism and fell within the ambit of Article 172 of the CAO."], "id": "6845ee52-3586-4d41-9dd8-147de1cf555f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicants claimed 12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage. They submitted that the ban of the meeting in issue in the present case had been only one of many such bans. They also pointed out that despite the numerous rulings by the Court relating to earlier breaches of their rights under Article 11 of the Convention, the Bulgarian Government\u2019s policy toward them had improved little if at all. This had made them feel a particularly acute sense of injustice and helplessness, and had exacerbated the distress suffered by them on account of the breach of their right to ."], "id": "92a742c7-5057-4b23-9d98-f29cfb88c1b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant organisation complained that there had been an unlawful interference with its right to , as provided in Article 11 of the Convention, on account of the prohibition issued by the municipality of the public rally planned for 19 April 2000. It also complained of the lack of an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 11 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts having declared null and void the prohibition issued by the municipality almost a year after the date of the planned event and also in view of the alleged inability to seek redress for the actions of the municipality."], "id": "3c33ba55-a600-465a-9fe8-46a61cffc0aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["131. The Government asserted that the applicants had not been convicted for participating in the protests, but for specific criminal behaviour during the demonstrations, which had restricted public life to a greater extent than the exercise of should normally do. The roadblocks were not an immediate and spontaneous response to a sudden event, overriding the obligation of prior notification. Consequently, the mode of exercising their Article 11 rights chosen by the applicants had shown a severe lack of respect for other members of society."], "id": "acb82f2f-9dd5-4a0d-b4d7-96c0bc9187ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicants argued that their detention had violated both their freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention and their under Article 11 of the Convention. The interference with those rights by their detention had not been justified. It had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and had not pursued a legitimate aim for the reasons they set out in relation to Article 5 \u00a7 1 (see paragraph 57 above). In particular, it had been uncertain if, when and where the applicants would display the banners \u201cFreedom for prisoners\u201d and \u201cFree all now\u201d. Doing so would, furthermore, not have been an offence under the Criminal Code. The slogans could not have been understood as an incitement to a very uncommon crime but had had a different, more obvious meaning. With more than 1,000 demonstrators having been detained in connection with the G8 summit but only 100 detentions having been approved by the courts, there had been more than enough reason to criticise the deprivations of liberty that had taken place in connection with the summit."], "id": "0a01dcc0-ad77-44f8-9ccf-e57e65f4e5fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["187. The Government submitted that there had been an interference with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 within the meaning of Article 11 and their freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, but that the interference had been in accordance with the law, in particular Article 71 of the Criminal Code. They submitted that the interference had been in the interests of public safety. They also argued that it had been necessary in a democratic society, particularly because the applicants\u2019 actions during the events of 9 March 2001 had gone beyond the range allowed to be committed by an individual in exercising his rights under the Convention, as they had been accompanied by riotous damage, destruction of property and resistance towards the authorities. Their rally had therefore not been of a peaceful character."], "id": "73f2c489-22ef-40c0-bd72-fef8cdd16e7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government submitted that any possible interference with the applicants\u2019 right to had been prescribed by law. The applicants had been convicted under Article 283 \u00a7 1 of the Criminal Code, prescribing punishment for serious breaches of public order. Referring to the Court\u2019s judgment in Galstyan (cited above, \u00a7 107) and taking into account the diversity inherent in public-order offences, the Government considered that the domestic legal norm had been formulated with sufficient precision (see also the arguments developed by the Government under Article 7 of the Convention \u2013 paragraphs 188-91 below)."], "id": "f61c479c-696d-41d8-830f-d1818f8608a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of peaceful assembly", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["85. The applicant alleged that there had been a violation of his rights to freedom of expression and to . He complained, in particular, that disruptive security measures had been implemented at the site of the meeting at Bolotnaya Square. He further argued that his ensuing prosecution and criminal conviction for participation in acts of mass disorder had been arbitrary and disproportionate. The applicant relied on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "73003f0f-8c47-49bc-ac9b-46748107e1c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government conceded that the Zagreb County Court\u2019s judgment of 8 April 2005 (see paragraph 19 above) prohibiting the applicant union from holding a strike on 11 April 2005, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 27 April 2005 (see paragraph 23 above), had constituted an with the applicant union\u2019s freedom of association. The Court, having regard to its case-law according to which strike action is protected under Article 11 of the Convention (see Enerji Yap\u0131-Yol Sen v. Turkey, no. 68959/01, \u00a7 24, 21 April 2009, and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom, no. 31045/10, \u00a7 84, ECHR 2014), sees no reason to hold otherwise."], "id": "b35bfe23-8f2a-4ed6-88a6-140709951429", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["117. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The with the applicant's rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "beafd521-c189-420e-9e09-843af55816be", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government claimed that the applicants\u2019 removal with the involvement of the police had had a legal basis in the Law on the Police and the Law on Assembly and Demonstrations, and had been aimed at preventing further disruption to public order, as well as the protection of the rights of G.Kh. and others. The Court accepts that the impugned had a basis in domestic law. It notes that the police acted at the request of the acting Rector of the University (see paragraph 65 above). The removal was preceded by G.Kh. and other administrative staff members, and then by the police, explicitly and repeatedly asking the applicants to leave the acting Rector\u2019s office. It therefore finds that the requirement of lawfulness is satisfied."], "id": "8ccfdd2d-5eb2-4e3d-9a93-009c02248db6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government claimed that there was no with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of peaceful assembly guaranteed by Article 11 as far as the decision of 7 April 2003 was concerned. The applicant was convicted of a public order offence and therefore the penalty imposed was not connected with the exercise by the applicant of her right to freedom of peaceful assembly. According to the Government, the applicant was far away from the demonstration and, simply for hooligan reasons, blocked a street that had nothing to do with it. Such actions, however, cannot be considered as necessary for the exercise of one\u2019s right to freedom of peaceful assembly."], "id": "12952959-a893-4080-bd5c-7fb2fbe345d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant in the present case held a picket in front of a regional court. Some time later he was found administratively liable and fined for having breached the procedure for organising and holding a public assembly. The Court considers that the administrative prosecution amounted to an with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly, interpreted in the light of his right to freedom of expression. Accordingly, its task is to determine whether the interference was justified."], "id": "5842bdc4-f5c8-47fb-b8d0-ac785c3cabfa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicant complained that the disciplinary sanction that had been imposed on him for his participation in trade union activities, had amounted to disproportionate with his rights under the Convention. In this regard, he relied on Articles 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaints fall to be examined under Article 11 of the Convention alone."], "id": "0b5cb074-704b-40b4-a973-abeb9c73974e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government submitted that the circumstances of the case had not disclosed any with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. The applicant had been arrested and then prosecuted for disobeying a lawful order from the police and not in relation to his exercise of the freedom to impart or receive information. The applicant, \u201cwho considered himself as a journalist\u201d, should have foreseen the consequences of his presence in the immediate proximity to an unlawful public event and the consequences of active resistance to the police."], "id": "6a461252-e7a2-451d-9431-edd63b8d1734", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government submitted that in some of the cases about which the applicants complained there had been no with their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. Thus, on 30 July 2000, even though the mayor had banned the meeting and the District Court had upheld that ban, Ilinden had been able to hold it without interference by the authorities. Likewise, there had been no interference with Ilinden's meeting in April 2000. Despite the provocative attitude of some of the organisation's leaders, the police had been able to preserve public order without impinging on their freedom of assembly. Further, there had been no interference with the meeting held on 22 April 2001 near the Rozhen monastery. The applicants' averment that the police had ordered the removing of the band on the wreath laid by members and followers of Ilinden and had arrested one person was untrue. The police had merely taken one person who was drunk out of the area where the meeting had been taking place. This could not be interpreted as an interference with the applicants' freedom of assembly. There had been no interference with the meeting held on 4 May 2001 either. The members and followers of Ilinden had gathered in the centre of Blagoevgrad and the police had asked them to continue the event in a nearby church only with a view to protecting them. The applicants' averment that the police had seized a camera and had ordered the members and followers of Ilinden to remove the band from the wreath they had laid at the monument was untrue. Finally, the meeting held on 12 September 2002 had not been interfered with. Despite the presence of a hostile crowd, the police had been able to secure the members and followers of Ilinden access to the site of the event. Only the adequate actions of the police had prevented the occurring of serious incidents."], "id": "a0c955b2-b4bc-437a-b642-d3e32f6033fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["237. The applicant submitted that, since the proceedings against him had been fabricated, they could not have been lawful, while the Government did not make any particular submissions regarding the lawfulness of the and submitted that it pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime. The Court, however, does not consider it necessary to decide these issues having regard to its conclusions set out below, regarding the necessity of the interference (see, mutatis mutandis, Christian Democratic People\u2019s Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, \u00a7\u00a7 49-54, ECHR 2006\u2011II)."], "id": "f6da4b8d-7cec-47be-88ae-96f938201a35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In particular, he submitted that, as a result of the unlawful , his reputation as a political activist was seriously damaged. The imposition of a fine was degrading in the eyes of his party colleagues, as well as his family and those citizens who supported his party. The applicant made no claim in respect of pecuniary damage."], "id": "284685d8-6508-44a9-a3e1-428fdafabb0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government argued that there had been no with the applicant's freedom of association, noting that the Ministry had not formally refused to register the association. Instead, it merely returned the association's foundation documents to the founders so that the latter could rectify the deficiencies and ensure that they complied with the requirements of the domestic law. The Government contended that, although \u201ca refusal to register a public association might be regarded as a violation of the right to freedom of association, a delayed response to [an application for state registration] is not a violation of this right\u201d."], "id": "6318c4d4-a2af-4cea-9668-8599916362ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government further submitted that the lawful requirement to bring the founding documents of a religious organisation into compliance with the existing law did not amount to an within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Articles 11 or 9 of the Convention. In any event, the Russian authorities could not be blamed for the applicant branch\u2019s unwillingness to apply for re-registration."], "id": "ff2499e9-12f9-4682-a9c5-d313c1ba377a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government argued that no separate issues arose under either Article 10 or Article 11 in the circumstances of the present case in so far as the first, second, fourth and fifth applicants were concerned. They had not been the subject of personnel security checks. The information on them held by the Security Police was apparently never consulted by third parties. In fact, it seemed only to have been released to the applicants themselves following their own requests for access. Furthermore, their suspicions that the Security Police were holding information on them \u2013 suspicions that were confirmed when information was indeed released to them \u2013 appeared not to have had any impact on their opportunities to exercise their rights under either Article 10 or Article 11. They had at all times been free to hold and express their political or other opinions. It was not supported by the facts of the present case that their opportunities to enjoy freedom of association had in any way been impaired. Therefore, the Government maintained that there had been no with their rights under Articles 10 and 11 and requested the Court to declare their complaints under these provisions inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded."], "id": "3c9a3e72-71a7-48d6-80ed-8d069fe8dd30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicants replied that, first, the with the demonstration had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d since the bailiffs did not have the power under either section 76(3) \u00a7 1 (f) of the Courts Act or Article 208 \u00a7 6(1) of the CCP, the two legal provisions relied on by the national authorities as the basis for the interference, which was to prevent offences occurring outside court-houses. As a result, the applicants could not have known to what extent they could exercise their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly without being deprived of their liberty. The applicants further complained that, in her decision of 29 June 2006 the President of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal had not given relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the interference."], "id": "b9082726-bc5b-4fea-a0e2-94c0649485f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with the principles of foreseeability and precision. While the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation \u2013 which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998 \u2013 allowed for arbitrary with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings. The applicants also argued that their arrest and conviction under Article 310.1 of the CAO had been arbitrary. They further submitted that the authorities had not taken into consideration the fact that the organisers had given prior notice of the demonstrations to the relevant authorities, and that the demonstrations had been intended to be peaceful and had been held in a peaceful manner."], "id": "b796780a-2275-4943-8df7-ae84a0bea55e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government submitted that in United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov (no. 2) (cited above) the Court had already given a broad ruling in relation to by the authorities with rallies organised by Ilinden. It was therefore not warranted to take up the same issue in a case brought by an individual claiming to have himself suffered a breach of his rights under Article 11 of the Convention. Although the applicant had not been a party to that earlier case, he did not have any separate legal interest requiring protection, and could not claim that he had suffered separate damage calling for an award of just satisfaction. Nor did the case concern a continuing breach, so as to require consecutive rulings by the Court."], "id": "687355c1-4522-4e13-bac0-d6e576203e45", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government submitted in particular that the , lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of securing the unimpeded operation of the representative bodies of the people (that is, public safety and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others). Furthermore, they argued that the applicant had been adamant in rejecting the police\u2019s suggested compromise to limit the area in question to a secluded part of Kossuth Square, although this solution would have been reconcilable with the undisturbed work and the free movement of the MPs. The envisaged event, foreseen to involve 150 to 200 participants and sound amplification, would have constituted a large crowd in Kossuth Square, capable of disrupting Parliament\u2019s activities if spread over the entire area. In the light of this, the interference had not been disproportionate in their view."], "id": "072d3d6f-4eae-4259-ab01-5da962cde901", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicants accepted that the in question was prescribed by the Religious Denominations Act. They asserted nevertheless that the procedure laid down by the Act had been misapplied, since the real reason for refusal to register had been political; the Government had neither submitted nor proved that the applicant Church had failed to comply with the laws of the Republic. "], "id": "c8da7a08-0567-4826-a3fd-809a07eaf8f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants submitted that the with their right to freedom of assembly stemmed from the Regional Governor\u2019s order which banned the rallies that they had planned and which was enforced by the police. As a result, the applicants were forced to change their initial plan to celebrate near the Rozhen Monastery. The police also interfered with their rights by carrying out unusually lengthy checks of their vehicles (which delayed the event by almost two hours), and preventing them from approaching the Monastery and from organising the event in Melnik as planned. Those interferences were neither lawful nor necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "815b289d-18ab-49b5-9227-8f2b061a9036", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government contended that there had been no with the applicant's right to freedom of assembly and association and that accordingly there had been no violation of Article 11 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In particular, the Government maintained that the applicant had not belonged to a trade union. At the material time, there had only been one trade union at Komunenergiya and the applicant had withdrawn from that union in February 1999. The Government further submitted that the applicant had been dismissed for her repeated breach of her duties of employment and not because of the alleged labour dispute between the management and employees of Komunenergiya. According to the Government, the picket on 3 March 1999 had not been related to the applicant's work at Komunenergiya. Rather, it concerned a dispute which she had had with Rivneteplokomunenergo. Despite the fact that it had been held in front of the Komunenergiya office, the picket had been actually directed against the management of Rivneteplokomunenergo."], "id": "69ef6cb8-4a7c-4433-a484-f0b11ed5342d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["229. The Government did not appear to contest that the fifth applicant, regardless of the fact that proceedings against him had been discontinued, could still claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of his right under Article 11 of the Convention and that there had been an with that right (see paragraph 199 above). In any event, like the other applicants, the fifth applicant was removed from the site by the police, which in itself constitutes an interference with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, and later formally reprimanded for his actions (see paragraphs 43 and 62 above). Therefore, the applicant can continue to claim to be the victim of an interference with his right under Article 11 of the Convention."], "id": "73ba7806-6636-4aaf-b80c-0d29cc9003a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant disputed the arguments of the respondent Government. He submitted that his complaints had not focused in practice or in theory upon freedom of movement as such. It was the inability to engage in peaceful discourse and intercourse, to pursue the basic democratic rights of receiving and imparting \u201cinformation and ideas with those on the island of Cyprus who shared his aims of a peaceful and friendly resolution of the problems of that island without by public authority and regardless of frontiers\u201d that lay at the heart of his application. In the circumstances of the current situation in Cyprus, he felt that it was only by meetings between Turkish and Greek Cypriots that ideas for a peaceful political settlement could be truly imparted, received and exchanged. However, he stated that such meetings could not be held in northern Cyprus and meetings of equivalent range and quality could not be organised anywhere other than in southern Cyprus. Thus, the lack of a proper system to regulate crossing from north to south and the arbitrary and erratic way in which he alleged he had been prevented from attending various relevant meetings in the south had substantially and adversely affected his Convention rights to freedom of assembly and association as well as expression."], "id": "2481c2f7-1443-43b6-a795-12c2f09d3779", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested this view. They noted that, in the applicant\u2019s view, it was the police decision on non-competence that violated his right to freedom of assembly. However, the in fact resulted from the original police measure declaring the area in question a \u201csecurity operational zone\u201d. Against such a measure, a distinct complaint might be filed with the police body in charge, and the latter\u2019s decision could be appealed before the superior organ. The resulting administrative ruling was susceptible to judicial review, an effective remedy in the circumstances. However, the applicant had not pursued this avenue; instead, he had filed appeals against, and sought judicial review of, the police order on non\u2011competence. In other words, he had been challenging the wrong decision. In respect of the area closure itself, successful proceedings, including judicial review, had already been completed (case no. 27.K.31.354/2010/9.); and the applicant could have availed himself of the same, failing which he had not exhausted domestic remedies."], "id": "f80e5066-54a7-47dc-9f07-2723efbd6a4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants pointed out that the with their rights under Article 11 of the Convention had not been lawful. The police had had no power to give them orders because they had not committed any administrative or criminal offence. The authorities had failed to effectively inform the demonstrators of the termination of the assembly and of the order to disperse. The applicants had been unaware of their decision to end the assembly. They pointed out that under domestic law the police were required to suspend the assembly first, and to give the organisers time to remedy any breach, before they could terminate it. However, in the present case no time had been given either to the organisers or to the demonstrators to follow the police instructions to disperse."], "id": "887da91e-bba5-4aae-8218-e7888c1f3fa9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government submitted that, if the Court were to conclude that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, this interference was prescribed by law. The applicant blocked Mashtots Avenue with a group of people and, by doing so, violated public order, which was qualified as minor hooliganism and fell within the ambit of Article 172 of the CAO."], "id": "a9ca2a1b-5021-4c2b-8984-dafc2141c94e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant submitted that the with his right to peaceful assembly had been unjustified. He noted that the police had unlawfully prevented the reading out of the press release prepared by the Human Rights Association and had used disproportionate force to arrest him and a fellow demonstrator. In this connection, the applicant maintained that he had been beaten by the police because he had taken part in a demonstration and had intervened when a fellow demonstrator was being arrested. He further claimed that, despite a cursory examination, the medical report still noted his head injury, which demonstrated in itself that he had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment."], "id": "f740680f-0c3d-44da-b70c-6b7dc7d40b2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant party contended that the with its right to freedom of association had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention. It stated that the interference in question was based principally on Article 69 \u00a7 3 of the Constitution, which provided that \u201cthe income and expenditure of political parties shall be consistent with their objectives\u201d. There was, however, no guidance in the law or elsewhere to clarify what expenses could be lawfully incurred within the scope of the \u201cobjectives of a political party\u201d or what would be considered to constitute \u201cpolitical activities\u201d. Moreover, section 74(1) of the Political Parties Act, which entrusted the Constitutional Court with the duty of inspecting the \u201clawfulness\u201d of the finances of political parties, was also framed in imprecise terms, thereby leaving that court at liberty to adopt an overly formalistic and restrictive interpretation of the vague requirements of the Act. That uncertainty as regards the exact nature of the expenditure requirements, coupled with the lack of precision regarding the scope and extent of the Constitutional Court\u2019s authority, had made it impossible to foresee the possible consequences of the expenses incurred. By way of example, it had had no way of knowing that travel expenses, legal fees or court costs, gifts and flowers presented at weddings, or official dinners connected to the party\u2019s political activities could not lawfully be charged as party expenses."], "id": "6487a991-34cb-4e84-823d-38d35887b024", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants also submitted that the refusal to register Ilinden had been discriminatory. In examining that issue, one had to bear in mind the general situation in the country in relation to the so\u2011called \u201cMacedonian question\u201d. The with the applicants\u2019 rights was a result of the lack of recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria and of the resulting infringement of that minority\u2019s rights. The non\u2011execution of a number of the Court\u2019s judgments in previous cases concerning Ilinden showed that even now individuals asserting a Macedonian ethnic consciousness were being denied the rights to freedom of assembly and association. The Macedonian minority was the only one not recognised by Bulgaria, and had as a result suffered diverse instances of discrimination. That had been noted by various Council of Europe bodies, such as the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, and the Commissioner for Human Rights. The national courts systematically refused to register any organisation which endeavoured to defend the rights of the Macedonian minority, because they feared that such registration would amount to a recognition of that minority."], "id": "a7ca7154-a4d3-438f-9758-4533c58964e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with principles of foreseeability and precision: while the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation, which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998, allowed for arbitrary with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings."], "id": "ad6ec305-7640-41a6-b4e1-13b6a0182d49", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant additionally submitted that the had not been necessary in a democratic society. He referred to the principles developed in Court's case\u2011law on this issue and argued that he had been penalised solely for the ideas expressed in the association's articles. The association had not engaged in any action which could characterise it as propagating violence or undemocratic principles. The idea of a monarchy and the related insignia were not undemocratic or violent, as evidenced in particular by the fact that the name of the coalition which had ruled the country as between 2001 and 2005 had been \u201cNational Movement Simeon II\u201d, after the former heir to the throne Simeon Saxe-Coburggotski, who had become prime minister. Even before his starting into office in 2001 Bulgaria's coat of arms had featured a crown, whereas the public debate over the form of government \u2013 republic or monarchy \u2013 continued. While the Constitution indeed needed stability, it was by no means carved into stone. Its amendment could be envisaged for the purpose of bringing it in line with the dominant public views on the form of government, whereas suppressing any ideas in this respect could harm democracy and constituted unfettered majority rule."], "id": "78750410-3024-4f42-868e-2e47bf766b32", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant association submitted that the domestic courts had not provided cogent reasons for their decisions. There had been no \u201cpressing social need\u201d which the impugned served. The crucial argument on which the domestic court\u2019s refusal to register the applicant association had rested was that the applicant association would violate the rights and freedoms of others, namely adherents of the MOC. Behind that argument lay the doctrine that no Orthodox church other than the MOC should be allowed to operate in the respondent State. That doctrine ran contrary to the respondent Government\u2019s duty of neutrality and impartiality and the principle of religious pluralism. Furthermore, it had not been alleged that the applicant association had engaged or intended to engage in any unlawful activities or had pursued any illegal aims. Accordingly, the interference with the applicant association\u2019s rights under this head was not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "5f9c00fc-03e9-47b7-bb45-7fa740c1cb44", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government accepted that the refusal of the authorities to register the applicant association amounted to an with its rights under this head. In doing so they relied on the 1997 and 2007 Acts, as applicable at the material time, and stated also that the refusal had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "14adfc94-5015-4ced-9646-fee3103531f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government submitted that the picket held by the applicant had not been interrupted and that the dispute relating to blocking access to the court entrance had been promptly resolved. However, it did not exclude the possibility of subjecting the applicant to administrative measures at a later time. The applicant had been found liable for obstructing citizens\u2019 access to the Regional Court, belated notification of the picket and also dissemination of materials which were at variance with the declared aim of the picket. Having regard to the insignificant amount of the fine, the Government considered that the had been justified and proportionate."], "id": "6b710706-0fe0-4616-bdb8-b2bca8177f85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government disputed that there had been any with the negative aspect of the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of association, as provided for in Article 11 of the Convention. It submitted that the applicant company was merely under the obligation to pay contributions to the Social Welfare Fund which were used to pay benefits to employers and employees in the building industry. The applicant company did not become, nor was it obliged to become, a member of the Social Welfare Fund on account of the declaration of general applicability of the VTV, nor of the employers\u2019 associations which concluded the VTV. It was not threatened with sanctions or other disadvantages if it did not join. There was, therefore, no compulsion that the applicant company join an association."], "id": "b14ce64c-bb3e-4ede-9eba-e30a9658b6d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicants lastly submitted that mass arrests of opposition activists and supporters to prevent them from attending peaceful political demonstrations could not be \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. Freedom of political debate and of peaceful assembly were at the core of a democratic society. In light of the peaceful nature of previous demonstrations and of those held in April 2004, the authorities could not convincingly establish that there existed a \u201cpressing social need\u201d to arrest and subsequently sentence them to administrative detention. Furthermore, the was disproportionate as they had been twice sentenced to the highest penalty available, that is to a period of administrative detention. Moreover, their detention operated as prior restraint in that it was imposed in order to prevent them from attending political demonstrations. Thus, the detention could be said to have had a chilling effect since they had the serious potential to deter other opposition supporters from attending those demonstrations or indeed in engaging actively in opposition politics."], "id": "aa67a7d7-697b-44b6-b390-cc124f6f81af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government maintained that the pursued one or more legitimate aims: the prevention of crime, in so far as the first applicant\u2019s own safety was concerned by the bomb threats, and the interests of national security with regard to all the applicants. In each case the interference was moreover \u201cnecessary\u201d for the achievement of the legitimate aim or aims pursued."], "id": "f054a18f-4a48-4eb3-80ed-0c40f4630eca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["187. The Government submitted that there had been an with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 and their freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, but that the interference had been in accordance with the law, in particular Article 71 of the Criminal Code. They submitted that the interference had been in the interests of public safety. They also argued that it had been necessary in a democratic society, particularly because the applicants\u2019 actions during the events of 9 March 2001 had gone beyond the range allowed to be committed by an individual in exercising his rights under the Convention, as they had been accompanied by riotous damage, destruction of property and resistance towards the authorities. Their rally had therefore not been of a peaceful character."], "id": "94cde792-69bd-48d4-9579-9e772376d8b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicants considered that the suspension of T\u00fcm Haber Sen's activities and its dissolution constituted a violation of their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The Government argued that there had been no since, in their opinion, the domestic courts had penalised the applicant trade union on the ground that it laid stress on its supposed legal attributes to strike and to conduct collective bargaining, attributes which fall outside the scope of Article 11 of the Convention."], "id": "81c4e718-39a5-4f0f-9927-02c1740c592e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government further submitted that the complaint regarding secondary strike action should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded. They considered that there had been no violation of, or even with, the applicant union\u2019s right of freedom of association since Article 11 did not confer any right to take secondary action. Instead, it was plain from the very wording of that provision that it contemplated collective action by workers to protect their own interests. Sympathy strikes, which were no more than a show of solidarity with another group of workers, lacked the requisite nexus between collective action and the direct interests of the persons taking part in it. It did not appear from the facts adduced that the situation of the RMT members employed by Hydrex had any real bearing on the situation of their union colleagues employed by Jarvis. Had any similar threat to the latter\u2019s interests materialised, it would have been open to them to take strike action, just as the Hydrex members had done."], "id": "8f3c4ce6-bd03-4aae-8074-1bb97cd83283", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government maintained that there had been no with the exercise of the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly. They further submitted that, even assuming that there had been interference, it was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting public safety. They further claimed that the measure imposed by the security forces should be regarded as answering a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. In this connection, the Government dismissed the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill\u2011treatment and claimed that, in the circumstances of the present case, the force used on the applicant had been proportionate to the aims pursued."], "id": "6212ff9b-2ec2-48ff-80cb-4bbdb6386140", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government submitted that the had been prescribed by law, namely by the amended section 3 \u00a7 2 and section 41 of the Political Parties Act and section 2 of the Amending Act (see paragraphs 33, 34 and 54 above). In particular, the above provisions required that, by 1 January 2006, all political parties should increase their membership to 50,000 persons and the membership of their regional branches to 500 persons. It also followed from those legal provisions that if a party had not increased its membership it had to reorganise itself into a public association or be dissolved. The applicable domestic law was accessible and formulated in clear terms so that the applicant had been able to foresee that failure to comply with the above requirements would lead to its dissolution."], "id": "790ac37e-c434-4e5e-954d-563bea038ac1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government submitted that the right to hold demonstrations inside the premises of public institutions was not unlimited (see Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, \u00a7 47, ECHR 2003\u2011VI). They referred in this connection to Article 9 \u00a7 1 of the Law on Assembly and Demonstrations, which provided that no assembly or demonstration could be held, inter alia, in a building of a governmental institution (see paragraph 45 above). They stated that there had been alternative venues at the disposal of the applicants and their supporters, such as the courtyard of the University, where they could have organised their protest. They stressed in this connection the idea that a university, being an educational establishment, was exclusively devoted to providing educational services; therefore, if the Government were to allow unrestricted demonstrations on its premises it would put a disproportionate burden on the educational establishment, jeopardising its proper functioning. They thus maintained that in the instant case, no with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly had taken place at all."], "id": "f2ce3e73-adc1-440e-9f20-33675a172305", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicants further submitted that the with their rights was not prescribed by law. In particular, arresting and detaining persons active in opposition politics ostensibly for the administrative offence of failing to obey police orders but in reality in order to prevent their attendance of opposition rallies could not be considered as a measure prescribed by law. Furthermore, the interference did not pursue a legitimate aim, since the aim of such administrative detention was not to prevent disorder but to hinder opposition calls challenging the incumbent President. There was no history of public disorder at previous opposition demonstrations, nor was there any ban on demonstrations in April 2004 which were essentially peaceful rallies. Thus, their detention was merely a pretext to interfere unlawfully with the opposition campaign of peaceful protests."], "id": "fb2320da-4349-4d81-9d7c-c1e55835be69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicants contested the lawfulness of the measures taken against them, alleging, in particular, that the police had had no grounds to give them orders to disperse. The Court considers that in this case the questions of compliance with the law and of the existence of a legitimate aim cannot be dissociated from the question whether the was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d, and that there is no need to examine them separately (see, for similar reasoning, Nemtsov, cited above, \u00a7 75)."], "id": "74868e56-d98b-49b5-86a2-24bb4f6f6791", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants alleged that their conviction under Article 314 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code, on the basis of Articles 220 \u00a7 7 and 314 \u00a7 3 of the same Code, and section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 constituted an with their right to freedom of assembly. They stated that the interference in question was not prescribed by law, within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention, since they had been unable to anticipate that their participation in the demonstrations of 17 December 2005 and 19 February 2006 and their conduct during those events would lead to them being prosecuted pursuant to these provisions and to the sentences imposed on them. They stressed in this connection that both the ESP and the SGD, in whose activities they had participated, were legal civil society organisations and that the demonstrations in question had been lawful and peaceful."], "id": "3bd21bb2-2a94-41fb-9780-c6d41a13e17d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant pointed out that the disciplinary sanction was imposed on the basis of Article 18 of the 1946 decree. That provision had been criticised for being of general application and its constitutionality had even been disputed before the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, the applicant maintained, it did not qualify as a law within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 11 and the had not therefore been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d. Furthermore, on the basis of the legislation in force and the case-law at the material time on the said Article 18, the applicant was entitled to believe that his membership of the Freemasons was not incompatible with the law."], "id": "7cbb6700-758c-4674-82f3-7b2917ab25a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government denied that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of association. The police officer had only requested her to show him the leaflets which she had been distributing in a hospital, during working hours, and without having obtained the hospital administration\u2019s permission. Each work place had its own rules; even more so hospitals. The applicant, as a nurse, should have obtained permission or at least informed the chief doctor. She could have distributed the leaflets outside the hospital, in her own time and without any prior permission."], "id": "38cf347a-b5ea-4771-9658-36727803ffb5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant argued that her message on VKontakte had not contained any calls for participation; it had simply informed the readers about her intention to hold a meeting. The domestic authorities had not, however, attempted to draw a distinction between \u201ccampaigning\u201d and \u201cinforming\u201d. Moreover, the District Court\u2019s conviction judgment had contradicted its previous decision that the refusal to approve the meeting had been unlawful. The with the applicant\u2019s rights had not therefore been prescribed by law."], "id": "1c40c30d-5ca1-432c-bf27-24676026ccf8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government, admitting that the refusal to register the applicant as an association amounted to to its right to freedom of association, considers nevertheless that this interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society. In this respect, they referred to Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 which provides that if the legal requirements for the setting up of an association are not satisfied, the request to register is dismissed. The refusal to register the applicant association in the instant case pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public order and the rights and liberties of the others, namely the rights of those who use the services of lawyers to represent their interests."], "id": "d3a09768-a509-4030-b498-92ac18ec8c26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government accepted that the applicants\u2019 arrest and their conviction of an administrative offence had constituted with their freedom of assembly. However, they maintained that those measures had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining public order and had been proportionate to that aim for the purposes of Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They claimed, in particular, that the applicants had been offered a different venue at which to conduct a public event on the requested date and that the proposed changes had seemingly been accepted by the event organisers. Moreover, the authorised meeting had indeed taken place at the Griboyedov monument, and the applicants could have participated in it. Instead, the applicants had pursued the itinerary indicated in the original request, walking on the pavement and on the road, obstructing pedestrians and traffic, and had then tried to enter Red Square. Given that this route had not been agreed with the Moscow authorities, the police could not have foreseen that the march would take place there and then and therefore could not have taken measures to maintain public order and safety. That was why the applicants, who were ignoring the police warnings, had had to be arrested. This had also justified imposing an administrative sanction on them which, moreover, had been relatively mild."], "id": "de448f3f-9518-4f6b-883e-a586bccb3165", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants argued that the delays in responding to their registration requests, which were significantly beyond the time-limits set by the domestic law, constituted an with, and a violation of, their right to freedom of association. The applicants maintained that such delays were in breach of the domestic law. Moreover, the applicants noted that the Ministry cited a new, different deficiency in the association's foundation documents each time it returned the documents to the founders. However, under the domestic law, the Ministry was obliged to identify all the deficiencies after the first registration request, and after these deficiencies had been rectified by the founders upon their second registration request, the Ministry was obliged to issue a final decision, i.e. either register the association or issue an official refusal to register it."], "id": "033fbe61-841d-4c71-b388-f740afabe4a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["199. The Government conceded that there had been an with the third to sixth applicants\u2019 right to freedom of peaceful assembly but submitted that it had complied with the requirements of Article 11 \u00a7 2. The interference had been lawful, being based on Article 185 of the Code of Administrative Offences. It had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the health of the protesters and the workers involved in the construction work: by being on the construction site, the third to sixth applicants had been interfering with the construction work and putting their and others\u2019 lives in danger."], "id": "cec43194-2192-4e39-accf-d2d11408d1d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government contended that Article 11 did not impose any positive obligation to enact legislation of the kind suggested by the applicant. They submitted that in assessing the extent, if any, of the State\u2019s positive obligation, the Court should consider whether the nature of the struck at the \u201cvery substance\u201d of the right or freedom concerned (Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, \u00a7 55, Series A no. 44, S\u00f8rensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark [GC], nos. 52562/99 and 52620/99, \u00a7 54, ECHR 2006\u2011I). However, it did not necessarily follow from the fact that someone was dismissed from their employment as a consequence of manifesting certain political views that there would be an interference with their rights under Article 11 which struck at the very substance of the right so as to engage the State\u2019s positive obligation. In this regard the Government relied, by analogy, on Stedman v the United Kingdom, application no. 29107/95, decision of 9 April 1997, in which the Commission rejected as inadmissible a complaint under Article 9 of the Convention by a Christian applicant who had been dismissed because she refused to work on Sundays. The Commission noted that there had been no pressure on the applicant to change her religious views or to prevent her from manifesting her religion or beliefs. It followed that the Government could not be expected \u201cto have legislation that would protect employees against such dismissals by private employers\u201d."], "id": "d705f5da-a89a-49e9-be58-eb137f35b853", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with principles of foreseeability and precision: while the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation, which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998, allowed for arbitrary with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings."], "id": "5b10029b-cdf5-41eb-a247-92e17947df4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government accepted that the applicants\u2019 arrest and their conviction for an administrative offence had constituted an with their freedom of expression and their freedom of assembly. However, they maintained that those measures had been lawful, had pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining public order and had been proportionate to that aim, in compliance with Articles 10 \u00a7 2 and 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They claimed that the applicants had attempted to conduct a spontaneous unauthorised public march in the centre of Moscow, that the police had lawfully demanded them to stop the march, but that they had persisted with their illegal conduct and had had to be dispersed and arrested."], "id": "eafef2da-3784-4bed-b719-e0c520467590", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government were further of the view that the with the applicant's rights had been prescribed by law, namely the Constitution of 1991, the Persons and Family Act of 1949 and the Political Parties Act of 1990. It had been intended to safeguard a wide range of public interests. All three levels of court had lawfully and justifiably refused to register the association."], "id": "a41d79b6-5ee8-4748-b8f7-d2272201218f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["116. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The with the applicant's rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "b545c4e5-7b3e-4b79-8fce-60654c6e906f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government further submitted that, being far away from the demonstration and not participating in it, the applicant could only exercise the right to freedom of expression and, more specifically, the right to receive information guaranteed by Article 10. However, there was no with this Article either, since the applicant exercised his right to receive information without any obstacles. In any event, the penalty imposed on the applicant was not connected with the exercise of his rights under Article 10, since he was convicted of minor hooliganism under Article 172 of the CAO."], "id": "1755ae57-022e-4a8e-bd39-c73700dbef3d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant contended that he was not aware of any relevant law regulating the matters of which he complained and that there was no legal protection against arbitrary by the public authorities with his rights. In this connection he argued that the respondent Government had made no effort at all to indicate the grounds on which such interference might have been justified, nor had they shown it to be necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "305e46b9-e484-42e4-bc93-5907cb719947", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government added that the law was also aimed at the \u201cprevention of crime\u201d, in that it was more difficult to check the origin and lawfulness of funds from abroad. The Court observes that that was not the Conseil d\u2019Etat\u2019s assessment in the present case, but considers it unnecessary to determine this question since it is sufficient that the in issue pursued just one of the legitimate aims listed. It will therefore confine itself to its above finding that the aim of the interference was the \u201cprevention of disorder\u201d."], "id": "794c6fae-3d4e-4989-8442-361dd08cc62c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant argued that his convictions under Article 314 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code and section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 had constituted an with his right to freedom of assembly. He stated that the interference in question had not been prescribed by law, within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention, since he had been unable to foresee that his participation in the funeral of 28 March 2006 or the demonstration of 5 March 2007 and his conduct during those events would lead to his prosecution and conviction for membership of an illegal organisation and a prison sentence of seven years and eleven months. The applicant referred to the opinion of the dissenting assize court judge (see paragraph 21 above)."], "id": "7cde6924-4dc7-470f-b3ab-98e3ee4bb03e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant argued that the with his freedom of religion and assembly was not prescribed by law because the deputy head of the Chekhov Town Council had not given reasons for the refusal. If the authorities considered that holding an assembly in the place he had proposed might disturb public order, they could have suggested another place or time. An unqualified ban on services of worship in public places had been disproportionate. He further argued that the authority's apprehension that the peaceful assembly might disturb public order was unsubstantiated. In 1998 the church had held services in public in the town of Chekhov which had not caused any disturbances. Other denominations, such as the Russian Orthodox Church, were allowed to hold services in public and such worship did not provoke any disorder in the town either."], "id": "a4b0e38a-78f4-4875-bfec-bf78fb0188b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["217. The applicant argued that there had been an with his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly as a result of both the dispersal of the peaceful demonstration in the morning of 1 March 2008 and the criminal case against him. The charges against him under Articles 225.1 \u00a7 2, 301 and 318 \u00a7 1 of the CC for inciting disobedience and making calls for a violent overthrow of the government and for insulting public officials also pointed to the existence of an interference with his freedom of expression because he was basically prosecuted for publicly voicing his opinions at the rallies. Even if those charges were later dropped, they had nevertheless been the basis for his being kept in detention."], "id": "ef943ef3-5b6d-485c-9355-b3c7d88ca2b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with principles of foreseeability and precision: while the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation, which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998, allowed for arbitrary with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings."], "id": "506f4820-d59c-43e1-a868-05e6e3a1af45", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government further submitted that the sought to safeguard a wide range of societal interests. All three levels of court rightfully refused to register Ilinden. Firstly, they found that the association\u2019s articles did not comply with the statutory requirements, because there was a disparity between the number of members of its managing council envisaged by its articles and the number actually elected. It was important to point out in that connection that the procedure for registering an association did not result in a ruling having res judicata, and that it was thus open to Ilinden to re\u2011apply for registration. To avoid another refusal, it simply had to bring its founding documents in line with the applicable requirements. Secondly, the courts found that the association pursued political aims, which could be pursued only by a political party. While an association\u2019s founders were free to choose its aims, their choice could not run counter to the Constitution and the laws of the country."], "id": "8c6209db-e3c6-4fbf-a4b9-8b0d0e1d2b00", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government emphasised, firstly, that Turkish legislation, while granting public-sector employees the freedom to set up associations to defend their rights, did not guarantee trade-union freedom in the public sector, covering the rights to strike and to conduct collective bargaining. They noted, secondly, that the trade union's representatives had argued from the outset before the national courts that their association was a trade union of public-sector employees and that the concept of trade union included the rights to strike and to collective bargaining. Referring to National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium (27 October 1975, \u00a7 39, Series A no. 19) and Schmidt and Dahlstr\u00f6m v. Sweden (6 February 1976, \u00a7 34, Series A no. 21), they asserted that Article 11 of the Convention did not secure any particular treatment of trade-union members by the State or the right to conclude collective-bargaining agreements. They alleged that the Convention's requirement was that trade unions be authorised to strive for the protection of their members' interests through means that the State was free to determine. In the instant case, the decision to dissolve T\u00fcm Haber Sen had been intended to prevent unlawful unionisation, and the had been justified in terms of Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "2a86040e-2428-4049-833e-6f7cb025051a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government accepted that the applicants\u2019 arrest at the site of the public event and their administrative convictions had constituted an with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and their right to freedom of expression. Such an interference constitutes a breach of Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention unless it is prescribed by law, pursues one or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2 of each Article, and is \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "ec508767-2101-4f47-8a62-89426bd0f3b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government accepted that the dissolution of the Association amounted to an with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of association. The Government maintained that the interference was prescribed by domestic law, which was both accessible and foreseeable. In this connection, they relied on Article 31 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations and Article 59 of the Civil Code, noting that those provisions provided for liability of a non-governmental organisation and the possibility of interference with its activities. The Government submitted that the interference pursued the legitimate aims of \u201cprotection of public safety\u201d, \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d and \u201cprevention of crime\u201d."], "id": "2f4d5d80-59d6-481b-b00a-5909a99b19e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government submitted that the was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aim pursued. It was aimed at preventing the applicant\u2019s unlawful actions and avoiding social disorder. The sanction imposed was at the lower end of the scale of penalties prescribed for the offence committed by the applicant. The Contracting Parties enjoyed a margin of appreciation as far as the necessity of an interference was concerned and the reasons given by the domestic authorities were relevant and sufficient."], "id": "6b64035b-41a8-4821-96dd-ab7fc0846a3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The with the applicant's rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "efff7881-92e1-4578-b384-007778fa30dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government asked the Court to reject the applicants\u2019 arguments. They observed that the in question was clearly prescribed by Articles 68 and 69 of the Constitution, which required political parties constituting centres of anti-constitutional activities, contrary to the principles of equality and of a secular, democratic republic in particular, to be dissolved by the Constitutional Court. They emphasised that one of the conditions for the dissolution of a political party, namely failure on its part to expel those of its members who had been convicted of criminal offences \u2013 a condition which had been added by the Law on the regulation of political parties to the definition of a \u201ccentre of anti-constitutional activities\u201d \u2013 was no longer applicable in the case on account of changes to the Criminal Code. In other words, following the repeal of Article 163 of the Turkish Criminal Code, which concerned the dissemination of anti-secular ideas and the creation of associations for that purpose, the procedure laid down in section 103(2) of the Law on the regulation of political parties had become devoid of purpose. The Government submitted that for that reason section 103(2) was manifestly unconstitutional in that its application would have made it impossible to give full effect to the Constitution, and in particular Article 69 \u00a7 6 thereof, which gave the Constitutional Court sole power to rule that a political party constituted a centre of anti-constitutional activities."], "id": "06127b5d-6cf2-434a-987d-4d5446d81473", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["99. The applicant submitted that the Government's assertion that he did not participate in the demonstration, so that there was no with his right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contradicted the findings of the domestic court, according to which he had allegedly behaved in an anti-social way during the demonstration of 7 April 2003. If he had blocked a street which had nothing to do with the demonstration, as the Government claimed, this fact would have been disclosed by the investigating authority and without any doubt would have been used in the administrative case against him."], "id": "8c69503a-8dcb-4c87-a74b-decbf8ff9fe6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["112. The applicants claimed that the with the rights of the protesters had been two-fold: it had consisted of, first, the dispersal of the meeting, and, secondly, the arbitrary criminal prosecution of some of the protesters. The Government did not deny that there had been an interference with Article 11 rights, at least in so far as the dispersal was concerned."], "id": "23342e1e-b3f5-4f22-a680-9a05f36c3ac8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government contested this view. They noted that, in the applicant\u2019s view, it was the police decision on non-competence that violated his right to freedom of assembly. However, the in fact resulted from the original police measure declaring the area in question a \u201csecurity operational zone\u201d. Against such a measure, a distinct complaint might be filed with the police body in charge, and the latter\u2019s decision could be appealed before the superior organ. The resulting administrative ruling was susceptible to judicial review, an effective remedy in the circumstances. However, the applicant\u2019s case pursuing this legal avenue was still pending. In respect of the area closure, successful proceedings, including judicial review, had already take place (case no. 27.K.31.354/2010/9.); and the applicant should have completed his own similar case, failing which he had not exhausted domestic remedies."], "id": "b8b0e08b-d9db-487c-b1f1-c264b99d5a54", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["103. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant\u2019s right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The with the applicant\u2019s rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "845ef7dd-2430-4410-8b70-23782b653842", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant wanted to fly from Sheremetyevo airport to Samara to participate in the March of Dissent scheduled for the same day. The Government do not dispute that this was the purpose of his flight. Nor is there any doubt that participation in such a rally would have been an exercise of the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The applicant\u2019s arrest and detention, and the seizure of his passport and ticket made it impossible for him to fly that day. Having been denied access to the Samara flight, at such short notice, there would have been no other way for him to make it to Samara in time for the rally. The applicant\u2019s arrest and detention prevented him from attending the rally. There has, therefore, been an with his right to freedom of assembly."], "id": "a82086ca-ecb6-4273-998e-36f8a2c385d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government contended that, if Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was at all applicable, what had occurred in the present case had to be considered as a control of the use of property falling within the scope of its second paragraph. They left it to the Court to decide whether an giving rise to State responsibility had occurred. They submitted, however, that the alleged interference had been lawful. Furthermore, the wage monitoring system that followed from the Construction Agreement, and the costs to which the applicants were compelled to contribute, served not only the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, but also pursued the general interest of the community, namely to uphold the legitimacy of the Swedish approach in the area of industrial relations."], "id": "49dd2baa-24b6-46a6-ad30-c7a77d50ebff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government argued that there had been no with the applicants\u2019 freedom of association, noting that the Ministry had not formally refused to register the association. Instead, it had merely returned the association\u2019s foundation documents to the founders so that the latter could rectify the deficiencies and ensure that they complied with the requirements of the domestic law. The Government contended that, although \u201ca refusal to register a public association might be regarded as a violation of the right to freedom of association, a delayed response to [an application for state registration] is not a violation of that right\u201d. Even if the Ministry had committed procedural errors, they had not amounted to a violation of the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 11."], "id": "59f57f4b-3f6d-4376-910e-21aed3e2bb35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant submitted that there was no justification for the with its right to determine its membership. There was no interference with Mr Lee's freedom of expression as expulsion did not interfere with his right to express his political views. In any event any sanction was minimal and did not take priority over its right, and its members' rights, to exercise their own freedom of association and expression. Mr Lee never claimed that he suffered any detriment from exclusion. It referred to Article 17 to the effect that Article 10 would not protect some-one engaged in destroying other rights and freedoms. Since it was committed to opposing race discrimination, it would interfere with its rights, and its members, to be forced to admit into membership a person who was a member of such a right wing organisation. It did not accept that section 174 imposed a limited restriction, pointing out that it simply did not wish to associate with those whom they regarded as fascists or members of extreme right wing parties, whether active or not. It claimed that it had the right to dissociate itself from those whose political membership they abhorred. While Mr Lee's status as an activist might furnish greater reason to expel him, this did not touch on the fundamental issue. It would be acceptable if section 174 were framed so as to limit exclusion to membership of a party the objectives of which were contrary to the objectives of the trade union."], "id": "2e35e0b5-22f4-4bb8-9329-5956c1811fb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicants argued that their detention had violated both their freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention and their freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. The with those rights by their detention had not been justified. It had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and had not pursued a legitimate aim for the reasons they set out in relation to Article 5 \u00a7 1 (see paragraph 57 above). In particular, it had been uncertain if, when and where the applicants would display the banners \u201cFreedom for prisoners\u201d and \u201cFree all now\u201d. Doing so would, furthermore, not have been an offence under the Criminal Code. The slogans could not have been understood as an incitement to a very uncommon crime but had had a different, more obvious meaning. With more than 1,000 demonstrators having been detained in connection with the G8 summit but only 100 detentions having been approved by the courts, there had been more than enough reason to criticise the deprivations of liberty that had taken place in connection with the summit."], "id": "a389ad88-0e96-4f47-b569-4318812a71bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government submitted that no prior notification had been made to the competent authority about a march planned for 16 July 2006 along Nevskiy Avenue. The absence of such notification had rendered the march unlawful. Certain demonstrators had behaved in a \u201cdestructive manner\u201d, thus manifestly breaching order and creating a real threat to their own and others\u2019 safety. They had not stopped their unlawful actions and had not dispersed, despite the by the police. Moreover, they had shown active resistance to the police. Some forty people had been arrested."], "id": "f84dbd12-6739-43bb-9e5d-e763b0caa211", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government submitted that the State\u2019s with the applicants\u2019 freedom of association had been prescribed by law. They stated that Article 20 of the Constitution had provided for boundaries in exercising freedom of association. The same restrictions were set out in Article 4 of the Act. They asserted that the Constitutional Court, on the basis of these provisions, had found that the Association\u2019s name and the ideology of Ivan Mihajlov which it pursued had encouraged and incited to national hatred and intolerance and had led to a denial of the free expression of the Macedonian national affiliation. They maintained that the affirmation of the ideas of the Movement, as a terrorist association, would in practice mean killings, terrorist activities and support of fascism and its ideology. That had caused disorder and public reactions, resulting in two incidents at the Association\u2019s opening ceremony. They presented a number of documents concerning Ivan Mihajlov\u2019s life and his activities; the activities of the organisation called the VMRO (\u0412\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0448\u043d\u0430 \u041c\u0430\u043a\u0435\u0434\u043e\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0420\u0435\u0432\u043e\u043b\u0443\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0440\u043d\u0430 \u041e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430) under his leadership, in particular in the period 1924-1934, and his alleged alliance with the fascist regime during the Second World War. Referring to that material, they maintained that Ivan (Van\u010do) Mihajlov (Radko) was considered as a person who used terrorist methods to impose the fascist idea of denunciation of the Macedonian people\u2019s identity and to promote the latter as a fictitious and non-existent people called \u201cMacedonian Bulgarians\u201d (\u041c\u0430\u043a\u0435\u0434\u043e\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u0411\u043e\u043b\u0433\u0430\u0440\u0438). They stated that in pursuance of that idea, he and his followers had killed and massacred a considerable number of Macedonians who had fought for the national freedom of their people. The Government stated that the creation and operation of an Association, the name, platform and programme activities of which had been inspired by the name and image of Ivan Mihajlov, had irrefutably been directed towards incitement to national hatred or intolerance, contrary to Article 20 \u00a7 3 of the Constitution, something that could result in clashes between the Macedonian people and the citizens associated with the Association. They claimed that repudiation of the identity of the Macedonian people and its statehood had been at the heart of the Association\u2019s activity. Accordingly, violent destruction of the constitutional order was the fundamental objective of the Association. As stated by the Government, the public reaction on the opening ceremony had been clear evidence that the Association would incite to national hatred. The Association\u2019s members had had recourse to brutal physical force against their adversaries, causing injuries for which they had been subsequently convicted by a court and sentenced to imprisonment. The Government submitted that the existence of the Association should be considered as an abuse of freedom of association, as its aim had not been the expression of thoughts and beliefs, but negation of the identity of the Macedonian people through promotion of the fascist ideas of Ivan Mihajlov concerning the \u201cMacedonian Bulgarians\u201d, who were unknown in history, legal science and practice. The ultimate objective of the Association was to initiate national hatred, religious unrest and a revival of the terror that Ivan Mihajlov had practiced in his time, when he executed hundreds of opponents."], "id": "aae96388-ebb0-447a-b08c-7f18790c01f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicants submitted that they had no remedy for their complaints, which disclosed arguable claims of violations of provisions of the Convention. Domestic law provided at that time no remedy to test whether any with their rights was unlawful. The case-law of the English courts indicated that the owner of a shopping centre could give a bad reason, or no reason at all, for the exclusion of individuals from its land. No judicial review would lie against the decision of such a private entity."], "id": "11e58498-27cd-4e1d-9475-356b30c44d3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government argued that there was no with the applicants' freedom of association. Firstly, the Government noted that the Ministry did not refuse to register the association. Instead, it merely returned the association's foundation documents to the founders so that the latter could rectify the shortcomings and ensure that they complied with the requirements of the domestic law. The Government contended that, although \u201ca refusal to register a public association might be regarded as a violation of the right to freedom of association, the delayed response to [an application for state registration] is not a violation of this right.\u201d"], "id": "816c8cb9-1e36-44c5-8353-46994d3d7c0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government submitted that the impugned , if any, could be regarded as pursuing the legitimate aims of protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the protection of public order, within the meaning of Article 9 \u00a7 2, namely, by eliminating entities claiming to pursue religious ends but in fact striving only for financial benefits. The applicants contested this view."], "id": "7dfb1c79-9f94-4e71-a348-eedc4dd87275", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant argued that, while having been prescribed by law, the complained of had not pursued a legitimate aim. As regards its necessity, he argued that had the demonstration been authorised it would not have caused any disproportionate obstacle to the traffic. Venyige Street, with the service lane included, was wide enough to accommodate the expected number of participants, some 200; and the police could have secured access to the prison notwithstanding the on-going event. In sum, the applicant found abusive the Government\u2019s reliance on the traffic hindrance argument."], "id": "58c4b11c-8632-41d9-91d8-098d14116ebd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicant in the present case was arrested at the scene of a protest action against the President\u2019s policies. She was part of a group of about forty people who forced their way through identity and security checks into the reception area of the President\u2019s Administration building and locked themselves in one of the offices, where they started to wave placards and to distribute leaflets out of the windows. She was charged with participation in mass disorder in connection with her taking part in the protest action and remanded in custody for a year, at the end of which time she was convicted as charged and sentenced to three years\u2019 imprisonment, suspended for three years. The Court considers that her arrest, detention and conviction constituted with the right to freedom of expression."], "id": "3e54c50c-03e9-4ed3-8f11-9eac9dc90917", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government submitted that the with the applicant\u2019s rights had been lawful. The Political Parties Act established a special authorisation procedure for registration of political parties. The requirement to obtain a registration authorisation was justified by the special status and role of political parties. The Political Parties Act did not differentiate between types of registration. The same rules therefore applied to the registration of a newly established political party and to the registration of any amendments to the information contained in the Register. In all cases a political party had to submit the documents specified in section 16 of the Political Parties Act (see paragraph 44 above) and the registration authority had competence to verify those documents and decide whether to authorise or refuse registration (see sections 15 \u00a7 5, 29 \u00a7 1 and 38 \u00a7 1 of the Political Parties Act in paragraphs 43, 45 and 53 above). The fact that those provisions allowed different interpretations was not contrary to the Convention. Many laws were inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, were vague and whose interpretation and application were questions of practice. The role of adjudication vested in the courts was precisely to dissipate such interpretational doubts as remained, taking into account the changes in everyday practice (the Government referred to Rekv\u00e9nyi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, \u00a7 34, ECHR 1999\u2011III, and Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, \u00a7 65, ECHR 2004\u2011I). The Government concluded that domestic provisions governing registration of political parties met the requirements of accessibility and foreseeability. In any event, the applicant had applied to the domestic authorities for instructions as to the registration procedure to be followed and had received detailed explanations. It was also significant that the lawfulness of the refusal of registration had been examined and confirmed by the domestic courts. Given that it was in the first place for the national authorities, and notably the courts, to interpret domestic law, it was not the Court\u2019s task to substitute its own interpretation for theirs in the absence of arbitrariness (they referred to Tejedor Garc\u00eda v. Spain, 16 December 1997, \u00a7 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VIII)."], "id": "911223de-4779-4cd5-8407-9f309b712d76", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant submitted that the last-instance court had rejected the application for registration by relying only on the provisions of the association\u2019s memorandum and its articles of association. He considered, however, that the finding that some provisions of the memorandum and articles of association could have amounted to activities specific to political parties had been mere speculation and did not amount to compelling reasons that could have justified the with his freedom of association. In the applicant\u2019s opinion, the goal of the association had certainly not been one that could have been attributed exclusively to political parties."], "id": "a1fa49c2-7ef0-4909-bfa1-e4ea5d5ba6f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that the was prescribed by law. In particular, the applicant was convicted under Article 180.1 of the CAO for \u201cviolation of the prescribed rules for organising or holding assemblies, rallies, street marches and demonstrations\u201d. These rules were prescribed by the USSR Law on Approving Decrees of the Chairmanship of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on Making Amendments and Supplements to Certain USSR Legal Acts of 28 October 1988 and were accessible and formulated with sufficient precision."], "id": "41e69b32-8ef0-4dba-bda4-f9ba762a6501", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government further contended that the in the present case had been necessary given that the applicant had not only been convicted on account of participation in an illegal demonstration but also for throwing stones at the police. They noted that the applicant and the other demonstrators had been asked to disperse, but had refused to do so."], "id": "1d08680b-e416-4b31-84c8-f4bfb94599e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["139. The applicants placed particular emphasis on the deficiencies of the reasoning adduced by the domestic authorities. Both sides asked the Court to re-examine the proportionality of the \u201cinterference\u201d, while raising a disagreement about certain circumstances having significance for such an assessment. The Court, for its part, is not satisfied that the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the \u201cinterference\u201d under Article 11 of the Convention were sufficient for then sentencing four applicants to detention. Faced with the domestic courts\u2019 failure to give reasons that would be both relevant and sufficient to justify the , the Court finds that the domestic courts cannot be said to have \u201capplied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 11\u201d or to have \u201cbased themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts\u201d (see paragraph 131 above; see also Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, \u00a7 152, 26 April 2016, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, \u00a7 24, 26 January 2017)."], "id": "b0c20675-c24a-4236-a9c9-5d5091ff9fad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant argued that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly did not comply with principles of foreseeability and precision: while the Constitution required only prior notification about a planned public assembly, the system of prior authorisation, which was applied in practice and stemmed from certain provisions of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998, allowed for arbitrary with freedom of assembly and permitted abusive banning or dispersal of public gatherings."], "id": "2dd82527-6ca5-4071-8f9c-61f13c310e42", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government submitted that the was prescribed by law, namely by the relevant provisions of the Assembly Act. Furthermore, it pursued the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, that is, those of other road users. As to its necessity, the Government stressed that the police had had to balance the right to assembly and the right to free movement. Since in the present case the event was likely to cause inordinate traffic congestion in both Venyige Street and the neighbouring major thoroughfare, it was the police\u2019s prerogative to restrict the applicant\u2019s Article 11 rights: the measure was thus a necessary and proportionate restriction on the right to assembly."], "id": "7f0497ef-2a7b-4722-90c4-0fde71a08e11", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants submitted that the authorities\u2019 suggestion to change the venue of the \u201cdemonstration\u201d, the forceful termination of the \u201cdemonstration\u201d, their arrest and the fines imposed in the administrative proceedings constituted an with their right of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention, considered in the light of Article 10. In the applicants\u2019 view, the applicable legislation did not meet the quality of law required under the Convention because this legislation did not indicate the scope of a public authority\u2019s discretionary power to change or restrict the location or time of a proposed gathering. The legislation did not determine the legal consequences of non-compliance with the authority\u2019s alternative proposal regarding the venue and/or timing of the event. It was not clear whether failure to comply with the proposal entailed administrative liability."], "id": "b583f962-7cc5-4378-aa33-04f6559238b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government claimed that the in the form of dissolution of the applicant community had been justified, prescribed by law and had also pursued a legitimate aim. They referred to the Court's position to the effect that the State was \u201centitled to verify whether a movement or association carries on, ostensibly in pursuit of religious aims, activities which are harmful to the population\u201d (Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, 26 September 1996, \u00a7 40, Reports 1996\u2011IV) and also \u201cmay legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct... judged incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others\u201d (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, \u00a7 47, Series A no. 295\u2011A)."], "id": "c575a06e-4df2-40f4-a87f-24fb2091dc1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government submitted that at the relevant time the town centre was owned by a private company, Postel, and that it was Postel, in the exercise of its rights as property owner, which refused the applicants permission to use the Galleries for their activities. They argued that, in those circumstances, the State could not be regarded as bearing direct responsibility for any with the applicants\u2019 exercise of their rights. The fact that the land had previously been owned by the local authority was irrelevant."], "id": "9404ff9b-0767-474b-9542-8c00a990c2b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicants also claimed, in this connection, that the Audit Court, following the Court of Cassation judgment of 6 December 1995, had invalidated the collective agreements signed by the trade union T\u00fcm Bel Sen and that civil servants belonging to the union had had to reimburse all the additional wages or allowances they had received as a result of the defunct agreements. This development, which in itself constituted with the trade union\u2019s activities, had also prevented the union from persuading other municipal authorities to sign new collective agreements."], "id": "b52717da-a60d-4c93-a0ea-220c78fd11fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["198. The Government submitted that there had been no with the first and second applicants\u2019 right to freedom of peaceful assembly. Before the domestic authorities, those applicants had explained their presence at the scene by curiosity rather than by a will to express their position through participation in an assembly. The Government referred to the applicants\u2019 statements to the police on 28 May 2010 and to the District Court to the effect that they had been merely passing by the place of the events and had been attracted there by curiosity (see paragraphs 46, 47, 52 and 53 above). The Government stressed that, in contrast to such cases as Galstyan v. Armenia (no. 26986/03, \u00a7\u00a7 100 and 116, 15 November 2007), in which the domestic authorities had punished the applicant for his conduct in the course of a demonstration, in the present case the domestic authorities had not referred to the applicants\u2019 participation in an assembly but merely to their refusal to obey the police officers\u2019 demands. Thus neither the applicants\u2019 statements before the domestic authorities nor any decisions taken by those authorities had referred to their participation in an assembly."], "id": "c0a8d861-0e2e-40d4-a099-fbd02c98d8f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant\u2019s right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The with the applicant\u2019s rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "ea1c2193-1b3d-4df9-9186-28ca45bc293e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government considered that there had been no interference with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 rights to peaceful assembly, and that in any event the penalty imposed on them, that is a RUB 500 fine, had not been disproportionate. They concluded that both the general measures taken in relation to the assembly as a whole and the individual measures taken against the applicants personally had been justified under Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They considered that these measures complied with domestic law, were necessary \u201cfor the or crime\u201d and \u201cfor the protection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d, and remained strictly proportionate."], "id": "600e2093-a20f-4c2d-b057-bd6acde6bf9e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government emphasised that the applicant had been able to exercise his right to freedom of assembly without any interference on several occasions in the past. The restriction on his rights which is at issue in the present case had been of an exceptional nature. It had been imposed because the information about terrorist attacks in places of mass gatherings had been received from the police. It had been necessary for the and crime, that is to say terrorist attacks, and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens who had had no intention of taking part in the meeting."], "id": "9f777794-f8f5-438f-b4a3-f5a3bc9be37d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant submitted, firstly, that the requirements of minimum membership and regional representation were not justified under the second paragraph of Article 11. In particular, they were unreasonable and did not pursue any legitimate aim. The imposition of such requirements on political parties could not be justified by the interests of national security or public safety. Nor were they necessary for the or crime or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "5e87c318-ba91-44b1-9267-e2dfcf5853ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government\u2019s submissions as regards the general measures implemented at Bolotnaya Square were identical to those in Frumkin (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 83-85). As regards the particular circumstances of the case, they considered that there had been no interference with the exercise of the applicant\u2019s right to peaceful assembly, and that in any event this interference had not been manifestly disproportionate to the offence committed by her. The charges brought against the applicant had stemmed from a specific act of disobedience committed after the end of the authorised meeting, rather than from her disagreement with the decision to terminate it early. The Government pointed out that the applicant had been exempted from administrative liability and had incurred no sanctions. They concluded that both the general measures taken in relation to the protest as a whole and the individual measures taken against the applicant personally had been justified under Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In particular, the measures had complied with domestic law, had been necessary \u201cfor the or crime\u201d and \u201cfor the protection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d and had remained strictly proportionate."], "id": "de24ed37-581f-4f6e-aa34-7a5e4556f25e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants argued that by refusing to register Ilinden the authorities had infringed their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The refusal of the courts had been based on deliberately erroneous findings in respect of the relevant facts and a misconstruction of the applicable law. It was clear that freedom of association could not be subjected to restrictions other than those which were provided for by law for the protection of national security and public safety, for the or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "74b1f8c2-0725-43c9-a15a-d5d3149edf4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government considered that there had been no interference with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 rights to peaceful assembly, and that in any event the penalty imposed on them, that is to say twenty-four hours\u2019 administrative detention and a 700 Russian roubles (RUB) fine, had not been disproportionate. They concluded that both the general measures taken in relation to the protest as a whole and the individual measures taken against the applicants personally had been justified under Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They considered that they had complied with domestic law, had been necessary \u201cfor the or crime\u201d and \u201cfor the protection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d, and had remained strictly proportionate."], "id": "bdb76dce-e72e-47a1-928c-3f7ab5f8636a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government were of the view that the interference pursued two legitimate aims, namely the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, in the present case those of the property owners and the . They noted that the main aim of the applicant association was \u201cto remove any buildings that it occupie[d] from the real-estate market and from speculation\u201d and that active member status, with voting rights, was reserved only for those who occupied one of the three buildings."], "id": "70bc9de5-c442-4fd8-b201-d15f9e91bc35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government considered that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of peaceful assembly had complied with domestic law and was necessary \u201cfor the or crime\u201d and \u201cfor the protection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d. They claimed that on all seven occasions the applicant had attempted to conduct unauthorised public gatherings, which the police had lawfully intercepted, and that the competent courts had justifiably found him guilty of administrative offences. They did not consider that on any of these occasions there had been special circumstances absolving the protestors from compliance with the requirement of prior notification of their assembly. They gave examples of other, lawful public events in which the applicant had participated without any interference. They challenged the applicant\u2019s allegations that those assemblies had not caused any noise or nuisance, given the size of the groups at issue and the presence of the media. In particular, on 27 October 2012 (the fifth occasion) he held a march which had obstructed traffic and, contrary to what the applicant suggested, \u201cit was unlikely\u201d that some of the other events \u201cdid [not] produce any noise and cause any nuisance to the pedestrians\u201d in view of the number of people participating, their locations and time (notably the first on 5 March 2012 and the last two on 27 February 2014). They also challenged the applicant\u2019s submission that he did not obstruct traffic in the seventh episode."], "id": "a0443f1a-7bf8-4b2c-9863-17cc634d134b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government further argued that the dispersal of the assembly had been necessary in the interests of national security, for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the or crime, and had been proportionate to the aims pursued. They submitted in particular that the police had not intervened in the assembly until the moment when participants had started to disturb public order. Besides, the first applicant herself had admitted in the court proceedings that she had insulted public authorities during the protest."], "id": "0956b10e-5112-4e18-8346-1eca72f44a39", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government concluded that both the general measures taken in relation to the assembly as a whole and the individual measures taken against the applicant personally had been justified under Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They submitted that the measures in question had complied with domestic law, had been necessary \u201cfor the or crime\u201d and \u201cfor the protection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d and had remained strictly proportionate."], "id": "96be13bb-823f-4f95-bffa-3756bd1cd0cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government took the view that the interference pursued two legitimate aims, namely the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, in this case the owners of the buildings, and the . The applicants disputed this assertion. They argued that the dissolution of the association had had no legal or factual effect on the possibility for the owners to exercise their property rights. Even assuming that the occupation of the buildings had breached public order, the applicants failed to see how the association\u2019s dissolution remedied the problem."], "id": "2d2dffe4-1837-467a-bd99-a6e864dc6d8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government stated that the demonstration at issue had been organised in breach of the Law on Meetings and Demonstration Marches (Law. No. 2911), and the interference had thus been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d. They also submitted that the interference had pursued the legitimate aim of, inter alia, and crime and maintaining public order and that it had been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "9e162415-66d4-43c0-8528-3a580640de1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s argument that the dissolution of the Association had pursued a legitimate aim in the interests of national security or public safety, that is, for the and crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others within the meaning of Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In his view, the courts had failed to establish any instances of actual disorder or any violation of the rights of others. He stressed that the domestic decisions had referred to a merely hypothetical danger whose prevention could not be seen as a legitimate aim under the Convention."], "id": "98655d57-baa0-4ab7-a45d-915062ae1f34", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicants accepted in principle that protection of public safety and the rights and freedoms of others and the might depend on safeguarding the principle of secularism. However, they submitted that in pleading those aims the Government sought to conceal the underlying reasons which had led to Refah\u2019s dissolution. In reality, they argued, this had been the aim of major business concerns and the military, whose interests were threatened by Refah\u2019s economic policy, involving a reduction of the national debt to zero."], "id": "d39a1705-a951-4d86-970c-d0a4de48826a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government considered that neither Article 10 nor Article 11 of the Convention had been breached. The interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression and freedom of assembly by their detention had been justified. It had been based on section 55(1), paragraph 2 (a), of the PSOA, a provision which had been sufficiently precise to be foreseeable in terms of its application to the applicants. It had pursued legitimate aims, as the applicants\u2019 detention had been in the interest of public safety and for the ."], "id": "f827301b-068f-4275-8e95-210ed613c222", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government maintained that the interference pursued one or more legitimate aims: the , in so far as the first applicant\u2019s own safety was concerned by the bomb threats, and the interests of national security with regard to all the applicants. In each case the interference was moreover \u201cnecessary\u201d for the achievement of the legitimate aim or aims pursued."], "id": "9d3450df-b0c5-429f-8ccf-415ce9d2238d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government further argued that the interference had been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d for the purposes of Article 10 \u00a7 2 and Article 11 \u00a7 2. They stressed that there had not been a less restrictive measure than the applicants\u2019 detention available in order to achieve the said legitimate aims. In particular, it had not been sufficient to seize the banners in question, as the applicants could easily have drawn up new, comparable banners at any time and could have used them immediately during the demonstrations in Rostock. It had also been proportionate to detain the applicants. There had been riots in Rostock city centre the day before. The applicants, who had shown themselves to be prepared to use violence, had been on their way to Rostock to participate in the demonstrations. There had been reason to fear that the applicants\u2019 banners would have incited other violent demonstrators to liberate by force prisoners detained in the prisoner holding pens in Rostock. In these circumstances, the public interest in maintaining public order and in the had outweighed the applicants\u2019 interest in participating in the demonstrations."], "id": "64c13d32-561e-4625-b294-0cbc5e6c2839", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government did not argue that there had not been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of assembly other than to submit that the case was not within the scope of Article 11. Even assuming that the applicant\u2019s acts had fallen within the scope of Article 11, they submitted that the State authorities\u2019 acts and decisions had had the legitimate aims of protecting national security, territorial integrity, public safety and public order as well as the . They argued that interfering with the demonstrations in question, which had incited people to violence and which had been organised by members of the PKK, a terrorist organisation, had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been necessary in a democratic society. They stressed that the applicant had not been convicted for taking part in a funeral."], "id": "e0fe4fc5-3be2-4998-8d22-7e60a1cabc90", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "0d465893-ef86-429a-9808-04601ac9801d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["92. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "870ced99-23de-43b8-818f-83e908423224", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants contested the Government\u2019s submissions. They argued that the interference was not prescribed by law, did not pursue a legitimate aim and was disproportionate. They further submitted that the Association was not a religious organisation and had not engaged in any religious activity. They also noted that although Article 1 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations excluded religious organisations from the ambit of the Law, it lacked clarity and ."], "id": "3cf32178-6b2d-4ec8-8b5a-5e1cc1902f1e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "bf84cfbe-693f-40f9-8d6e-5ced10287598", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "b11c366a-e6c5-442c-9a76-58ff2abde418", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights had been lawful. The Political Parties Act established a special authorisation procedure for registration of political parties. The requirement to obtain a registration authorisation was justified by the special status and role of political parties. The Political Parties Act did not differentiate between types of registration. The same rules therefore applied to the registration of a newly established political party and to the registration of any amendments to the information contained in the Register. In all cases a political party had to submit the documents specified in section 16 of the Political Parties Act (see paragraph 44 above) and the registration authority had competence to verify those documents and decide whether to authorise or refuse registration (see sections 15 \u00a7 5, 29 \u00a7 1 and 38 \u00a7 1 of the Political Parties Act in paragraphs 43, 45 and 53 above). The fact that those provisions allowed different interpretations was not contrary to the Convention. Many laws were inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, were vague and whose interpretation and application were questions of practice. The role of adjudication vested in the courts was precisely to dissipate such interpretational doubts as remained, taking into account the changes in everyday practice (the Government referred to Rekv\u00e9nyi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, \u00a7 34, ECHR 1999\u2011III, and Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, \u00a7 65, ECHR 2004\u2011I). The Government concluded that domestic provisions governing registration of political parties met the requirements of and foreseeability. In any event, the applicant had applied to the domestic authorities for instructions as to the registration procedure to be followed and had received detailed explanations. It was also significant that the lawfulness of the refusal of registration had been examined and confirmed by the domestic courts. Given that it was in the first place for the national authorities, and notably the courts, to interpret domestic law, it was not the Court\u2019s task to substitute its own interpretation for theirs in the absence of arbitrariness (they referred to Tejedor Garc\u00eda v. Spain, 16 December 1997, \u00a7 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VIII)."], "id": "26b86330-7a4f-46f5-be89-af32919302e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["95. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "7812039f-6511-40ee-92e6-7c9bd2359c1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government further argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, if any, was prescribed by law. The applicant\u2019s conviction had been based on Article 220 \u00a7 7 of the Criminal Code and the wording of that provision met the and foreseeability requirements within the meaning of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The interference in question had the legitimate aims of protecting national security and public order as well as preventing crime."], "id": "9ca2f5aa-b0c3-4288-975f-2b270eef115e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["109. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "5582d662-6ec8-41d6-bd4d-13ba67736f07", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "df369827-f9fc-4f46-9061-e6d0325e8993", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant also pointed out that the exceptions set out in Article 11 \u00a7 2 were to be construed narrowly: only convincing and compelling reasons could justify restrictions on . However, in the present case, the domestic courts had not adduced sufficient and relevant reasons for the restriction, since they had failed to demonstrate how the activities of the Association were capable of provoking conflicts or either supporting or promoting violence and the destruction of democracy. Indeed, the Association\u2019s activities had merely been aimed at enabling the discussion of unresolved social problems such as the security of vulnerable people and the extraordinarily high crime rate."], "id": "90ec0186-e99d-4300-9c4b-6faa1860b05f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["141. The applicants further complained that the refusal to recognise the applicant Church was preventing it from acquiring legal personality, thus depriving it of its right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, so that any complaint relating to its rights, and in particular its property rights, could be determined. In addition, they alleged that the refusal to recognise, coupled with the authorities\u2019 stubborn persistence in holding to the view that the applicants could practise their religion within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, infringed their , contrary to Article 11 of the Convention."], "id": "7619ca7c-0ddd-4618-9f5a-ddae6603c8a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government argued that there was no interference with the applicants' . Firstly, the Government noted that the Ministry did not refuse to register the association. Instead, it merely returned the association's foundation documents to the founders so that the latter could rectify the shortcomings and ensure that they complied with the requirements of the domestic law. The Government contended that, although \u201ca refusal to register a public association might be regarded as a violation of the right to freedom of association, the delayed response to [an application for state registration] is not a violation of this right.\u201d"], "id": "1fd1fd5f-10d4-4c34-b74b-f30f0c73f38a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant parties alleged that their dissolution had entailed a violation of their right to . Describing Institutional Law no. 6/2002 on political parties (\u201cthe LOPP\u201d) as an ad hoc law, they argued that it was neither accessible nor foreseeable and complained that it had been applied retrospectively. Stating that the purpose of their dissolution had been to eliminate political debate in the Basque Country, they complained that the measure had had no legitimate aim. They argued that it could not be considered necessary in a democratic society and considered it to be in violation of the principle of proportionality. The relevant parts of Article 11 provide:"], "id": "eaf816a4-7667-45c3-85de-192444fb3f44", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicants submitted that they had exhausted all remedies relating to their first and second attempts to re\u2011register UMO Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN, which formed the subject matter of the present case. While the third attempt to re\u2011register the party could, if successful, have put an end to the continued breach of their right to , it was unconnected with the first and second attempts. In those proceedings, the applicants had used all available avenues of appeal. In any event, even the third re\u2011registration attempt was unsuccessful."], "id": "431416dd-f591-4d5a-84a1-371924403fb7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant disputed the Government\u2019s contention that the present case involved a tax and not a membership fee and that therefore the negative aspect of the right to had not been violated. While the Government recognised that a tax was a compulsory payment to the State to be used by the State in accordance with decisions taken in the public interest by the State, they failed to appreciate that the industry charge did not have these characteristics but was a payment to the FII collected on its behalf by the State. It was the FII which decided how to spend the funds it accrued in this way, guided by its policies and views and without regard to the views of the applicant and others who were obliged by law to contribute to its financing. For the reasons set out in particular in the opinion of the dissenting member of the Supreme Court, the applicant had been obliged through the compulsory payment of charges to be a member of the FII and/or to associate himself with others within the FII. Notwithstanding the compulsory character of the industry charge and the fact that FII members could have their charges deducted from their membership fees, the FII had reserved the right to deny the applicant and others like him membership."], "id": "762399dd-2e8d-4417-a7eb-7fa62e4fef29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the right to was not absolute and might be subject to restrictions, as provided by Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They reiterated that, in accordance with the norms and principles of public international law, the right to strike could also be restricted. For instance, Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the ICESCR (see paragraph 19 above) allowed the banning of strikes by members of the police, army and State administration, and permitted restrictions on the right to strike of other people when it was necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "7adf195f-7498-4951-9201-61ffe241b3c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government accepted that, in light of the recent case-law of this Court, the right under Article 11 to join a trade union normally implied the ability to strike. But this was by no means an absolute right \u2013 it could be subject to conditions and restrictions in accordance with Article 11 \u00a7 2 that were within the State\u2019s margin of appreciation. Nor did the Government consider secondary action an essential element of , finding no support for such a proposition in the relevant case-law of the Court, none of which concerned secondary action."], "id": "1d256063-ef30-4a08-8ded-fa9ef476c198", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant submitted that fundamental rights must be effective and available from the first day of employment. While he understood that it might be appropriate to allow an employer a certain time in which to assess the conduct or capability of an employee, he argued that this should not apply in relation to discrimination on protected grounds. In fact, he submitted that would be illusory if it could only be exercised after a certain period of service."], "id": "83341c1f-82d4-47ea-993b-f10c009f68e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant company alleged that the negative aspect of its right to was interfered with because it was obliged to contribute to the Social Welfare Fund in the same way as a member of one of the employers\u2019 associations, but without having any competence to control the protection of its own interests within the organisation. This exerted a significant pressure on the applicant company to become a member of one of the employers\u2019 associations, in order to defend its interests."], "id": "d3eafcda-f667-426e-af97-3cdbd3eba50b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained that the criminal proceedings before the Ankara National Security Court were unfair, that that court was not independent and impartial, and of infringements of their freedom of expression and ; they also asserted that in the enjoyment of the rights thus breached they had been the victims of discrimination on the ground of their political opinions."], "id": "f7463c79-2e02-4b7d-ada7-1e583105bd01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained that the failure by the Ministry of Justice to register the public association in a timely manner constituted an interference with her . As the Ministry evaded registering the organisation by significantly delaying the examination of the founders' registration requests and breaching the statutory time-limit for the official response, her association could not acquire legal status. This allegedly constituted a violation of her right to freedom of association, as provided in Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "164c9c56-abc7-4f3c-bfbf-12113731c135", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicants disagreed with the Chamber and stressed that the refusal had been an extreme measure that amounted to a prior, unjustifiable restraint on their and could not be reconciled with the principles governing a democratic society. It had been based on entirely unfounded suspicions as to their true intentions and on speculation as to their future actions. In the applicants' opinion, there was always a hypothetical risk that a particular association might infringe the law or engage in activities incompatible with the aims it proclaimed. Yet the mere possibility of that happening could not justify a preventive blanket ban being imposed on its activities."], "id": "15e5640c-c4da-409f-ab7d-25be2564ad57", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government accepted that in the registration proceedings, which had not involved an interpretation of the applicant association\u2019s doctrinal sources, the refusal of the domestic authorities to register the applicant association had amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 and religion. However, that interference had been in accordance with the law and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Furthermore, it had been proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved and the reasons adduced by the authorities had been relevant and sufficient."], "id": "9c7bdc5d-4255-4903-8793-c20dea048797", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage. He argued that the decision of the last-instance court had prevented him from founding a non-profit, non-governmental organisation and from pursuing his calling as an environmental activist by developing new projects in that field. The decision of the last-instance court had caused him feelings of uncertainty about the possibility of carrying out activities benefiting the community and had infringed his right to dignity and honour in so far as his desire to help the community had been met by the authorities\u2019 suspicion that he had intended to breach the law. The authorities had also continued to disregard his right to , in spite of the Court\u2019s repeated findings of a violation of Article 11 in Romanian cases. The clemency showed by the Court in previous cases, when it had considered that the mere finding of a violation amounted to sufficient just satisfaction for an applicant, had failed to improve the authorities\u2019 behaviour."], "id": "8dc8f689-9838-48a3-a485-c989180da5d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government accepted that section 174 represented an interference with rights under Article 11 \u00a7 1 in interfering with the autonomy which a trade union would otherwise possess in the matter of determining its membership. The restrictions imposed in respect of membership of a political party were, however, justified as necessary and proportionate. They relied on the importance of the countervailing rights of trade union members and prospective members to freedom of expression and which would be engaged by expulsion from a trade union. Those rights were at the very foundation of democratic society, not least as the case concerned sanctions in respect of membership of a political party. They also claimed that a wide discretion remained for trade unions to expel or exclude on grounds of political activities. Section 174 only imposed a limited restriction on expelling those with views inimical to the trade union's objectives; it was only the applicant's own error in approach that led to a problem as there was ample conduct by Mr Lee, going beyond mere membership of the BNP, which the applicant could have relied on in order to found an entirely lawful decision to expel him."], "id": "211a4d39-1954-4f6a-bb48-360123a164f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicants maintained that the State\u2019s interference had not been justified and necessary in a democratic society. They stated that there had been no legitimate aim justifying the dissolution of the Association, nor had the reasons given by the Constitutional Court been relevant or sufficient. Having regard to the Court\u2019s case-law, they argued that the Court had found restrictions imposed on freedom of expression and by the Contracting States necessary only in two types of cases: in cases of threats of use of violence and in cases of justification of the use of violence."], "id": "5a31f63b-00f3-4367-9984-dccc384e7c50", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant did not consider its role as a trade union was significant as alleged, since the collective bargaining that it was involved in applied to all, not just its members. There was nothing to suggest that Mr Lee lost any benefit in his working life from exclusion from ASLEF. Finally the applicant denied that there was a wide margin of appreciation as this was a situation where domestic law ran counter to and considered that the Court was not precluded from examining the proportionality of the measure and ensuring a fair balance was struck."], "id": "445c3d5a-2104-4e05-b116-fa7faa3ea381", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants complained under Article 11 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision declaring the Association\u2019s Articles and Programme null and void had violated their , in that it led to the dissolution of the Association and deprived its members of the possibility jointly to pursue the purposes they had laid down in its Articles and Programme. In so far as relevant, Article 11 of the Convention provides:"], "id": "fd07be0d-8d39-4e73-ad5a-d92a3c2ef83d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicants complained that the failure by the Ministry of Justice to register their organisation in a timely manner constituted an interference with their . As the Ministry evaded registering the organisation by significantly delaying the examination of their registration requests and breaching the statutory time-limits for the official response, their association could not acquire legal status. This allegedly constituted a violation of their right to freedom of association, as provided in Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "67889d9b-4bc2-41e8-bab1-eb4e72111bf5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government further submitted that was not absolute. Political parties had an obligation to respect domestic law and the authorities were entitled to watch over their activities to ensure that they were compatible with statutory requirements. As the applicant had breached the requirements of minimum membership and regional representation, and had thereby violated the rights and interests of those parties that complied with the requirements, it had been necessary to dissolve it. The dissolution had not been automatic as the applicant had been given a choice between bringing the number of its members and regional branches into compliance with the amended law to retain its status as a political party or reorganising itself into a public association. However, it had failed to make use of that choice and had therefore become subject to dissolution. It was also noteworthy that the applicant had not been dissolved or banned on account of extremist activities. It was therefore possible for it to establish a new party under the same name. The applicant\u2019s members could either establish a new party or join another existing party."], "id": "b187bd6e-52fd-4f6b-9edf-ee92f1208600", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant complained that the failure by the Ministry of Justice to register the public association in a timely manner had constituted an interference with his . As the Ministry evaded registering the organisation by significantly delaying the examination of the founders' registration requests and breaching the statutory time-limit for the official response, his association had not been able to acquire legal status. This allegedly constituted a violation of his right to freedom of association, as provided in Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "60bceb7a-8c1d-4ca1-8020-31639151226b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government replied to Liberty\u2019s observations, observing that the latter addressed broader, background issues that were not relevant to the facts of the present case. While accepting that the structure of the labour market had evolved over the past two decades, the Government disagreed that this had generally hindered the enjoyment by the workers concerned of the benefits of trade-union rights. Practice actually showed that trade unions were capable of acting effectively in such circumstances \u2013 the three examples referred to by Liberty were in fact instances of the successful resolution of an industrial dispute via trade-union involvement (the three examples were: one involving airline catering staff, one concerning bus drivers in London during the 2012 Olympics, and one involving fuel lorry drivers). The charge that workers were prevented from taking action against the party that really determines their terms and conditions was no more than a hypothesis \u2013 no actual examples had been given. Nor had there been any decline in the number of days lost to strike action each year for the past twenty years, which tended to refute Liberty\u2019s view that domestic law had increasingly restricted trade-union freedom. In this respect, the United Kingdom was close to the European Union and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. As to the assertion that the threshold of twenty-one employees represented a loophole that employers could easily exploit in order to avoid having to recognise a trade union, the Government did not see its relevance to the facts of the case. Even so, there were safeguards in place to prevent employers from circumventing their statutory duty. Only genuine small firms were excluded, and that was for valid policy reasons. Finally, the Government submitted that there was no explicit support in the Court\u2019s case-law for the proposition that the right to take secondary action is an essential element of , or that the ban could not be justified under Article 11 \u00a7 2."], "id": "490c6f67-9eed-4384-b945-3da2ac7c34fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government of the Republic of Moldova submitted that the Chamber had not struck a sufficient balance between the claimed by the applicant union and the freedom of religion and right to autonomy of the Orthodox Church. They contended that Article 11 of the Convention could not be construed as imposing a positive obligation on the State to recognise a secular association within a religious community where such recognition would be at variance with the State\u2019s duty of denominational neutrality."], "id": "2fd62d19-f145-46f8-96ba-059e7e7c73d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicants submitted that they were not required to file an additional cassation complaint before lodging the present application with the Court, because the Plenum of the Supreme Court was not an effective remedy. They also maintained that their complaint about the Ministry's unlawful \u201cevading the registration of the non-governmental organisation\u201d constituted a substantive complaint about a violation of their ."], "id": "d76429df-6b12-4468-93c8-4c1cdaf1a510", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government submitted that political parties, as indispensable elements of democratic political life, were under an obligation to expose their activities, including their financial activities, to public scrutiny for purposes of \u201cclarity\u201d, which could only be achieved through supervision of their finances. The Constitutional Court, which was tasked by the Constitution with this duty of supervision, had accordingly inspected the applicant party\u2019s financial accounts for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 and had found some of its expenses to be in violation of the Political Parties Act, leading to the registration of the party\u2019s assets as revenue with the Treasury in amounts equivalent to the unlawful expenditure. The amounts in question were, however, relatively low in comparison with the applicant party\u2019s income for the years under review. Moreover, most of the applicant party\u2019s income came from State funding. In the light of those factors, the impugned decisions of the Constitutional Court did not constitute an interference with the applicant party\u2019s right to ."], "id": "f517fce2-182f-4b30-9bad-4ff2d0b702a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicant's , noting that the Ministry had not formally refused to register the association. Instead, it merely returned the association's foundation documents to the founders so that the latter could rectify the deficiencies and ensure that they complied with the requirements of the domestic law. The Government contended that, although \u201ca refusal to register a public association might be regarded as a violation of the right to freedom of association, a delayed response to [an application for state registration] is not a violation of this right\u201d."], "id": "23d022aa-942e-4dc6-b5a8-a820cc94166e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant party\u2019s dissolution undoubtedly represented an interference with both its and the other applicants\u2019 (who were its chairman, vice\u2011chairman and secretary \u2013 see paragraph 1 above) (see United Communist Party of Turkey and Others, cited above, p. 19, \u00a7 36, Socialist Party and Others, cited above, p. 1252, \u00a7 30, Freedom and Democracy Party (\u00d6ZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, \u00a7 27, ECHR 1999\u2011VIII, Yazar and Others, cited above, \u00a7 33, Dicle for the Democratic Party (DEP) of Turkey, cited above, \u00a7 31, Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey, [GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, \u00a7 50, ECHR 2003\u2011II, and Socialist Party of Turkey (STP) and Others v. Turkey, no. 26482/95, \u00a7 25, 12 November 2003)."], "id": "ed1c8b31-3a26-4c8c-b3a6-1dc780b19abf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted that, at the time of lodging of their application with the Court, the applicants had not exhausted the available domestic remedies. In particular, they had not filed an additional cassation complaint with the Plenum of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Government contended that the applicants complained to the domestic courts only about the allegedly unlawful actions of the Ministry of Justice, and did not specifically raise a complaint that these actions amounted to a violation of their right to ."], "id": "2a7be8af-c7e9-446d-923e-068071f5897b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant complained under Article 11 of the Convention of a violation of his right to , arguing that the rejection by the domestic courts of the application for registration of the association founded by him and four other associates had not been necessary in a democratic society and that the courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for that restriction. The relevant part of the aforementioned Article reads as follows:"], "id": "ae65ded4-845a-4123-919f-31484df15a25", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants claimed 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of the non\u2011pecuniary damage flowing from the alleged breach of their right to . They submitted that that amount was justified in view of the systemic and persistent nature of the breach, which continued in spite of a number of earlier judgments by the Court with which Bulgaria failed to comply. The applicants further claimed EUR 2,000 in respect of the alleged breach of their right to a fair trial, and EUR 3,000 in respect of the alleged breach of their right not to be discriminated against. They requested that any amounts awarded under those heads be paid into the bank account of the fifth applicant."], "id": "89fd2dde-c8ee-437a-9a17-dc6c9822dc81", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government considered that there was no interference with the applicant's right to because it had not been liquidated and retained the full capacity of a legal entity. On 10 August 2002 it had been entered on the Unified State Register of Legal Entities and continued its religious activities. In refusing the Moscow Justice Department's action for dissolution, the Nikulinskiy District Court founded its judgment of 30 April 2002 on the evidence showing that the applicant had on-going financial and economic activities, such as the applicant's balance sheets and permission to stage events in municipal districts of Moscow. The Government maintained that the applicant could not claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of any violation solely because it was not willing to bring its founding documents in compliance with the existing law."], "id": "2c961dda-e6f1-438a-878a-541fd93cf9f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government, admitting that the refusal to register the applicant as an association amounted to interference to its right to , considers nevertheless that this interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society. In this respect, they referred to Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 which provides that if the legal requirements for the setting up of an association are not satisfied, the request to register is dismissed. The refusal to register the applicant association in the instant case pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public order and the rights and liberties of the others, namely the rights of those who use the services of lawyers to represent their interests."], "id": "2879bb31-4bee-4ece-bb75-057c22bf0e6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant replied that an association\u2019s statute was the law for the association and its members, and that therefore the rights arising from the statute were rights recognised under domestic law. Furthermore, the proceedings he complained about had not exclusively concerned violations of the statute; they had also concerned a violation of his , which must be respected also by associations themselves."], "id": "671c539a-1505-40ce-99ea-408bdb6b4243", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant submitted that the last-instance court had rejected the application for registration by relying only on the provisions of the association\u2019s memorandum and its articles of association. He considered, however, that the finding that some provisions of the memorandum and articles of association could have amounted to activities specific to political parties had been mere speculation and did not amount to compelling reasons that could have justified the interference with his . In the applicant\u2019s opinion, the goal of the association had certainly not been one that could have been attributed exclusively to political parties."], "id": "c60fa9de-57cd-462e-9e03-9eaeb8976421", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government conceded that the Zagreb County Court\u2019s judgment of 8 April 2005 (see paragraph 19 above) prohibiting the applicant union from holding a strike on 11 April 2005, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 27 April 2005 (see paragraph 23 above), had constituted an interference with the applicant union\u2019s . The Court, having regard to its case-law according to which strike action is protected under Article 11 of the Convention (see Enerji Yap\u0131-Yol Sen v. Turkey, no. 68959/01, \u00a7 24, 21 April 2009, and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom, no. 31045/10, \u00a7 84, ECHR 2014), sees no reason to hold otherwise."], "id": "1e015d36-ef08-4b15-b55d-b34394e41b06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant party alleged that the financial sanctions imposed by the Constitutional Court had deprived it of the means to perform some of its political activities and had thus constituted an interference with its . It maintained that since the amounts imposed as sanctions in relation to its 2007, 2008 and 2009 accounts had all been paid in 2013, it had been forced to cut back on the expenditure envisaged for that year, which had resulted in the postponement or cessation of some of its political activities and put it in a disadvantageous position vis-\u00e0-vis its competitors."], "id": "6df6f724-58c1-48f6-8107-70243b3af568", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government accepted that the dissolution of the Association amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to . The Government maintained that the interference was prescribed by domestic law, which was both accessible and foreseeable. In this connection, they relied on Article 31 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations and Article 59 of the Civil Code, noting that those provisions provided for liability of a non-governmental organisation and the possibility of interference with its activities. The Government submitted that the interference pursued the legitimate aims of \u201cprotection of public safety\u201d, \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d and \u201cprevention of crime\u201d."], "id": "050f0bab-2185-4407-90e9-5839f60507c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicants complained under Article 11 of the Convention that UMO Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN had been declared unconstitutional and as a result dissolved. They submitted that this interference with their had not been prescribed by law, as in its interpretative judgment no. 7 of 1996 the Constitutional Court had held that restrictions of freedom of speech \u2013 which, in the applicants\u2019 view, applied mutatis mutandis to freedom of association \u2013 would only be justified if the speech in issue posed an immediate threat of violent overturning of the constitutional order and democracy. The applicants further submitted that the interference had not been necessary in a democratic society, as the Constitutional Court had failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for declaring the applicant party unconstitutional."], "id": "0ff6db2e-270a-4252-8c0b-81692cfcc406", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government argued that no separate issues arose under either Article 10 or Article 11 in the circumstances of the present case in so far as the first, second, fourth and fifth applicants were concerned. They had not been the subject of personnel security checks. The information on them held by the Security Police was apparently never consulted by third parties. In fact, it seemed only to have been released to the applicants themselves following their own requests for access. Furthermore, their suspicions that the Security Police were holding information on them \u2013 suspicions that were confirmed when information was indeed released to them \u2013 appeared not to have had any impact on their opportunities to exercise their rights under either Article 10 or Article 11. They had at all times been free to hold and express their political or other opinions. It was not supported by the facts of the present case that their opportunities to enjoy had in any way been impaired. Therefore, the Government maintained that there had been no interference with their rights under Articles 10 and 11 and requested the Court to declare their complaints under these provisions inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded."], "id": "556aa30e-2c39-4926-96eb-4ec77f0f56a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant further submitted that the disputed obligation to pay the industry charge adversely affected his enjoyment of his positive right to . Article 11 \u00a7 1 protected the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join a collective entity or association for the furtherance of the common interests of the members of the group. The imposition of the industry charge reduced the resources available to the applicant and others to form and to fund associations which promoted their views and interests. At the very least, there had been an interference with the positive right of the applicant, and others, voluntarily to associate with others in the promotion of their common interests and views. In this regard, the applicant relied on paragraphs 339 to 342 of the Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO (see paragraphs 23 and 24 above). Any discrimination of the kind mentioned in those paragraphs, including favourable or unfavourable treatment of a given organisation as compared with others, jeopardised the rights of individuals to establish and join organisations of their own choosing."], "id": "532f929d-3c13-44bf-b24e-210f6e3d7b89", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government further submitted that there was no interference with the applicant's . The Government noted that the Ministry had not refused to register the association. Instead, it merely returned the association's foundation documents to the founders so that the latter could rectify the deficiencies and ensure that they complied with the requirements of the domestic law."], "id": "c49d4e89-681a-4ed0-b8b4-54b692987e4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant submitted that for an employee to lose his job for exercising his right to struck at the \u201cvery substance\u201d of that right. Consequently, he contended that the Government had a positive obligation under Article 11 of the Convention to enact legislation which would have afforded him protection from the termination of his employment by Serco on the ground of his involvement with the BNP. However, since he had less than one year\u2019s qualifying service, he was unable to bring a claim for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996."], "id": "ff81cbca-5ea7-400d-8798-e89d5dc14f17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of Association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants submitted that the right to union membership \u201cfor the protection of his interests\u201d under Article 11 necessarily involved the rights of every employee (1) to be represented by his or her union in negotiations with the employer, and (2) not to be discriminated against for choosing to avail him- or herself of the right to be represented. In this connection, the applicants referred to the findings and recommendations of the Committee of Experts under the European Social Charter and of the ILO's Committee on (see paragraphs 32-33 and 37 above), that the right of union representation is inherent in the right of union membership (as provided for in Article 5 of the Charter and in the ILO convention)."], "id": "e3cf2297-e0c8-4073-a15c-9bc114dce1f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant party contended that the interference with its right to had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention. It stated that the interference in question was based principally on Article 69 \u00a7 3 of the Constitution, which provided that \u201cthe income and expenditure of political parties shall be consistent with their objectives\u201d. There was, however, no guidance in the law or elsewhere to clarify what expenses could be lawfully incurred within the scope of the \u201cobjectives of a political party\u201d or what would be considered to constitute \u201cpolitical activities\u201d. Moreover, section 74(1) of the Political Parties Act, which entrusted the Constitutional Court with the duty of inspecting the \u201clawfulness\u201d of the finances of political parties, was also framed in imprecise terms, thereby leaving that court at liberty to adopt an overly formalistic and restrictive interpretation of the vague requirements of the Act. That uncertainty as regards the exact nature of the expenditure requirements, coupled with the lack of precision regarding the scope and extent of the Constitutional Court\u2019s authority, had made it impossible to foresee the possible consequences of the expenses incurred. By way of example, it had had no way of knowing that travel expenses, legal fees or court costs, gifts and flowers presented at weddings, or official dinners connected to the party\u2019s political activities could not lawfully be charged as party expenses."], "id": "85f2e2bd-ea0f-4ab2-a3d4-49526567055e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government also argued that by reviewing the compliance of the application for registration with the relevant domestic rules regulating that field, the domestic courts had simply exercised their power to review the lawfulness of the application and to reject any ambiguous or misleading clause that could have potentially led to an abuse of the law. They also contended that the dismissal of the association\u2019s application for registration under Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 had not deprived the organisation of the possibility of submitting another application for registration as a political party under Law no. 14/2003 on political parties. The fact that the domestic courts had decided that the latter legislation had been applicable in respect of the association\u2019s application for registration could not have been considered an infringement of the applicant\u2019s right of , as the applicant had not been free to choose the domestic rules applicable to his association."], "id": "329cfaa8-8164-4c87-b5b2-a5415faf5736", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicants went on to argue that the only reason for the violation of their right to had been their Macedonian ethnicity. That was evident from the broader context, and in particular, two elements. The first was the systematic restrictions of their rights under Article 11 of the Convention, as well as the rights of other ethnic Macedonians, during the past two and a half decades, and the second element was the Bulgarian State\u2019s policy of denying the existence of a Macedonian ethnic identity in Bulgaria (see Kiril Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 17599/07, \u00a7\u00a7 66-67, 11 January 2018)."], "id": "76c4539e-e35c-409c-b25d-a2c5139ec69a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants argued that by refusing to register Ilinden the authorities had infringed their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The refusal of the courts had been based on deliberately erroneous findings in respect of the relevant facts and a misconstruction of the applicable law. It was clear that could not be subjected to restrictions other than those which were provided for by law for the protection of national security and public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "a744e81d-4f18-4937-8666-6f6132e2a170", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["262. The applicant contended that she had been invited to attend a meeting to be held on 20 June 1997, which had been organised by a radio station on the side of the line controlled by the Cypriot Government. The applicant and her daughter had applied, in advance, to the \u201cTRNC\u201d regime's Foreign Ministry for permission to cross over to that side. Permission had been refused without any reason being given but journalists from the northern side had been granted permission to go. This impugned measure had constituted an unjustified interference with her right to under Article 11 of the Convention."], "id": "39f4e993-9be0-48a4-87ed-695c70b1d169", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant union replied that they had complained before the Court of a violation of their on account of the Zagreb County Court\u2019s judgment of 8 April 2005 (see paragraph 19 above) prohibiting it from holding a strike on 11 April 2005 \u2013 against which they had appealed and lodged a constitutional complaint (see paragraphs 22 and 24 above) \u2013 and not on account of non-observance by the State of the obligations stemming from the Annex. Therefore, the violation complained of could not have been remedied by bringing the civil actions suggested by the Government."], "id": "978ce7b1-ca51-48e7-9f2c-e41c3c8632df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government further submitted that the complaint regarding secondary strike action should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded. They considered that there had been no violation of, or even interference with, the applicant union\u2019s right of since Article 11 did not confer any right to take secondary action. Instead, it was plain from the very wording of that provision that it contemplated collective action by workers to protect their own interests. Sympathy strikes, which were no more than a show of solidarity with another group of workers, lacked the requisite nexus between collective action and the direct interests of the persons taking part in it. It did not appear from the facts adduced that the situation of the RMT members employed by Hydrex had any real bearing on the situation of their union colleagues employed by Jarvis. Had any similar threat to the latter\u2019s interests materialised, it would have been open to them to take strike action, just as the Hydrex members had done."], "id": "e8aa05ea-a2c8-4b0a-9879-8266ec59b5b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants argued that the delays in responding to their registration requests, which were significantly beyond the time-limits set by the domestic law, constituted an interference with, and a violation of, their right to . The applicants maintained that such delays were in breach of the domestic law. Moreover, the applicants noted that the Ministry cited a new, different deficiency in the association's foundation documents each time it returned the documents to the founders. However, under the domestic law, the Ministry was obliged to identify all the deficiencies after the first registration request, and after these deficiencies had been rectified by the founders upon their second registration request, the Ministry was obliged to issue a final decision, i.e. either register the association or issue an official refusal to register it."], "id": "61c73762-574d-49fd-bd9d-9a642fcc8aa6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicants also complained that the levying of the monitoring fees on their wages had violated their right to negative under Article 11 of the Convention, since the fees had been tantamount to forced membership of the Union and had contributed to the general union activities. Moreover, under that Article, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, they claimed that, through the payment of the fees, they had come to support the Union\u2019s political and ideological programme. Finally, under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 11 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they asserted that they had been discriminated against in relation to members of the Union as well as members of other trade unions."], "id": "13ba3557-8a22-48f7-b5dd-5fc389ceb9be", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants maintained that Article 11 of the Convention encompassed a negative right to on an equal footing with the positive right and that consequently the Danish Protection against Dismissal due to Association Membership Act of 9 June 1982, as amended on 13 June 1990, violated that Article. In effect, it allowed an employer to require an employee to be a member of a trade union or a specific trade union in order to obtain employment."], "id": "7863a889-371f-41d0-b367-f2c70911ed0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government further submitted that the duty to contribute to the Social Welfare Fund did not in any way take away the applicant company\u2019s right to establish an association, to promote it or to join an existing association. In so far as the applicant company claimed to be deprived of the necessary financial means on account of having to pay contributions to the Social Welfare Fund, the Government emphasised that the duty to pay contributions was offset by entitlements against the Social Welfare Fund. In that regard, it submitted that the applicant company had applied for a reimbursement for holiday pay it had paid to its employees in the amount of EUR 100,000. The reimbursements claimed by the applicant were offset against the contributions owed. The Government also submitted that there was no direct link between the payment of contributions and the alleged restriction of the applicant company\u2019s right to ."], "id": "a0f38512-6b7e-43f6-a560-fc8aa627cd14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of Association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant Rasmussen was born in 1959 and had worked as a gardener for many years. He had been a member of SID in the mid-1980s but resigned his membership and joined the Christian Trade Union instead. Following a period of unemployment, on 17 May 1999 he commenced his current employment at a nursery after rejoining SID, this being one of the conditions for the job. It is impossible to know whether he would have remained unemployed had he not at the relevant time accepted his current job which included obligatory membership of SID. It is speculative whether, if he were to resign his membership of SID, he could find employment elsewhere with an employer who had not entered into a closed-shop agreement. It is certain, however, that should the applicant Rasmussen resign from SID, he would be dismissed without the possibility of reinstatement or compensation since the dismissal would be in accordance with the Danish Act. Moreover, although closed\u2011shop agreements do not extend to the entire horticultural sector, they are nevertheless very common (see paragraphs 22, 26, 30 and 32 above). In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the applicant Rasmussen can be considered to be individually and substantially affected by the application of the closed\u2011shop agreement to him."], "id": "bd8b2f0e-fa96-4b0f-ae26-7289c3e7ea48", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government submitted that the State\u2019s interference with the applicants\u2019 had been prescribed by law. They stated that Article 20 of the Constitution had provided for boundaries in exercising freedom of association. The same restrictions were set out in Article 4 of the Act. They asserted that the Constitutional Court, on the basis of these provisions, had found that the Association\u2019s name and the ideology of Ivan Mihajlov which it pursued had encouraged and incited to national hatred and intolerance and had led to a denial of the free expression of the Macedonian national affiliation. They maintained that the affirmation of the ideas of the Movement, as a terrorist association, would in practice mean killings, terrorist activities and support of fascism and its ideology. That had caused disorder and public reactions, resulting in two incidents at the Association\u2019s opening ceremony. They presented a number of documents concerning Ivan Mihajlov\u2019s life and his activities; the activities of the organisation called the VMRO (\u0412\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0448\u043d\u0430 \u041c\u0430\u043a\u0435\u0434\u043e\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0420\u0435\u0432\u043e\u043b\u0443\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0440\u043d\u0430 \u041e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430) under his leadership, in particular in the period 1924-1934, and his alleged alliance with the fascist regime during the Second World War. Referring to that material, they maintained that Ivan (Van\u010do) Mihajlov (Radko) was considered as a person who used terrorist methods to impose the fascist idea of denunciation of the Macedonian people\u2019s identity and to promote the latter as a fictitious and non-existent people called \u201cMacedonian Bulgarians\u201d (\u041c\u0430\u043a\u0435\u0434\u043e\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u0411\u043e\u043b\u0433\u0430\u0440\u0438). They stated that in pursuance of that idea, he and his followers had killed and massacred a considerable number of Macedonians who had fought for the national freedom of their people. The Government stated that the creation and operation of an Association, the name, platform and programme activities of which had been inspired by the name and image of Ivan Mihajlov, had irrefutably been directed towards incitement to national hatred or intolerance, contrary to Article 20 \u00a7 3 of the Constitution, something that could result in clashes between the Macedonian people and the citizens associated with the Association. They claimed that repudiation of the identity of the Macedonian people and its statehood had been at the heart of the Association\u2019s activity. Accordingly, violent destruction of the constitutional order was the fundamental objective of the Association. As stated by the Government, the public reaction on the opening ceremony had been clear evidence that the Association would incite to national hatred. The Association\u2019s members had had recourse to brutal physical force against their adversaries, causing injuries for which they had been subsequently convicted by a court and sentenced to imprisonment. The Government submitted that the existence of the Association should be considered as an abuse of freedom of association, as its aim had not been the expression of thoughts and beliefs, but negation of the identity of the Macedonian people through promotion of the fascist ideas of Ivan Mihajlov concerning the \u201cMacedonian Bulgarians\u201d, who were unknown in history, legal science and practice. The ultimate objective of the Association was to initiate national hatred, religious unrest and a revival of the terror that Ivan Mihajlov had practiced in his time, when he executed hundreds of opponents."], "id": "e8788eea-4d9e-44f3-80b6-df99d62bf0e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government maintained that the interference with the applicants\u2019 was prescribed by the domestic law, which was both accessible and foreseeable. The Association\u2019s acts and omissions, which had led the Ministry of Justice to issue its warnings, were clearly in breach of the legal requirements applicable to non-commercial legal entities, including public associations. The possibility of an association\u2019s dissolution, as a consequence of such breaches, was also prescribed in the domestic law and was foreseeable. In this connection, the Government noted that, in the event of an association\u2019s continuing failure to bring its activities into compliance with the domestic law following at least three warnings by the Ministry of Justice issued within one calendar year, forced dissolution was the only sanction available under the domestic law applicable at the relevant time."], "id": "9e2f55fb-da8c-4d0d-8d91-d846bda8bada", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government disputed that there had been any interference with the negative aspect of the applicant\u2019s right to , as provided for in Article 11 of the Convention. It submitted that the applicant company was merely under the obligation to pay contributions to the Social Welfare Fund which were used to pay benefits to employers and employees in the building industry. The applicant company did not become, nor was it obliged to become, a member of the Social Welfare Fund on account of the declaration of general applicability of the VTV, nor of the employers\u2019 associations which concluded the VTV. It was not threatened with sanctions or other disadvantages if it did not join. There was, therefore, no compulsion that the applicant company join an association."], "id": "3872daf7-50ef-494d-97c1-df760ef3e052", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants complained under Articles 11 and 46 of the Convention that the first and the second refusals of the courts to enter UMO Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN in the register of political parties had been in breach of their right to and of the Bulgarian State\u2019s duty to abide by the final judgment of the Court in the case of United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN and Others (cited above)."], "id": "be05bfb3-dba1-433b-8f12-da75a437a778", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicants alleged that the Court of Cassation had, through its case-law, previously granted association status to trade unions founded by civil servants. In the instant case, T\u00fcm Haber Sen had been stripped of that status. Its dissolution, following its conclusion of a collective-bargaining agreement, amounted to a violation of its right to , guaranteed by the international treaties to which Turkey was a party."], "id": "caf0b7c5-0b60-466f-8e9d-d653b60dbc4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["126. The applicants pointed out that all the domestic courts to which they had applied \u2013 the Baltiyskiy District Court of Kaliningrad, the Kaliningrad Regional Court and the Justice of the Peace of the Baltiyskiy District \u2013 had uniformly refused to examine the merits of their complaint concerning a violation of their right to and discrimination, on the grounds that it could be determined only in criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 45, 47 and 49 above). The applicants indicated that civil proceedings differed fundamentally from a criminal prosecution, in that the latter protected the public interests of society as a whole, while the former were called upon to afford redress for encroachments on individuals' private interests. Since, in the present case, it was precisely the private rights of the applicants which were at stake, the refusal of the domestic courts to examine their discrimination complaint in civil proceedings had deprived them of an effective remedy. In any event, the prosecutor's office had also refused the applicants' request to start a criminal investigation in connection with an alleged infringement of the equality principle and had not taken any steps to establish whether the applicants' complaints were well-founded."], "id": "1bdd95a3-d717-4123-9940-6cac6bafa0b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant union urged the Court to reject any narrow concept of trade-union that would be limited to the protection of the strictly personal interests of individual workers. Such an interpretation would impoverish the substance of Article 11. In the many cases it had decided involving strikes, the Court had never attached any significance to what was at stake for the workers in the dispute. It was entirely legitimate for unions to pursue broader, common objectives. Trade unionism was fundamentally about solidarity among union members and among workers more generally, and the wording of Article 11 of the Convention should be construed in keeping with this. Workers should be able to take industrial action to protect those who may be prevented from doing so, or who, on their own, lack the collective strength to defend their interests at work. This broad concept of freedom of association was espoused by the two most eminent international bodies in the field of trade-union rights, the ILO Committee of Experts and the ECSR. Both had repeatedly criticised the United Kingdom for its ban on secondary action, which they deemed to be incompatible with the relevant international legal standards. These had been interpreted to mean that the only acceptable condition that could be attached to secondary action was that the primary dispute itself be lawful. The applicant union urged the Court to adopt the same position. If that were overbroad, a criterion of proximity might be envisaged, that is to say, a requirement of a link of some sort between workers engaged in primary action and those striking in sympathy with them. Such a link was present here, since the group of workers concerned had originally been Jarvis employees and continued to perform the same work at the same sites after the transfer. A worsening in their terms and conditions could have had negative consequences for all workers in that sector. In the modern economy, the workforce was becoming increasingly fragmented through the transfer of undertakings or part of them, the creation of complex corporate structures, agency work, privatisation, the contracting-out of services leading to further sub-contracting, non-genuine self-employment, and so forth. This led to a situation in which persons performing the same job at the same place of work could have different employers, meaning that they could not legally support one another in time of industrial conflict."], "id": "f0d53f19-8b6f-4d4e-9069-c8b681c0c581", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of Association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant union replied that the Government had been aware all along of the existence of the complaint to the Committee on , having submitted its official reply to the ILO in July 2011. That reply had in fact referred to the existence of the present application before the Court, noting \u2013 correctly \u2013 that the RMT had given clear priority to the Convention proceedings. This was because the United Kingdom had simply ignored the criticism voiced by the relevant ILO bodies, whereas it would be bound to execute a judgment in the applicant union\u2019s favour. The withdrawal of the complaint to the ILO, before any decision was taken by the Committee on Freedom of Association, meant that the prospect of a plurality of international proceedings relating to the same case had been dispelled."], "id": "2db18a88-e444-4317-9967-a557a8445827", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicants complained that the failure by the Ministry of Justice to register their association in a timely manner constituted a violation of their right to . As the Ministry had evaded registering the organisation by significantly delaying the examination of their registration request and breaching the statutory time-limit for the official response, their organisation could not acquire legal status. Moreover, they complained that the founders\u2019 failure to include the description of the association\u2019s activity in its name, as well as to sign its charter, could not be a ground for refusal to register the association. Article 11 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "id": "b6094159-b7c7-4927-9fdf-66924043bddc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government stated that the legal basis of the measure complained of lay in Article 20 \u00a7 3 of the Constitution, which defined the boundaries of exercising the . The same restrictions were set forth in Article 4 of the Associations of Citizens and Foundations Act (see \u201cRelevant domestic law\u201d, cited above). The applicants did not contest this assertion."], "id": "4e5719d2-8507-4797-9eb2-16323f9c43cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained of interference with their on account of the acts directed against them, the participation of the clergy and municipal authorities in those acts, and the inactivity of the police when a group of demonstrators broke into and ransacked the party headquarters. They relied on Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "c5adacd1-9d99-4a38-9695-7f91c74d70e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant submitted that there was no justification for the interference with its right to determine its membership. There was no interference with Mr Lee's freedom of expression as expulsion did not interfere with his right to express his political views. In any event any sanction was minimal and did not take priority over its right, and its members' rights, to exercise their own and expression. Mr Lee never claimed that he suffered any detriment from exclusion. It referred to Article 17 to the effect that Article 10 would not protect some-one engaged in destroying other rights and freedoms. Since it was committed to opposing race discrimination, it would interfere with its rights, and its members, to be forced to admit into membership a person who was a member of such a right wing organisation. It did not accept that section 174 imposed a limited restriction, pointing out that it simply did not wish to associate with those whom they regarded as fascists or members of extreme right wing parties, whether active or not. It claimed that it had the right to dissociate itself from those whose political membership they abhorred. While Mr Lee's status as an activist might furnish greater reason to expel him, this did not touch on the fundamental issue. It would be acceptable if section 174 were framed so as to limit exclusion to membership of a party the objectives of which were contrary to the objectives of the trade union."], "id": "d8105553-c9f1-4103-a251-3271150097ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 , noting that the Ministry had not formally refused to register the association. Instead, it had merely returned the association\u2019s foundation documents to the founders so that the latter could rectify the deficiencies and ensure that they complied with the requirements of the domestic law. The Government contended that, although \u201ca refusal to register a public association might be regarded as a violation of the right to freedom of association, a delayed response to [an application for state registration] is not a violation of that right\u201d. Even if the Ministry had committed procedural errors, they had not amounted to a violation of the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 11."], "id": "63b55f46-92ad-4ec7-92b7-e56b556fe26a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicants alleged that the dissolution of Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and the temporary prohibition barring its leaders \u2013 including Mr Necmettin Erbakan, Mr \u015eevket Kazan and Mr Ahmet Tekdal \u2013 from holding similar office in any other political party had infringed their right to , guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "id": "e0aa9f94-5cc3-4175-9cc7-372ff5b4ec60", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government denied that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to . The police officer had only requested her to show him the leaflets which she had been distributing in a hospital, during working hours, and without having obtained the hospital administration\u2019s permission. Each work place had its own rules; even more so hospitals. The applicant, as a nurse, should have obtained permission or at least informed the chief doctor. She could have distributed the leaflets outside the hospital, in her own time and without any prior permission."], "id": "c0af4898-f1b2-42bf-b981-ea1995bdf158", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of assembly and association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant complained of a violation of his rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. He submitted that, in choosing to become a member of the BNP and to stand for election, he was engaging both his right to freedom of expression pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention and his right to pursuant to Article 11 and that his dismissal had disproportionately interfered with his exercise of those rights."], "id": "108ba97e-15c3-444a-8c5c-fa762ee4503e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of assembly and association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["116. The applicants submitted that it was particularly important for the Court to examine the complaint under Article 14 as well. Only a ruling under that provision would spur a real solution to the problem. Otherwise, the authorities would feel encouraged to continue their practice of searching for various pretexts to restrict the exercise of the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of peaceful assembly. In that relation, one had to bear in mind the general situation in the country in relation to the so\u2011called \u201cMacedonian question\u201d. The interference with the applicants\u2019 rights was a result of the lack of recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria and of the resulting infringement of that minority\u2019s rights. The non\u2011execution of a number of the Court\u2019s judgments in previous cases concerning Ilinden showed that even now individuals asserting a Macedonian ethnic consciousness were being denied the right to . The Macedonian minority was the only one not recognised by Bulgaria and, as a result, suffered diverse instances of discrimination. It was precisely the refusal to recognise the existence of a Macedonian minority that lay at the source of the systematic banning and hindering of Ilinden\u2019s rallies."], "id": "c3b33aa4-e127-496e-971a-c4d7e627d5bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of assembly and association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants also submitted that the refusal to register Ilinden had been discriminatory. In examining that issue, one had to bear in mind the general situation in the country in relation to the so\u2011called \u201cMacedonian question\u201d. The interference with the applicants\u2019 rights was a result of the lack of recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria and of the resulting infringement of that minority\u2019s rights. The non\u2011execution of a number of the Court\u2019s judgments in previous cases concerning Ilinden showed that even now individuals asserting a Macedonian ethnic consciousness were being denied the rights to . The Macedonian minority was the only one not recognised by Bulgaria, and had as a result suffered diverse instances of discrimination. That had been noted by various Council of Europe bodies, such as the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, and the Commissioner for Human Rights. The national courts systematically refused to register any organisation which endeavoured to defend the rights of the Macedonian minority, because they feared that such registration would amount to a recognition of that minority."], "id": "3f46003a-0e57-4cb6-a80d-77c47fb1c67a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of assembly and association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicants submitted that the Court was clearly competent to examine the implementation of its judgments. Under Article 32 of the Convention, the Court\u2019s jurisdiction extended to all matters concerning its interpretation and application, including the execution of judgments. In recent times, the Court had on a number of occasions analysed the application of Article 46 \u00a7 1 and the contents of the States\u2019 obligations under that provision, going as far as specifying the individual and/or general measures necessary for the execution of its judgments. In the present case, there existed good reasons why the Court should examine whether Article 46 \u00a7 1 had been breached. It had in several judgments found various breaches of the Article 11 rights of persons asserting a Macedonian ethnic consciousness, and was currently faced with five similar applications. That was indicative of a systemic violation which could justify the indication of specific measures to the respondent State. The persistent nature of the breaches had been noted by the Council of Europe\u2019s Committee of Ministers, whose Secretariat had sought to remedy the situation by giving indications to the Bulgarian authorities in connection with UMO Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN\u2019s efforts to obtain re\u2011registration. However, those indications had remained unheeded, and the Bulgarian courts had again refused to register the party. That was indicative of complete disregard for the Committee of Ministers\u2019 decisions and of a deliberate policy of denying the applicants\u2019 rights to and refusing to comply with the Court\u2019s judgment in United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN and Others (cited above), and amounted to a breach of Article 46 \u00a7 1. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Court to indicate the individual measures that would remove the consequences of the repeated violations mentioned above. In the instant case, there was no real choice as to the measures required to remedy the breach. In October 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to register UMO Ilinden \u2013 PIRIN solely because it did not accept the validity of the list of 5,778 party members. Since that issue had been examined in the course of the proceedings before the Committee of Ministers, and since there existed no further obstacles to the party\u2019s registration, it was necessary to reopen those proceedings and register the party on the basis of the documents already submitted, including that list."], "id": "d6e1689a-f9c3-43d9-8ad1-4885cef67659", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of assembly and association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government contended that there had been no interference with the applicant's right to and that accordingly there had been no violation of Article 11 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In particular, the Government maintained that the applicant had not belonged to a trade union. At the material time, there had only been one trade union at Komunenergiya and the applicant had withdrawn from that union in February 1999. The Government further submitted that the applicant had been dismissed for her repeated breach of her duties of employment and not because of the alleged labour dispute between the management and employees of Komunenergiya. According to the Government, the picket on 3 March 1999 had not been related to the applicant's work at Komunenergiya. Rather, it concerned a dispute which she had had with Rivneteplokomunenergo. Despite the fact that it had been held in front of the Komunenergiya office, the picket had been actually directed against the management of Rivneteplokomunenergo."], "id": "4d57b0a5-c578-4594-88d2-f9128a572639", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of assembly and association", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant disputed the arguments of the respondent Government. He submitted that his complaints had not focused in practice or in theory upon freedom of movement as such. It was the inability to engage in peaceful discourse and intercourse, to pursue the basic democratic rights of receiving and imparting \u201cinformation and ideas with those on the island of Cyprus who shared his aims of a peaceful and friendly resolution of the problems of that island without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers\u201d that lay at the heart of his application. In the circumstances of the current situation in Cyprus, he felt that it was only by meetings between Turkish and Greek Cypriots that ideas for a peaceful political settlement could be truly imparted, received and exchanged. However, he stated that such meetings could not be held in northern Cyprus and meetings of equivalent range and quality could not be organised anywhere other than in southern Cyprus. Thus, the lack of a proper system to regulate crossing from north to south and the arbitrary and erratic way in which he alleged he had been prevented from attending various relevant meetings in the south had substantially and adversely affected his Convention rights to as well as expression."], "id": "d77e66d4-eaff-4caa-983a-ba1d37c96866", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "form and join trade unions", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government disputed that there had been any restriction on the applicant\u2019s right of association, as provided for in Article 11 of the Convention, with respect to either his right to or his right not to belong to an association. The applicant was not a member of the FII and had not been coerced in any way into becoming a member. The applicant was only one of 10,000 \u2013 in a country with a population of 300,000 \u2013 who were subject to the industry charge. The amount of the industry charge was very low, constituting 0.08% of business turnover. It was not a membership fee but a tax imposed for a specific purpose laid down in statute, in the Industry Charge Act (\u201cthe 1993 Act\u201d), namely to promote industry and industrial development in Iceland. Like other taxes, the charge was collected by the State. In accordance with the Act, the funds were disbursed to the FII, which was obliged to use them for the stated purpose. It should be stressed that, even though the FII was a non-governmental organisation, it had been given a clear and legally prescribed role in one aspect, which was to use the industry charge for the benefit of industry as a whole. This included the applicant as a self-employed individual."], "id": "04442960-1371-497d-98d3-c93969e5c848", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "11", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants argued that by refusing to register Ilinden the authorities had infringed their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The refusal of the courts had been based on deliberately erroneous findings in respect of the relevant facts and a misconstruction of the applicable law. It was clear that freedom of association could not be subjected to restrictions other than those which were provided for by law for the protection of national security and public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "69a2666d-264e-45ba-9258-88a30b249a1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant considered that a request to serve the prison sentence before it had become final and enforceable had not been an to be exhausted because there was a general problem of prison overcrowding in Croatia. Moreover, it would have been contrary to his position of denying his guilt for the offences at issue if he had asked to serve his sentence before it had become final and enforceable. In any event, given the case-law of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 39 above), it had been unnecessary to secure his right to use a remedy under the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act to address his complaints about the conditions of detention."], "id": "20cc94eb-af50-4d3b-b9e5-cb5392905ad5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["13. The Government, relying on the same arguments as in the case of Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, \u00a7\u00a7 17-22, 8 July 2014, pleaded non\u2011exhaustion of domestic remedies. They argued that the applicant had an at his disposal, a claim for compensation under Article 179 of the Civil Code, which he had failed to use. Furthermore, they claimed that the applicant, being released on 5 October 2009, could have lodged the claim by 5 October 2012, namely by the expiry of a three-year time-limit prescribed by Article 352 of the Civil Code."], "id": "3e9b515e-4419-459b-8033-60541c1918fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["10. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour and of the lack of any in domestic law. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. In applications nos. 54430/08, 69362/10, and 67231/11 they also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "id": "27e91cb8-0449-4e96-b113-9687c62f2813", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["115. The Government have not elaborated on their assertion in relation to Chapter 16 of the CCrP and section 17(1)(7) of the Custody Act (see paragraphs 56 and 57 above). In any event, the Court observes that Chapter 16 of the CCrP concerns the possibility for \u201cparties to the criminal proceedings\u201d to challenge decisions taken in the course of a preliminary investigation, such as a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings or a decision to discontinue them. There is no indication that the applicant was a party to criminal proceedings within the meaning given to that phrase by the Russian courts (see Nasrulloyev, cited above, \u00a7 89). Thus, the Court is not satisfied that the provisions of this Chapter afforded an for challenging detention pending extradition. As regards the Custody Act, the Court notes that it derives from the Code of Criminal Procedure and concerns persons suspected or accused of criminal offences in Russia. There is no indication that this Act applied at the material time to persons who were detained pending extradition. Thus, the Court is uncertain that the remedies suggested by the Government related to the breaches alleged. In such circumstances, the Government was required, but failed, to show that the existence of the above remedies was sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, among other authorities, A. and E. Riis v. Norway, no. 9042/04, \u00a7 41, 31 May 2007, and Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, \u00a7 27). Thus, the Government\u2019s argument under this head should be also dismissed."], "id": "38eb562a-97b7-4a8b-95ac-a62f94556ddb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["107. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust an that had been open for him to complain about the alleged violations of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention, at least in so far as he complained of a lack of bedding and food and insufficient light and ventilation. They considered that a complaint to the prosecutor\u2019s office would have allowed the competent authority to resolve his situation."], "id": "771fd3b1-4320-4d27-ad7d-921fa7152dbb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaint that he did not have at his disposal an for complaining about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government's objection to the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "0c59f17b-4511-4924-8021-828c78f2acb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government argued that the applicant company had had an at its disposal in respect of the alleged violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1. It was not one single remedy, but a combination of several actions by which the applicant company could have expedited the proceedings. In particular, the applicant company had had the opportunity to indicate to the courts another expert organisation which would have been more efficient in carrying out the court-ordered expert assessment, but it had failed to do so. Furthermore, it had failed to obtain a writ of execution for the courts\u2019 decisions ordering the technical examination and submit it to the DEJA for compulsory enforcement. Lastly, the applicant company had failed to contest the decisions of the trial courts staying the proceedings before the Civil Court of Appeal. The Government argued that, since the applicant company had failed to take any of these actions, the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "f9143725-5eba-4bc9-be68-dd4d5202c7a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicant complained that two of his judicial appeals against detention (those submitted in March and April 1997) were never examined and that his third appeal (submitted on 12 August 1997) was not examined speedily. Stating that as a result he did not have an against the violations of Article 5 in his case, he relied on Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention."], "id": "11f39f10-1d22-42e9-8736-3bd9bd614259", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant was of the opinion that the domestic courts had denied him an . They had not even established the facts. Thus, far from deciding the substance of his case, they had ruled that the legislature would have to step in before claims such as his could be decided on the merits. The Government, for their part, argued that there had been no violation of this provision, since the applicant had not been prevented from presenting his complaints before the domestic courts."], "id": "75903fd5-1531-4613-a406-4458b7b53fbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government considered that even if the Court were to find that none of the above remedies individually constituted sufficient and , the aggregate of remedies nevertheless ensured effective legal protection to the individuals in respect of the length of proceedings. The Government contended that there had been sufficient remedies available to the applicant company, which, however, did not make any attempts to make use of them."], "id": "88361e1c-6fa1-45d1-84d0-219624fc8b92", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government also argued, albeit in the context of Article 13 of the Convention, that an did not necessarily mean one in which the State was a defendant. They underlined that the Court did not find a breach of Article 13 in Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1993, \u00a7 27, Series A no. 247\u2011C) as the applicant was able to sue the private school or its authorities for assault. They also relied on the sufficiency of the negligence action in Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy (cited above). They considered Z and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001\u2011V) to be distinguishable: that respondent Government had conceded that a negligence action was the only effective remedy but that that action did not lie against local authorities."], "id": "a135b071-d1f9-4e7c-be5c-0e5f361d63f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicant argued that, in view of the case\u2011law of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, a further appeal to that body would not have stood any chance of success; hence, this did not constitute a domestic remedy which he was required to exhaust. With regard to the decision on his objection lodged on the basis of section 72(3) of the Aliens Act 2000 \u2013 which was in any event not capable of providing him with an against expulsion \u2013, the applicant pointed out that he had appealed against that decision."], "id": "964b0a34-4bfd-4eb3-a472-9d39c9497f42", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government invited the Court to reject the applicant\u2019s complaint for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It maintained that the applicant could have filed another constitutional complaint, after the Constitutional Court had dismissed his first one. Stressing that the Constitutional Court changed its practice in this respect, so as to comply with the Court\u2019s case-law, the Government claimed that a complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act would have been an for the applicant\u2019s length complaint."], "id": "c3f3ca41-09a7-4411-8de2-b1c4b1a72c81", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["143. The Government contended that the applicant had had effective remedies at his disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented him from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an to ensure the observation of his rights. In addition, the applicant had failed to claim damages in civil proceedings."], "id": "2977b937-c66a-4eb0-8372-7672e7be660d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government submitted that the applicant had challenged the refusal to approve the location of his public event before the domestic courts, which had carefully examined his complaint. He had participated in the hearings and had appealed to a higher court. The appellate court had re\u2011examined the case in its entirety without being bound by the arguments raised in the appeal submissions. The applicant had also lodged cassation appeals. He had therefore had an at his disposal."], "id": "ce3b9d5c-4617-44d4-987e-0f40ac78d967", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that judicial review provided an . They argued that damages might have been available as a remedy in the judicial review proceedings, if the applicant had sought them. They distinguished the above-cited case of Doran v Ireland on the ground that it concerned civil proceedings. They also submitted that the Doran judgment was wrongly decided and failed to take into account the flexibility of the common law system, where the absence of precedent would not necessarily preclude the applicant from obtaining damages for delay."], "id": "75025021-4078-4ec2-a469-80ddabbd19bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicants complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions they did not have any at their disposal as regards their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. They invoked Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "f813331d-dbb7-45d3-ac25-3ecedcd8a318", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government simply reiterated their assertion that the first applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. They claimed that he could have initiated an action against the State under section 2 (2) of the SMRDA, which they considered to be an . The Government referred in this respect to the alleged persistent practice of the domestic courts and the finding of the Court in the inadmissibility decision in the case of Ekimdjiev v. Bulgaria (no. 47092/99, 3 March 2005)."], "id": "dc5271f7-4d5d-42cd-85d1-d7d625eb0720", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "a9b0d20a-6c5d-4e45-ac7a-4336aaaf5fff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["167. The applicants argued that they had no by which to obtain protection against acts of harassment and violence. The Court notes that the Government suggested a number of remedies allegedly at their disposal in that connection. However, the Court has established that none of the remedies referred to by the Government could have addressed the applicants\u2019 situation in connection with their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention."], "id": "e36dded2-de6b-4faa-ad2b-a880ff836d3e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant asserted that he had been detained in appalling conditions in remand prison no. IZ-44/1 in Kostroma. All the cells had been overcrowded. The applicant challenged the veracity of the data submitted by the Government as regards the population and the size of the cells in which he had been detained. In that connection he referred to the findings made by the Kostroma Sverdlovskiy District Court, which on 10 September 2009 had held that the cells in which the applicant had been detained had been overcrowded. He further relied on statements made by Kh. and V., who had been detained together with him at the remand prison and who had provided a description of the conditions of detention in the remand prison similar to that of the applicant. As regards his application to the domestic courts in connection with the poor conditions of detention in the remand prison, the applicant considered that it could not have been considered an for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention in view of the structural nature of the problem of overcrowding of remand detention facilities in Russia."], "id": "47a67d01-90d9-4efe-bb40-3d4a8536c5fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["95. The Government maintained that since 1999 the applicants had had at their disposal an against the alleged infringement of their right to a speedy trial. In July 1999 the CCP had been amended to provide for a \u201ccomplaint against delays\u201d whose very purpose was to protect the right of litigants to a determination of their civil disputes within a reasonable time."], "id": "174d64c1-c83d-4299-afb9-a22d84cc3937", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government referred to their submissions on exhaustion of domestic remedies (\u00a7\u00a7 47 to 48 above). They maintained that it was open to the applicant to challenge the legality of the order to place him in solitary confinement under Article 146 of the Constitution. Had he done so, he would have been able to raise all of his Convention complaints before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, Article 146 offered the applicant an in respect of his Convention complaints. The applicant could also have complained to the Prisons Board, which could have heard and investigated his complaints and communicated its findings to the Minister of Justice and the director of the prison."], "id": "88087a5c-fb86-43af-b73c-db36140d07df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of detainees. He cited Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "f78961c4-921d-4b46-abc7-ad913f671a9e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government invited the Court to reject the application on the ground that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They maintained that the applicants could have filed another constitutional complaint, after the Constitutional Court had dismissed their first one. Bearing in mind that the Constitutional Court changed its practice in this respect, so as to comply with the Court\u2019s case-law, the Government claimed that a complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act would have been an for the applicants\u2019 length complaint."], "id": "dfc5e504-dec0-4f85-8f62-be5922a41fef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicants complain that their removal, direct or indirect, to Serbia and the refusal to regularise their stay in Belgium amounted to a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, in that it put their oldest daughter\u2019s life at risk and placed all of the applicants at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment (see paragraph 173). Furthermore, they complain that they did not have access to an , in violation of Article 13 of the Convention (see paragraph 174)."], "id": "b2b10477-f230-4665-ae05-c0a91c20c536", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant, referring to the Court\u2019s case law, further submitted that she was not obliged to pursue civil remedies and that lodging complaints against the investigators under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code would not have remedied the investigation\u2019s shortcomings. She submitted that the only in her case \u2013 the criminal investigation \u2013 had proved to be ineffective."], "id": "1921c1e5-cd7a-4c9b-95e7-305833e8a2ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement, provided in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an against the excessive length of the proceedings. The relevant parts of Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 read as follows:"], "id": "0583c1f9-e4b5-4309-b73e-21cb25d147ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicants argued that the admissibility of their complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 8 of the Convention had already been examined and there was no reason to reconsider this matter. According to them, the situation in the case of Babjak and Others (cited above) was substantially different from their case. The applicants also emphasised that the Government had been unable to show a single final judicial decision confirming their argument that the action for protection of personal integrity was an in a situation comparable to theirs."], "id": "5ffa8080-01a8-4c59-939d-47a7dbfc967e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant challenged the effectiveness of the remedies relied upon by the Government. He argued that the remedy introduced by the Property Act 2004 could not provide an within the meaning of the Convention as his property rights had been considered in the final judgments of 17 December 1998 and 7 December 2000 and an administrative body could not, therefore, re-examine the same issue. He further maintained that, had the domestic courts awarded compensation in one of the forms provided for by law, the bailiffs would not have been able to enforce the decision. It was up to the Government to adopt effective measures, either by classifying the State properties available for compensation in kind or by providing sufficient budgetary funds for pecuniary compensation, in order to make such a means of redress feasible. In conclusion, the applicant maintained that the Government had thus far failed to take effective steps to find solutions relating to the issue of compensation for former owners."], "id": "c831e1b9-8a4f-44b1-a933-a67895c87df6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government raised an objection, arguing that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerning the existence of an within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. It therefore considers that this objection raised by the Government under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention should be joined to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible."], "id": "7df9f7be-c2fa-4ff6-9247-4c6e4980f845", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints of a lack of adequate medical assistance while in detention. Referring to Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Government indicated that all decisions, actions or omissions of State bodies could be challenged in court. Although the applicant had instituted proceedings against the SIZO administration, he had failed to appeal against the court's decision of 11 February 2005. The Government further argued that a claim for compensation was an which the applicant should have exhausted. In support, the Government submitted a copy of the court's decision of 4 February 2009 in the case of K. and B. against SIZO no. 13. The plaintiffs' daughter and mother had died in the above SIZO because of a lack of medical assistance. The court awarded the plaintiffs 25,000[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) each in compensation for non-pecuniary damage."], "id": "495a5f50-0615-49b6-b0e4-249a00408225", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant pointed out that under the Operational-Search Activities Act only the actions of the officers carrying out the operational-search activities, but not the judicial authorisation for those measures, were amenable to judicial review. The avenue suggested by the Government, that is, a public-law complaint in civil proceedings, would not be an because such proceedings would not have any bearing on the validity of the judicial decision of 22 March 2006, which authorised an unlawful search at the applicant\u2019s home. For as long as the decision of 22 March 2006 remained in force, it would be futile to seek a declaration of unlawfulness of the search. In so far as section 5 of the Operational-Search Activities Act provides that an appeal against the actions of the police lay to the same District Court as that which issued the authorisation, it essentially required another judge of the same level of jurisdiction to give legal assessment to a valid decision of his or her fellow judge. Such an assessment would be unavoidable since the police would base a justification of the search on the judicial authorisation which allowed them to proceed as they did. In these circumstances, the procedure under section 5 of the Operational-Search Activities Act would be a mere formality and would not meet the criteria of an effective remedy. The applicant pointed out that the Russian courts at two levels of jurisdiction replied to him that the decision of 22 March 2006 was not amenable to judicial review. His application to the Constitutional Court was likewise fruitless. Lastly, the applicant emphasised that the existing legislation allowed the courts to authorise operational-search activities in respect of any person and on any grounds, without incurring a risk that the authorisation would later be quashed or set aside by a higher court."], "id": "72ad22de-c69d-4efa-b2d8-dab8119c1be2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["147. The applicant claimed a sum of GBP 40,000 for the non-pecuniary damage arising from the violations of the Convention suffered by his son and from the alleged practice of such violations, to be held by him on behalf of his son's widow and four children, as well as a sum of GBP 2,500 for himself on account of the lack of an . He referred to the Court's previous decisions regarding unlawful detention, torture and the lack of an effective investigation.\u201d"], "id": "53abba3a-9c04-4d69-9832-6ab29e4bd6f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["99. The applicants complained that the investigatory procedure in this case was not effective and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the death of their relatives and that, for this reason, they did not have an within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. They also alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on the same factual basis. The Court will consider these complaints under Article 13, which provides:"], "id": "0bbc5dba-1743-4768-844b-f2262763fb8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "7cbda414-2c55-4db0-8f6d-cb82003992a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government submitted that the applicants had had appropriate remedies at their disposal and had made use of them. An appeal to the Federal Minister of the Interior regarding an incorrect entry in the criminal record could lead to an amendment of the criminal record and was therefore an in principle. Moreover, the applicants, who had failed to lodge applications with the Court concerning the criminal proceedings in respect of which modification of the criminal record had been sought \u2013 some of them had not even appealed against the first-instance conviction \u2013 had also had the opportunity of requesting a renewal of the criminal proceedings under Article 363a of the Code of Criminal Proceedings. In the event that such a request had been successful, it would have had repercussions on the entries in their criminal records. As regards the latter remedy, it should be noted that this provision was, according to the wording of Article 363a, possible only in respect of violations of the Convention found by a judgment of the Court. The Supreme Court, however, considered it its duty, under Article 46 of the Convention, to guarantee compliance with the constitutional and international obligations flowing from the Convention in the field of criminal jurisdiction by extending the scope of application of Article 343a of the CCP to cases where no judgment against Austria had been issued. In so doing, the Supreme Court found that it would be in accordance with the spirit of Article 35 of the Convention if its review of domestic decisions were limited in time, and therefore adopted the six-month time-limit stipulated in Article 35 of the Convention. Since the applicants had not applied to the Supreme Court for a renewal of the criminal proceedings within that time-limit, their requests were inadmissible. It was therefore exclusively due to circumstances attributable to the applicants that that remedy had been unsuccessful."], "id": "5d2d9abd-7ca6-48c1-93f6-e1bb81ed1368", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicant referred to her submissions concerning the procedural aspects of Article 2 of the Convention, claiming that in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate Article 13 required a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective access for the complainant to the investigatory procedure. She disputed that judicial review was an in respect of the DPP's decision not to prosecute, as the cases showed that he has a wide discretion and the courts would only overturn aberrant, inexplicable or irrational decisions."], "id": "235c686f-6394-44af-8a46-52f3f8467a58", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["285. The applicants conceded that they had been able to object to the public prosecutor's request to discontinue the proceedings and that following that objection a hearing had been held in private before the investigating judge. However, the hearing had been conducted in camera, with only the parties and their counsel allowed to attend. Furthermore, the investigating judge had had to take a decision on the basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecuting authorities, who had effectively accepted without question the version of events given by the law-enforcement agencies' representatives, without the injured party having the opportunity of questioning the accused, witnesses or experts. The investigating judge had established the facts on the basis of an anonymous account posted on a website with possible links to French anarchists; a public hearing should have been held to test the accuracy of that account. Finally, the applicants had had no by which to challenge the investigating judge's decision to discontinue the proceedings, as an appeal on points of law was admissible only on grounds of nullity, which did not apply in the instant case (Article 409 \u00a7 6 of the CCP \u2013 see paragraph 151 above)."], "id": "f14eeeb2-9ee3-4ce9-8fef-00e1e845c86d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicants claimed that at the relevant time, there had not been an to obtain redress for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them. The first applicant further argued that the decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 17 January 2008 (see paragraphs 50-54 above) did not apply to the present case. This decision presupposed that the domestic courts had expressly recognised a breach of the reasonable time requirement, but neither the Federal Court of Justice in its decision of 7 February 2006 nor the Federal Constitutional Court in its decision of 21 June 2006 had done so. Moreover, it only applied ex nunc and was not applicable to proceedings which had previously been terminated by final decision."], "id": "b8159213-9c4e-42b4-abc2-f9d6c25bc151", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicant disagreed, noting that he had repeatedly addressed his complaints concerning the lack of adequate medical treatment to various authorities, including inter alia the prison authorities, the prison's medical staff and the chairman of the Court of Appeal. All these attempts were fruitless and did not result in better medical care. As to the civil action in the domestic courts, the applicant argued that, although he had tried to make use of this avenue of redress, a post factum civil action for damages could not be considered as an because it could not restore his health and lead to the improvement of his deteriorated health condition."], "id": "78cd8941-c72d-4082-8436-c7eaf9645c03", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government also proposed the possibility of a complaint to the Prisons Board. However, the applicant alleges that he did seek to complain to the Prisons Board and was granted a brief audience before them but heard nothing further. The Court observes that the prison diary submitted by the respondent Government records meetings between the applicant and the Prisons Board on 1 and 5 November 2003. It further observes that the Government have not disputed that the applicant sought to make a complaint to the Prisons Board. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the applicant did attempt to lodge his complaints with the Prisons Board but for reasons which are unexplained, the Prisons Board did not take any further action to investigate the complaints and report its findings to the applicant. In any event, in circumstances such as those arising in the present application, there is an obligation to conduct an ex officio investigation as soon as Article 3 is raised in substance (see Selmouni, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 79 to 80). To the extent that a complaint to the Prisons Board could be considered an , the Court considers that the applicant has done what was required of him in order to exhaust that remedy."], "id": "61e115b2-0913-46e3-9ce7-bcb3abba7b21", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicants complained about the State authorities\u2019 failure to enforce the judgments taken in their favour in due time. In this regard they invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Mr Shylkin also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no in that respect. These provisions provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "1e2d2e7e-ab0a-4f74-b55c-2085969a5e19", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicants stated that the authorities\u2019 refusal to return the body of Isa Kushtov had been unlawful and disproportionate. They submitted that the law contained vague notions such as \u201cterrorist action\u201d, \u201cterrorist activity\u201d and \u201cterrorist act\u201d and was unclear as regards the cremation policy, the specific official with authority to take the decision, the possibility of bringing appeal proceedings, the policy concerning the disclosure of the date of the burials, and the need to observe rituals during the burials. They also argued that the measure was disproportionate in that no other European country had similar legislation; that while the Israeli authorities had had a similar administrative policy, this had since been condemned by the Israeli courts; that international humanitarian law prohibited such treatment and that other, less restrictive, measures were available to the authorities to address terrorism-related concerns. They further claimed that the relevant law was discriminatory. The applicants also complained that the domestic legal system afforded them no to complain about the refusal to return the body of Isa Kushtov."], "id": "def289e6-5b6c-4880-a46e-792b7b1bd869", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant complained that her right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial court was breached in that the national courts acted in order to acquit the accused officers despite the evidence in the case file and without conducting any further investigation. She further complained that she did not have an in respect of her complaints of torture and ill-treatment. The applicant relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention."], "id": "278192b9-923a-4a68-9dec-cb7587d2b6bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicants alleged that prolonging the second applicant\u2019s detention and then proceeding to deport her following an order by the chambre du conseil for her immediate release was contrary to the Convention and rendered the remedy ineffective. In their submission, even assuming that detention could be prolonged in order to enable Crown Counsel to appeal against the order within twenty-four hours, detention could only be used for that purpose and not as a means to deport the alien within that period. Furthermore, once the alien had been deported, the powers of review of the chambre du conseil and the indictments division became redundant, even though deportation did not amount to release. They concluded from the above that they had not had an in respect of the second applicant\u2019s detention."], "id": "7d8ebfa8-bb69-4dd3-b700-ac8b263c98d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention had been compatible with the standards set forth in Article 3 of the Convention. The Government relied upon excerpts from the remand prison population register and certificates prepared by the administration of the remand prison in August 2010. The Government also considered that the applicant had an in respect of his grievances under Article 3 of the Convention. He had lodged a civil action seeking damages resulting from his detention in the remand prison. His claims were duly considered and granted in part by domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction which fact showed the accessibility and efficiency of the remedy."], "id": "4a3d65ab-3167-4217-a5c1-a8df891f0bea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["130. The applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions given in their favour. The first and fifth applicants also complained of the lack of in domestic law in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. In so far as relevant, these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "1ac9aa78-9c58-44d6-8774-863bf65a6380", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["217. The applicants submitted that a claim for damages under section 1 of the 1988 Act was not an , citing the reasons they had put forward in their submissions relating to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. They went on to say that the possibility of bringing proceedings under Articles 256 and 257 of the Code of Administrative Procedure 2006 was not an effective remedy either, for several reasons. First, some aspects of the conditions of their detention flowed directly from the prison regime under which they were placed, and were therefore not actionable under those Articles. In this regard they referred to the Court judgment in Sabev (cited above, \u00a7 85). Secondly, neither the 2009 Act nor its implementing regulations laid down clear rules on the treatment of life prisoners. Thirdly, it was unclear which authority would be the proper defendant, and there did not exist an appropriate mechanism for enforcing a mandatory injunction against a public authority. The administrative courts considered that authorities that were second-tier beneficiaries of budget funds \u2013 and the likely defendant to a claim under Articles 256 and 257 was likely to be just such an authority \u2013 could not be fined for failure to comply with an injunction. Moreover, any such injunction would be of limited duration and would not be able to provide the applicants with lasting redress. Lastly, the only two examples cited by the Government were judgments given by first-instance administrative courts. Accordingly, there was no established case-law in that domain."], "id": "be108177-4e39-4a12-bca1-a04a46753afb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant submitted that after the acquittal of the police officers and the dismissal of his civil claim by the Supreme Court of Cassation, he had not had at his disposal any further remedies. In his view, a civil suit could not provide an in respect of an alleged ill-treatment by State agents; only a criminal investigation was sufficient to redress such grievances. In any event, a civil suit was not possible, because a civil court would be bound by the Supreme Court of Cassation's holding as to the lack of criminality in the officers' act. Moreover, a fresh civil action by the applicant, whether against the officers themselves or their employer, would be rejected on res judicata grounds, as the applicant's civil claim in the criminal proceedings had already been dismissed."], "id": "ff51674d-66d9-4e34-8d32-2757630e6e1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["85. The Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an for complaining about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "b74d09a8-ebed-41c9-9c7d-326c7e416745", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government submitted that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies because they had not applied to Russian courts with claims for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in connection with the allegedly inhuman conditions of their detention. The procedure for making claims was established in Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as clarified by the Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling no. 2 of 10 February 2009. Articles 151 and 1069 allowed individuals to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of State authorities. The Government further pointed out that the prosecutors had competence to review compliance with laws in penitentiary institutions. They carried out monthly inspections of remand prisons, during which they checked in particular the conditions of detention and medical assistance. In the Government\u2019s view, such inspections were an capable of preventing breaches of law and putting an end to them. This remedy was accessible to everyone who was held in custody. However, a majority of the applicants did not apply to a prosecutor."], "id": "85584dad-9330-41d1-bcc8-60459929abd3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that the applicant had had an against the length of proceedings in the present case. In particular, after examining the applicant's complaints the Moscow City Court quashed a number of rulings by the Ostankinskiy District Court which had left the applicant's claim without consideration. They further contended that the Ostankinskiy District Court had taken appropriate measures to examine the applicant's claim, which had resulted in favourable judgments."], "id": "6f3abeb8-ffef-4e3b-94a3-c9ab4dff7d9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["216. The Government submitted that, in view of the well-established case-law of the Bulgarian courts in conditions-of-detention cases brought by prisoners, a claim under section 1 of the 1988 was an with respect to the material conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention. In any event, no issue arose under Article 13 of the Convention as the applicants\u2019 claims were not \u201carguable\u201d for the purposes of that provision. The Government went on to say that the possibility to challenge omissions of the authorities under Articles 256 and 257 of the Code of Administrative Procedure 2006 was an effective remedy in respect of poor material conditions of detention. The Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act of 2009 and its implementing regulations clearly set out the minimum conditions that the prison authorities had to provide to inmates, and any failure to do so was therefore actionable under those Articles. The Government referred to two cases (see paragraphs 151\u2011152 above), one of which involved Mr Harakchiev, in which first-instance administrative courts had allowed such claims."], "id": "9f457a3c-d077-4671-8fd5-2bb1e538d3d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant replied that the \u201ccomplaint about delays\u201d under Article 217a of the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure was not an because it could not lead to compensation for excessive length of proceedings, but merely trigger disciplinary sanctions against a judge who had caused unjustified delay. The remedy\u2019s shortcomings had been exposed in a number of judgments of the Court. Its successor, the \u201crequest for fixing of time\u2011limit in the event of delay\u201d under Articles 255\u201157 of the 2007 Code of Civil Procedure, was irrelevant because it had been introduced after the end of the proceedings at issue in the present case and because it reproduced the shortcomings of the \u201ccomplaint about delays\u201d. As evident from examples provided by the Government, the national courts routinely failed to deal with such complaints or requests within the statutory time\u2011limits. The failure of a lower court to comply with a time\u2011limit fixed by the higher court pursuant to such a request could not have any consequences. Moreover, in contrast to previous cases against Portugal and Austria, the statistics supplied by the Government did not show in how many cases the complaints or requests had been allowed, whether any instructions given as a result of them had been complied with, and whether that had in fact led to the acceleration of the proceedings in connection with which they had been made."], "id": "1f065ff3-2f6a-4842-bbb2-05cbb91a2a92", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant complained under Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, due to the excessive length of the proceedings, he had been time-barred from bringing a new application and, consequently, from raising his relevant property claims before the domestic courts. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an in respect of the above complaints."], "id": "0b63ee9e-6265-4b09-b938-fd63155c151b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["96. The applicants refuted the Government's argument. They pointed out that the Constitution had been amended, with effect from 1 January 2002, as a result of which the Constitutional Court was entitled to grant compensation for damage of a non-pecuniary nature to successful plaintiffs. In their view, had an action under Article 11 et seq. of the Civil Code been an as argued by the Government, such an amendment would not have been necessary and the Constitutional Court would have rejected their complaint filed under Article 130(3) of the Constitution for failure to exhaust the remedy invoked by the Government."], "id": "cec675f0-f191-442e-8c56-309bc4972f24", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants replied that the Government had failed to substantiate their objection because they had failed to show that an action under the SMRDA was an for their complaint of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them and, therefore, that it was required of them to have made use of it. They submitted that the violations complained of could neither be established nor compensated under the SMRDA."], "id": "119bbb20-a3b5-440e-a942-5adbf85ca928", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government contested these claims. They submitted that the costs for the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court could not be claimed, as the Court, in its judgment of S\u00fcrmeli v. Germany, had found that a constitutional complaint was not an against proceedings that lasted too long. As regards the costs incurred before the Court, the Government maintained that the applicant had failed to indicate the number of actual hours spent by his lawyer on the case, which made it impossible to judge whether the amount claimed was reasonable."], "id": "b7c4b96d-ff72-440f-a95b-22cd0a6ecadf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their right of access to court was violated by the refusal to hold a hearing at which they could challenge the order made by the High Court of Justiciary on 15 February 2005. They further complained under Article 10 of the Convention that this was an unjustified interference with their right to impart information as guaranteed by that Article. Finally, under Article 13 of the Convention, they complained that there was no to challenge the making of an order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1983."], "id": "f5bc1df0-78b7-48b8-9ea9-1e0985a187c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government raised an objection arguing that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerning the existence of an within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. It therefore considers that this objection raised by the Government under Article 3 of the Convention should be joined to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the applications is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible."], "id": "36bd1566-91ad-4abf-bcff-4c2cc6117ac4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["120. The Government submitted that, since the applicant claimed that there had been no , his complaint about the disproportionate use of force should have been introduced within six months from the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention. They submitted that the impugned incident took place on 8 July 2002 whereas the application was introduced to the Court on 29 December 2003, more than six months later."], "id": "c20a4294-f13c-4d04-a420-50ed1f96b117", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants submitted that the refusal by the domestic courts to examine the merits of the application for judicial review of the NRTC's decision had deprived them of an . They referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria (cited above), and argued that the Supreme Administrative Court's holding that the competent bodies enjoyed unreviewable discretion when examining applications for licences had been contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which required a remedy allowing full examination of the necessity of the interference with their Article 9 and Article 10 rights."], "id": "8f063a91-8433-4b5d-ae84-93d9c4dc1908", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government argued that the applicant had had an at his disposal concerning the alleged inadequate conditions of his detention, which he had used. He had complained to the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice, the Pula County Court and the Pula Prison governor, and they had replied to his complaints indicating that he could not be transferred to another prison or prison ward due to the problem of overcrowding. In the Government\u2019s view, that had been sufficient, as the use of a remedy did not require its favourable outcome."], "id": "2da55882-419e-45e1-bc94-8ec7e915dbce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s arguments. He submitted that no existed in relation to his complaint. He noted that he had complained about the unreasonable delay in the proceedings on several occasions before the court and other competent authorities but to no avail. In view of this, it was evident that the Government were incapable under the existing mechanism of preventing or terminating the violation complained of. As regards the case of Yiallouros, the applicant noted that not only was the judgment in that case issued fourteen months after the lodging of the present application but also that its facts were completely unrelated. In this connection, the applicant pointed to the absence of judicial practice granting damages for violations due to excessive length of proceedings. In any event, the applicant claimed that he should not be obliged to seek redress through a judicial system that had already kept him in proceedings for such a long time."], "id": "324287c8-764f-43ef-aa9f-0f86f687613a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. Although they did so at the time when the proceedings had not yet been concluded by a final decision, the Constitutional Court refused to examine it. As established in paragraph 25 above, the manner in which the applicants' complaint was dealt with by the Constitutional Court failed to meet the purpose of protection of their right under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time as interpreted and applied by the Court. The Court, therefore, considers that the applicants' right to an has not been respected (see mutatis mutandis, A. R., spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia, no. 13960/06, \u00a7\u00a7 59-60, 9 February 2010)."], "id": "842a44bb-f458-489c-9cb6-7d6d5c5867ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant disagreed with the Government. It asserted that the compensation remedy in question was not accessible and effective due to its limited scope and field of application. In any event, it had not been obliged to pursue this remedy since an applicant was only required to exhaust one potentially , which the applicant had done by making full use of the remedies provided by Swedish administrative law before the administrative courts. In this connection, the applicant also mentioned that it had made a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman and petitioned the Supreme Administrative Court for a re-opening of the case concerning its request for exemption of documents."], "id": "09ef8bd1-43bc-4c9d-b0b9-39417bf88b20", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented the applicants from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants should have made more use of that possibility which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13."], "id": "577ef580-b9c4-4426-a899-feb52c018461", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government contended that the applicants had effective remedies at their disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. In particular, the applicants received reasoned replies to all their complaints lodged in the context of criminal proceedings. Besides, the applicants had an opportunity to appeal against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an to ensure the observation of their rights. The applicants never made use of this possibility, which required the initiative of the participants in criminal proceedings, and thus the absence of court action could not constitute a violation of Article 13."], "id": "e202d41c-a1b4-4ed6-94ef-ca515a4c0197", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant association further argued that the fact that it had been allowed to demonstrate after the third decision of the Lesznowola Mayor had been overruled by the Mazowiecki Governor only showed that all three decisions of the mayor had lacked any justification. The third demonstration had taken place some five months later and should not be considered as remedying the banning of the two demonstrations in May 2008 and depriving the applicant association of its right to an in that respect."], "id": "429a364a-aca3-40fe-8b43-e2fc73d44335", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government considered that the applicants' complaints were not arguable, and hence outside the scope of Article 13, save for the complaints under Article 8 concerning the interference with family life. They submitted that the first applicant was able to avail herself of the local authority's complaints procedure. A thorough investigation had been conducted by an independent person, resulting in the first applicant receiving an apology. While she did not receive compensation, she did not ask that such a recommendation should be made. She had also had the opportunity to oppose any interim care orders, or to appeal. The Government, however, accepted that it was arguably obliged to ensure that an enforceable right to compensation was made available for such damage as could have been proved to have been suffered as a result of any violation of Article 8 and that this complaint should be declared admissible. As the applicants acknowledged, there was now an provided under the Human Rights Act 1998."], "id": "847ea53e-2014-45d2-859e-02985cb97fe7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant organisation submitted that the Government had limited themselves to a theoretical analysis of the relevant domestic law, while disregarding the particular circumstances of the case and the fact that the arbitrary application of that law had deprived it of an . For the applicant organisation to have been able to contest the merits of the Mayor\u2019s ban before the Administrative Court and for such an appeal to have been effective, it would have been necessary at the very least for the Mayor\u2019s decision to be served on it 24 hours prior to the planned event. An appeal against a decision received after the time of the planned event would have been not only ineffective, but also completely meaningless."], "id": "792ca5b7-644c-402a-ba34-296890b7df10", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, there is no evidence that the remedies which were available in theory could work effectively in practice when it came to prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners. He cited Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "133716f2-6c02-4fa5-8183-92542b3c638d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["140. The Government pointed out that the secret taping had taken place at a time when the applicant had already been in custody and under direct personal observation during his interrogation. The taping had been just an auxiliary means of gathering evidence, and had for this reason been excluded by the Sofia City Court from the evidence against the applicant. The Government went on to acknowledge that until 2007 there had not been an in respect of secret surveillance, but added that such a remedy had been put in place in 2008\u201109, when Parliament had enacted amendments to the Special Surveillance Means Act 1997, Parliament\u2019s standing rules and section 2(1) of the 1988 Act."], "id": "d9956288-e390-4a36-ab04-ad97a0d83f8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government contended that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as he had not lodged an appeal against the decision of the Federal Asylum Office of 5 January 2011 in which his asylum application had been rejected under the Dublin Regulation and his transfer to Hungary ordered. However, the Court notes that, as argued by the applicant (see paragraph 61 above), the criticism raised with regard to the detention practices affecting asylum-seekers in Hungary, the conditions of their detention and the problems in relation to transferees\u2019 access to asylum proceedings and the risk of refoulement only became widely known after the decision on the applicant\u2019s application had been rendered. The first report of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee as regards immigration detention dated from April 2011, the UNHCR Regional Office\u2019s letter from 17 October 2011 and the UNHCR report on Hungary as a country of asylum from April 2012. The Austrian Asylum Court\u2019s practice of staying transfers to Hungary and seeking an update on the country of origin information concerning Hungary maintained by the Federal Asylum Office spanned the period from the end of October until December 2011. The Court is therefore able to subscribe to the applicant\u2019s argument that at the relevant time, when he would have been able to lodge an appeal against the first-instance asylum decision and the transfer order, he was not aware of the problems that asylum-seekers faced in Hungary which were later raised by the reports mentioned above. The Court reiterates that the only remedies which are required to be exhausted under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention are those that relate to the breach alleged and are available and effective (see Diallo v. the Czech Republic, no. 20493/07, \u00a7 54, 23 June 2011). In view of the specific complaints raised by the applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Court, namely the use of immigration detention in Hungary, the conditions of detention there, the treatment of detained asylum-seekers and the lack of access to appeal proceedings, an appeal against the decision of 5 January 2011 rejecting his first asylum application would clearly not have been an . The Court therefore rejects the Government\u2019s contention that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies in this regard."], "id": "0b48a78e-bbc0-4120-b216-f869a5aff745", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant alleged that she had not had an in respect of her complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention by which to challenge the order to leave the country. As her application to the Aliens Appeals Board to set aside that order, which was still pending, did not suspend her expulsion, she had lodged a request with that court under the extremely urgent procedure for a stay of execution of the order to leave the country, with a view to obtaining a ruling on the merits of her complaints before she was expelled. However, that procedure had proved fruitless because she had not been in detention and could therefore not establish the urgency of the situation. She stressed that the Aliens Appeals Board applied the same case-law when examining requests for interim measures as a matter of extreme urgency in the context of requests for a stay of execution under the ordinary procedure."], "id": "225e9e19-5bbb-41b9-9fef-be6cc5b3d9d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government considered that as there had been no violation of Article 6, there existed no arguable claim under Article 13. Should the Court take another view, they submitted that the complaint was unfounded as the applicants had appealed against the County Administrative Board\u2019s decision at two court levels. As to the length of the proceedings, the applicants had had an , as proved by the fact that one of the applicants lodged a successful complaint with the Chancellor of Justice, who drew the Board\u2019s attention to tardiness in the proceedings. The Government also relied on the principle that, although no single remedy might itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law might do so (see, for example, X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, \u00a7 60, Series A no. 46; Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, \u00a7 56, Series A no. 50; and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, \u00a7\u00a7 77 and 81-82, Series A no. 116). In addition, the \u201cauthority\u201d referred to in Article 13 did not necessarily have to be a judicial authority."], "id": "75d6a4b1-6314-4f3f-9331-03b3495e1c31", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies and to apply to the Court within six months of the date of the final decision. In particular, the applicant had failed to lodge an appeal against the investigator\u2019s decision of 21 June 2005, whereas such a possibility was prescribed by Articles 263 and 290 of the CCP and was capable of providing redress in respect of his complaint under Article 3. However, even assuming that these appeal procedures were not an , the applicant should have then applied to the Court within six months of the date of the investigator\u2019s decision, which he had failed to do. As regards the civil claims lodged by the applicant on 11 September 2007 and 26 February 2009, taking into account the fact that the applicant had failed to contest the investigator\u2019s decision of 21 June 2005, whereby the police officers\u2019 actions had been considered to be justified, the fact of the applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment had never been established. He had not been recognised as a victim and lost the right to compensation under Armenian law. Consequently, the applicant\u2019s civil claims had had no prospects of success and had therefore not been an effective remedy."], "id": "8de4a990-c06e-4712-b6a1-3b17bf001669", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicant disputed the Government's objection. She stated that an administrative practice consisting in the authorities' continuing failure to conduct adequate investigations into offences committed by representatives of the federal forces in Chechnya rendered any potentially effective remedies inadequate and illusory in her case. In this connection she relied on applications submitted to the Court by other individuals claiming to be victims of similar violations, and on documents by human rights NGOs and the Council of Europe. The applicant contended that, in any event, she had repeatedly applied to law-enforcement bodies, including various prosecutors, and had actively participated in the investigation. This avenue, however, had proved futile, given that the criminal investigation had by now been pending for over six years but had failed to identify those involved in the illegal detention and disappearance of Mr Sultan Isayev despite compelling evidence confirming the involvement of federal servicemen. The applicant also argued that the Government had failed to demonstrate that a court complaint against the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities would have been an in her situation. She stated that under domestic law a court, in examining such a complaint, could order the investigating authorities to resume the investigation or to take certain investigative measures. In this connection she pointed out that the investigation into her husband's abduction had been resumed on several occasions following her complaints to higher prosecutors; however, so far it had produced no results. The applicant therefore argued that court complaints against the investigators would not have changed the situation, and therefore she had been under no obligation to make use of that remedy. She also referred to the Court's established case-law to the effect that, in any event, the authorities had to carry out the investigation of their own motion once the matter had come to their attention, without leaving it to the initiative of the next of kin to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures. The applicant also denied the Government's allegation that she had failed to appear at the Chechen Republic Prosecutor's Office and that this had prevented the investigators from granting her the victim status. She contended that on numerous occasions she had written to, and visited in person, various prosecutors' offices in Chechnya but had never been granted victim status."], "id": "ffbbe711-f47c-4ca5-b84c-3bf642468d00", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government further argued that the applicant did not exhaust available domestic remedies in that he failed to lodge a constitutional complaint, which is an for the length of pending proceedings. That remedy became available in the Croatian legal system on 22 March 2002, and the applicant\u2019s inheritance proceedings were pending until 22 May 2002, i.e. until the service of the second-instance decision on his lawyer."], "id": "43a65c22-052d-43bd-9200-69eb647cb12b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government contested these claims. With respect to the costs of the proceedings in the domestic courts, they argued that there was no causal link between the length of those proceedings and the costs claimed, which, in any event, were excessive, given that they were five to seven times as high as the costs to be accorded by law. As regards the costs claimed for the constitutional complaint, they pointed out that this was not an and, in the present case, moreover, had been clearly inadmissible."], "id": "58c4d22d-7228-460c-8fda-afac40bdfbc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained that his detention from 22 May 2000 to 6 September 2002 in appalling conditions had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he further complained that he had not had at his disposal an to obtain an improvement in the conditions of his detention. The Articles relied on read as follows:"], "id": "7b6659f4-8334-4250-9ac7-2629b8426fb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["121. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s submission, stating that the only supposedly , the criminal investigation, had proved to be ineffective. As for the possibility to complain to the courts about the investigators\u2019 acts or omissions, the applicant stated that the effectiveness of the investigation should not have depended on her efforts to point out the investigation\u2019s deficiencies; the authorities should have taken all measures possible of their own motion."], "id": "fc2eb2d9-2a8e-46e0-be8a-573660c71171", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["130. The Government contended that the applicants had had effective remedies at their disposal and that the authorities had not prevented them from using them. They referred to Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed participants in criminal proceedings to complain to a court about measures taken during an investigation. This was an to ensure the observation of their rights. They had also failed to claim damages in civil proceedings."], "id": "4f201e3e-fa90-4655-85c7-f3d4242391d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government submitted that there was an to address the applicant\u2019s grievances under Article 3, which he had not availed himself of, namely a civil action in compensation against the authorities. For that reason, his complaint under Article 3 should be rejected for non\u2011exhaustion of domestic remedies, whereas the complaint under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3 was manifestly ill-founded."], "id": "3d7d0793-c401-493c-960e-44dee4e40ef7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government invited the Court to reject the applicant\u2019s complaint for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It maintained that the applicant could have filed another constitutional complaint, after the Constitutional Court had dismissed his first one. Bearing in mind that the Constitutional Court has changed its practice in this respect, so as to comply with the Court\u2019s case-law, the Government claimed that a complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act would have been an for the applicant\u2019s length complaint."], "id": "f880c3ab-e87c-4db6-b6a2-5463b53ba54d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicants dispute that a remedy could still be regarded as effective where it would not be economic to bring the claim. Article 13 should be interpreted so as to make its guarantee practical and effective and genuine practical obstacles to bringing a claim undermined the effectiveness of the procedure. The Human Rights Act 1998 was of no assistance either, since it only covered events which took place after the Act came into force on 2 October 2000. While the Wright case (see paragraph 43 above) indicated that the courts could apply the Act even though the death had occurred before that date, where the circumstances were still the subject of active and ongoing controversy, this was not so in the present case. Damages would only have been available for the failure to provide an effective investigation after that date and not in relation to the death itself. Finally, the Health and Safety Executive investigation, which was still ongoing, was a mere administrative procedure which could not be an for the purpose of Article 13."], "id": "da1fe9f3-49ca-445f-9757-24987f8bb692", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government argued that it had been open to the applicants to make use of the remedies provided by Article 572 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 6 of the Penitentiary Code, which applied by analogy. The Government acknowledged that the applicants in the instant case had lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor in accordance with Article 572 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They maintained that, despite it not having been satisfied immediately, it had proved an given that applicants nos. 2 and 3 had been transferred from Menemeni police station shortly after lodging their complaint."], "id": "21418a44-3b49-436a-be05-975c826aa6a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant referred to the Court\u2019s findings in the case of S\u00fcrmeli v. Germany ([GC], no. 75529/01, ECHR 2006\u2011VII) to the effect that there was no in the German legal system to complain about the length of civil proceedings. Germany had to date failed to execute that judgment by introducing an effective preventive or compensatory remedy. In particular, he had not been able to obtain redress before the Court of Appeal or the Federal Constitutional Court."], "id": "f3565d79-5194-4869-9e59-508a9ab3d004", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government maintained that the applicant had at her disposal an pursuant to section 7 of the HRA, under the 1976 Act and/or under the 1934 Act. The applicant argued that those remedies were not available to her. The Court considers that the question of the availability of effective domestic remedies prior to the above-described Supreme Court judgment in the Rabone case of February 2012 is closely linked with, and should be joined to, the merits of the related complaints under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention."], "id": "a34e7f04-4d7c-4c68-8819-3153996e4161", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["11. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the final domestic decision in the case had been made by the Regional Court on 26 August 2005 and that the application had been introduced only on 24 February 2007, i.e. outside the six-month time-limit prescribed in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicant\u2019s petition for review, rejected by the Supreme Court in the admissibility phase, could not be regarded as an and did not, in their view, influence the running of the time-limit."], "id": "dc23e94d-b442-4348-999d-f7d6b7e39e08", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant argued, secondly, that a supervisory complaint could not be classified as an . Such a complaint was only an administrative remedy which did not confer on him a subjective right that the proceedings be conducted within a reasonable time. It further did not have any prospects of success. The applicant pointed out that the Constitutional Court had not considered it necessary for him to lodge a supervisory complaint prior to lodging a constitutional complaint on claims of a breach of the reasonable-time requirement."], "id": "0fdd7700-eb10-4667-9c3f-04d5237acd68", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicant disagreed with the Government\u2019s allegation that he had not exhausted domestic remedies and claimed that he had attempted several avenues of redress. He maintained that he had not had an for his complaint concerning the inadequate conditions of detention. He pointed out that on 4 April 2011 the Tverskoy District Court had refused to examine his complaint concerning the conditions of detention on the grounds that it was a matter that could be addressed only in the course of the administrative proceedings; he had previously attempted to pursue that avenue, but his complaint had been dismissed without examination. As regards the divergence between the Government\u2019s account of his conditions of detention and his own, he pointed out that the Government\u2019s claim had not been supported by evidence, whereas he had provided a report by a public commission for the monitoring of detention facilities, which had corroborated his allegations."], "id": "a3556ebf-f7b2-487f-a324-98aef1a53341", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant further complained that the proceedings were unfair in that the domestic courts misapplied the domestic law, that she had not been heard during the first-instance proceedings and that the judge of the Municipal Court had been biased. She also complained that she had no at her disposal to challenge the impartiality of the judge and, finally, that by failing to allow her to buy the flat, the domestic authorities violated her property rights."], "id": "efc8e584-0ff4-48ad-bcd4-91077cae4988", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant organisation submitted that, according to the domestic practice, applications filed against a public authority seeking to acknowledge a violation of the right to freedom of assembly had been regularly declared inadmissible by the Administrative Court as not falling into any of the categories listed in Articles 66-69 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. Had the applicant organisation been notified of the decision of 8 May 2008 in due time, it would have had a possibility to challenge that decision before the Administrative Court under the provisions of the Act and that court would have been obliged to take a decision within 24 hours, thereby providing an . But since the decision was received after the planned event, a post-hoc application could not have provided an effective remedy."], "id": "7d787671-7899-4f06-8b9f-7c8d333e518c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["152. The applicants submitted that the consequences of transferring them to the Iraqi authorities in breach of the Court\u2019s Rule 39 indication could not have been more serious, both as to their right to individual petition and their right to an . Both this Court\u2019s judgment in Paladi v. Moldova ([GC], no. 39806/05, \u00a7 92, 10 March 2009) and the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in LaGrand (judgment of 27 June 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 466), on which the Government relied, made it clear that the obligation was to take all reasonable steps to comply with an indication of interim measures. Nonetheless, the Government had conceded that at no stage did they make any approach to the Iraqi authorities to investigate the possibility of detaining the applicants at the British detention facility at Basra for the matter of the few weeks or months that it would take for the legal issues to be resolved. Moreover, the Government had failed to inform either the Court or the applicants\u2019 representatives on the morning of 31 December 2008 that they did not intend to comply with the Rule 39 indication. The Court was informed only when the transfer had taken place."], "id": "2b2dfa6d-08c0-4583-90e8-649969013a87", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They had failed to intimate their intention to challenge the interim order made on 15 February 2005. It was also apparent that they were content that a hearing would not be fixed before 18 February 2005, whereas it would have been open to them to seek an earlier hearing. Furthermore, when the order became final on 17 February, there was an in the form of a petition to the nobile officium. The applicants were well aware of that remedy, having used it effectively in the past: see BBC Petitioners at paragraph 15 above. In any event, they were afforded the opportunity to make representations on 24 March 2005 once the appeal had been determined."], "id": "fd95ee8a-1103-405a-bc99-858ea6f0c384", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant in the present case complained about the material conditions in two different detention facilities, namely Tunca Accommodation Centre, from which he was released on 11 November 2009 at the latest, and Fatih police station, where he was kept between 1 and 9 October 2010. Bearing in mind his allegations concerning the absence of an in relation to the present complaint, and without prejudice to the Court\u2019s findings on this issue under Article 13 below, the applicant was accordingly expected to lodge his application with the Court within six months from the respective dates of his release from the relevant facilities."], "id": "17c11cd8-4c83-4785-8c6c-2e9d0d2059c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. Relying on Articles 6 and 13, he further alleged that he had been denied a fair trial and an in respect of his ill-treatment complaint. He maintained, in particular, that the national authorities had failed to carry out an effective official investigation capable of establishing the facts and identifying and punishing those responsible for torturing him."], "id": "ecaea85a-8c7f-4378-a7b6-a1db04eaff1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government pointed out that the proceedings in the applicants\u2019 case were still pending and that consequently they could have lodged a constitutional complaint in line with the new case-law. Since the latter permitted the Constitutional Court not only to award compensation but also to set a time-limit for the competent court to decide the case, the Government contended that such a complaint was an and that the Court should make an exception to the general rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, according to which an applicant is required to exhaust only the remedies available at the moment of the introduction of an application with the Court."], "id": "c5290741-62b2-45e8-adde-6f1ff2c7e27e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant association further argued that the fact that it had been allowed to demonstrate after the third decision of the Lesznowola Mayor had been overruled by the Mazowiecki Governor only showed that all three decisions of the mayor had lacked any justification. The third demonstration had taken place some five months later and should not be considered as remedying the banning of the two demonstrations in May 2008 and depriving the applicant association of its in that respect."], "id": "ee167c0a-8c79-412c-8e63-ba54829f0e63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["152. The applicants submitted that the consequences of transferring them to the Iraqi authorities in breach of the Court\u2019s Rule 39 indication could not have been more serious, both as to their right to individual petition and their . Both this Court\u2019s judgment in Paladi v. Moldova ([GC], no. 39806/05, \u00a7 92, 10 March 2009) and the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in LaGrand (judgment of 27 June 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 466), on which the Government relied, made it clear that the obligation was to take all reasonable steps to comply with an indication of interim measures. Nonetheless, the Government had conceded that at no stage did they make any approach to the Iraqi authorities to investigate the possibility of detaining the applicants at the British detention facility at Basra for the matter of the few weeks or months that it would take for the legal issues to be resolved. Moreover, the Government had failed to inform either the Court or the applicants\u2019 representatives on the morning of 31 December 2008 that they did not intend to comply with the Rule 39 indication. The Court was informed only when the transfer had taken place."], "id": "26336e52-e715-4b91-bf9f-cf2189a8847b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government rather attempted to diminish the importance of the County Court's delay by emphasising various mitigating factors, such as the award of compensation and the express acknowledgment of the violation, which in their view rendered the remedy effective nevertheless. Admittedly, while these factors may be of some importance in deciding whether an applicant had an effective remedy, the Court considers that they cannot be considered decisive in the present case. In particular, as already found above (see paragraph 20), the compensation awarded to the applicants was too low and thus insufficient. While it is true that this factor alone normally does not render the remedy ineffective (see paragraph 39 above), the Court notes that in the present case it was reinforced by the failure of the competent court to execute the Constitutional Court's decision in timely fashion; it being understood that the cessation of an ongoing violation is for the Court an important element of the (see, implicitly, Cocchiarella, cited above, \u00a7 74)."], "id": "fa829ae3-9c6b-4b33-b72a-99a5f2f41d53", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. Although they did so at the time when the proceedings had not yet been concluded by a final decision, the Constitutional Court refused to examine it. As established in paragraph 25 above, the manner in which the applicants' complaint was dealt with by the Constitutional Court failed to meet the purpose of protection of their right under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time as interpreted and applied by the Court. The Court, therefore, considers that the applicants' has not been respected (see mutatis mutandis, A. R., spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia, no. 13960/06, \u00a7\u00a7 59-60, 9 February 2010)."], "id": "a773d2d7-84f7-4879-b594-4e90db5092a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s at domestic level was respected and guaranteed in full under Moldovan law. The applicant was able to complain about the alleged ill-treatment to the prosecutor. After the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings, the applicant complained to a Municipal Prosecutor and had a right of appeal against his decision. She exercised this right but her appeal was dismissed on 14 February 2005. The Government argued that these remedies were effective because both new and existing evidence was considered during the hearing and witnesses and police officers were permitted to give evidence."], "id": "5eaac19c-c723-4224-8fdd-edb6b367575c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government maintained that there had been no violation of the applicant's . They firstly submitted that under the case-law of the Supreme Court the courts had always had jurisdiction to decide on the civil action for repossession brought by an owner against a temporary occupant. Contrary to the applicant's view, the 2002 Amendments had not (re)established but merely confirmed the existence of that jurisdiction and the right of owners to sue for repossession of their property. In spite of that, the Government conceded that to lodge an appeal against the Karlovac Municipal Court's decision of 10 March 2000 \u2013 by which that court declined jurisdiction in the case \u2013 would have been futile. The appeal would have ultimately resulted only in a negative decision on the merits instead of a negative procedural decision because at the material time the decision allowing M.V. to use the applicant's flat had not yet been set aside in the administrative proceedings. However, once the Housing Commission had done so on 16 October 2000 (see paragraph 18 above), the situation became completely different and from then on to bring a (second) civil action would have resulted in a decision favourable to the applicant. Accordingly, the Government argued that at the time she introduced her application with the Court the applicant had at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for the alleged violation of her right to property."], "id": "ea041f1b-829e-4e88-b2e8-77894a621083", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government submitted that the applicant should have first raised his complaints before the competent domestic authorities, including the administration of the detention facility, the prosecutors and the relevant court. They argued that he had had a right to complain of lack of medical care in detention to various authorities, but no complaints from him had been recorded by, inter alia, the prosecutors\u2019 offices. As regards the complaints introduced by his mother, they had been examined in accordance with the applicable domestic law. The Government stressed that prior to 4 December 2013 the applicant had not applied to the courts, either with a view to instituting criminal proceedings or to obtain compensation. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of the applicant\u2019s ."], "id": "cfa6e6d7-8b10-499f-8d5a-6a2da6a38742", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["139. The applicants submitted that the administrative authorities\u2019 decision to issue a permit authorising a gold mine to use the cyanidation process and these authorities\u2019 refusal to comply with the decisions of the administrative courts constituted violations, respectively, of their right to life and their . They relied on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention."], "id": "32958824-1f88-4008-8ba8-a300f2deaae3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant submitted first of all that, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, it was not necessary to establish that there had been an actual violation of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Convention in order to complain of a violation of Article 13: the was recognised to any person who claimed that one of those rights or freedoms had been violated provided the claim was \u201carguable\u201d for the purposes of the Convention."], "id": "2390dc26-9cbc-4f46-a207-d9d008ed034d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["202. The applicant argued, relying on the Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria case (no. 50963/99, 20 June 2002), that the competing interests of the protection of sources and information critical to national security, on the one hand, and the , on the other, could be reconciled through a specially adapted procedure. In the present case, however, no such procedure had been available, either before United Nations bodies or before the domestic authorities."], "id": "95c70a42-aee3-43a1-a9d0-c6ff5deef65c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant complained that his was violated by the prosecutor\u2019s refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the Bailiffs dealing with his case. He referred to Article 13 of the Convention. The Court recalls that the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against a third person and to have the person concerned convicted is not as such guaranteed by the Convention (see, Kubiszyn v. Poland (dec.), no. 37437/97, 21 September 1999). It therefore finds that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "6036c229-fe3d-45fe-bdd1-a660d9598cca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the Commission could not be considered an independent and impartial tribunal and that, since no appeal lay against its decision, they had been refused access to a court. On the same grounds they argued that they had been denied the under Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "979633cb-cb8c-49ef-8f91-0e1033fdd198", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to an effective remedy", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. Even though she did so at a time when the proceedings had not yet been concluded by a final decision, the Constitutional Court refused to examine it. As established in \u00a7 18 above, the manner in which the applicant's complaint was dealt with by the Constitutional Court failed to meet the purpose of protection of her right under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time in a similar manner as interpreted and applied by the Court. The Court, therefore, considers that the applicant's has not been respected (see mutatis mutandis, A. R., spol. s r. o. v. Slovakia, no. 13960/06, \u00a7\u00a7 59-60, 9 February 2010)."], "id": "6965e493-0061-4697-83fb-9960d1c73b63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national authority", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complains of discrimination under Article 14. He alleges that his rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1 have been subject to discrimination on the grounds of religion, political opinion or association with a national minority. He further complains that in breach of Article 13, he has not had any effective remedy before a in respect of his alleged violations of his rights and freedoms."], "id": "8b892e27-c40f-477e-b03d-f55ae371177c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national authority", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["177. The applicants\u2019 grievance under Article 9 of the Convention being arguable, the Court finds that Article 13 is applicable in the present case. It reiterates, however, that this provision does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State\u2019s laws as such to be challenged before a on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, \u00a7\u00a7 105-108, ECHR 2005\u2011IX, and Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 107-109)."], "id": "f68a40ce-f834-4f2f-9438-3c25faf4710a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national authority", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government reiterated that, in accordance with the Court's case-law concerning Article 13, where an individual had an arguable claim to have been the victim of a violation of the right set forth in the Convention, he or she should have a remedy before a in order to have the claim decided and, if appropriate, to obtain redress (they cited Gustafsson v. Sweden, judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 660, \u00a7 70). The Government averred that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies at his disposal, but had failed to use them."], "id": "0cb36157-47f2-4ffc-9ccf-3ebebe1f73dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national authority", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant further maintained that neither the courts nor any other could properly examine the risk of his being tortured in Turkmenistan. He reached this conclusion on the basis of the Government\u2019s position, expressed in their observations, that they could not cast doubt on the assurances given by the Turkmen authorities and that they had no possibility of, or any legal basis for, seeing these assurances respected."], "id": "e4ea8847-c402-4dae-8cd4-0ef1e90d0718", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national authority", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicants rejected the respondent Governments\u2019 allegations that the Court did not have jurisdiction ratione materiae to examine the present application. They pointed out that their application raised novel issues not discussed previously before the Court. They complained of the first two applicants\u2019 conditions of detention after 8 July 2004, and of their deprivation of liberty after that date. There was nothing in the Court\u2019s judgment of 8 July 2004 that referred to these claims. They also complained under Articles 13 and 46 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy before a for these violations."], "id": "bef43e5a-7c23-4544-a86e-b29e67cd21bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national authority", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["188. The applicants submitted that Italy\u2019s interceptions of persons on the high seas were not in accordance with the law and were not subject to a review of their lawfulness by a . For that reason, the applicants had been deprived of any opportunity of lodging an appeal against their return to Libya and alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4."], "id": "147eb37a-b748-4aac-8635-7dfde91bee4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national authority", "echr_article": "13", "masked_sentences": ["135. The applicants also complained that they did not have effective domestic remedies for their Article 3 complaints, in breach of Article 13. In this connection, the Court repeats its above finding that civil and administrative law remedies were available to the applicants had they wished to complain about their conditions of detention. As for the more fundamental aspect of the complaints, that the very nature of the detention scheme in Part 4 of the 2001 Act gave rise to a breach of Article 3, the Court reiterates that Article 13 does not guarantee a remedy allowing a challenge to primary legislation before a on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, \u00a7 85, Series A no. 98, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, \u00a7 137, ECHR 2005-X)."], "id": "9819d29b-eb8f-4a1c-a5fd-ca2c5ba08702", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government submitted that the exemption of persons who have held high office from the pensions cap did not amount to , for the reasons set out in the decision of the Commission for Protection Against Discrimination of 17 September 2009 (see paragraph 60 above). In any event, that exemption did not directly affect the applicants because they would not benefit from its cancellation. The different treatment accorded to persons who have held high office was justified by the nature of their duties, which were closely related to the country\u2019s government. Only persons who had held one of a small number of very high posts were exempted from the cap; all of them had been barred by law from taking up additional employment. Nor could it be said that the cap was discriminatory vis-\u00e0-vis other pensioners whose pensions fell below it."], "id": "bad8f685-3cbd-4324-b2dd-cdce96b84670", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicants alleged a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in that the authorities failed in their duty to investigate and prosecute a racially motivated violent offence. They referred, inter alia, to their Roma origin, the alleged widespread prejudices against their ethnic group and the authorities' consistent failure to address systematic patterns of violence and against their community."], "id": "c8028643-9cd2-4bd4-b775-0e1dd8c4d525", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained of a violation of her right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and also that she had been a victim of on grounds of sex. She further alleged that she had been unable to obtain redress for the violation of her fundamental right as acknowledged by the Constitutional Court. She relied on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 14 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "1ae1120c-dc28-4fe3-b112-5b0a928e0cd6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["122. The Government further submitted that any attempt to characterise the as particularly acute in the case of Northern Irish Catholics was wholly misconceived. First, any historical discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland was not relevant to the Certificate of Approval scheme or any violation arising from it. Secondly, as there was no Anglican Church in Northern Ireland, no church there was exempt from the scheme."], "id": "17885ca1-21be-436f-a0f6-f10c52321d7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service or alternative civilian service, while assuming a function within the Federation of Evangelical Communities in Austria (Bund Evangelikaler Gemeinden in \u00d6sterreich) which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from such service, constituted on the ground of his religion, as prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 9."], "id": "e17dd87e-af6e-49b3-a2ca-040acbcb8e81", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["123. The applicants submitted that, on account of their ethnicity, they had been victims of by judicial bodies and officials. Moreover, the first applicant argued that the failure of the domestic courts to provide reasons for the difference in non-pecuniary damage awarded to the three widows had amounted to discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "id": "df57a833-6ccf-46db-9024-acc6186848dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant argued that it was unjust for the Government now to seek to rely on a point that they had agreed not to advance during the domestic proceedings, during which they had conceded it was irrelevant to the issues of principle at stake. She objected strenuously to the attempt to re-introduce the issue before the Court. The applicant further argued that the notion of victim under Article 34 of the Convention was without reference to detriment, prejudice or damage. This was a matter for consideration under Article 41, in the event of the Court holding that there had been a violation of Convention rights. Even supposing that the material disadvantage in her case had ultimately been reduced \u2013 which she did not concede \u2013 she argued that the basis for her complaint was that the child support system offended her dignity by ignoring a most important and intimate aspect of her private life and personality. This was not excused or justified by the operation of a mechanism that was entirely unconnected to the alleged ."], "id": "87404d4b-7ddc-4c9f-af9c-08963402dc29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants complain of of the facts of the conditions of their schooling during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years: they had been schooled in a school situated in a prefabricated building, attended only by children of their community and offering an inferior level of study to that of other students. They enounce a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. These provisions are as follows:"], "id": "61af0d8f-e21d-4372-a118-535a34c38cb8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant maintained that, contrary to the Government\u2019s submission, the underlying ground of was nationality even if the official ground was immigration status, and pointed out, with reference to the Court\u2019s judgment in Gaygusuz v. Austria (16 September 1996, \u00a7 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011IV), that very weighty reasons were required to justify such discrimination. In support of the contention that the ground of discrimination was nationality, the applicant cited the case of Westminster City Council v. Morris (see paragraphs 15-18 above), in which the majority of the Court of Appeal had found, at paragraphs 52 and 82 of the judgment, that nationality was the underlying ground on which the distinction was drawn. The applicant submitted that the Court should accept the reasoning of the Court of Appeal as determinative."], "id": "e4d9e2f9-36fd-480d-9780-221f5959df90", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant claimed that by depriving him of the possibility of joining the farmers' scheme solely on account of his foreign nationality, despite the fact that he met the other statutory conditions, the authorities had violated the prohibition of . As a result he was effectively deprived of social security cover in the event of sickness, occupational injury and invalidity. Furthermore, he could not continue making contributions towards his retirement pension, which he had paid for many years when affiliated to the general social security scheme. In this connection, the applicant had a reasonable expectation of being admitted to the farmers' scheme. That position was supported by the Ombudsman's opinion in his case."], "id": "796cf7a1-7447-4ec1-ae97-0f1ae6f409b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government submitted that the German courts had not discriminated against the applicant on account of her transsexuality. Any person arguing that the costs of surgical operations should be borne by a health insurance company had to show a valid claim and, in the case of a dispute, adduce relevant evidence. In respect of the medical treatment of transsexuals, evidence had to be furnished for this sexual orientation and the reasons therefor. The need to determine whether or not a disease had been deliberately caused applied to all insured persons. For a transsexual, hormone treatment was relevant circumstantial evidence. The Court of Appeal\u2019s evaluation and assessment of evidence did not disclose any ."], "id": "064d20ec-9682-4e97-82a1-af43202c6a5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government argued that Article 14 was inapplicable as the facts of the case did not disclose any appreciable impact on either her relationship with her children, or her relationship with her partner. In order for Article 14 to apply, it must be shown that the specific factual context in which the allegation of arises was within the ambit of one of the substantive rights of the Convention. The intended limited scope of Article 14 of the Convention stood in contrast to that of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, which the United Kingdom had not ratified. If the criteria for the applicability of Article 14 were to be loosened and widened, it would occupy more and more of the area intended to be covered by the other provision. Instead, Article 14 should be kept within boundaries of application closely associated with and bearing directly upon the operation of other Convention rights. The Government contended that the approach taken by Lords Walker, Bingham and Nicholls to the applicability of Article 14 was consistent with the Strasbourg jurisprudence, and was now accepted by the domestic courts as providing a practical framework for determining when a given situation came within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention. While the applicant had likened her situation to that at issue in the case of Petrovic v. Austria (27 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011II), hers was quite different. In Petrovic, the Court had found that the parental leave allowance necessarily affected the way in which family life was organised, as it allowed one parent to stay at home to look after the children (\u00a7 27). In contrast, the application of the formula in the MASC regulations was not intended to deter the applicant from pursuing her relationship, nor did it have that effect. The mere fact that liability to contribute towards the cost of her children's upbringing might have some effect on the financial situation of her new household was insufficient. Otherwise any financial liability, or benefit, would be deemed as coming within the ambit of the family life aspect of Article 8. Since the Convention did not confer a right to full protection of private or family life against all interference, but a right to respect for private or family life, it followed that a significant threshold of intrusion had to be crossed before there could be an interference that called for justification under Article 8 \u00a7 2. The Government drew a comparison with a number of cases in which applicants who had lost their employment had complained of interferences with their right to respect for private life: Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, ECHR 1999\u2011VI; Sidabras and D\u017eiautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004\u2011VIII; Rainys and Gasparavi\u010dius v. Lithuania, nos. 70665/01 and 74345/01, 7 April 2005. In each of these cases, the applicants had been able to point to additional restrictions or intrusions. This strongly suggested that the merely incidental effect of the MASC regulations on the finances of the applicant's household was not sufficient to bring the situation within the scope or ambit of Article 8. The facts of this case were very remote from any identifiable impact on the applicant's family life."], "id": "0da891e2-1673-4e31-b32b-1cccf28d6210", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicants, Mr Richard and Mr Walsh, argued that they were entitled to compensation for the discriminatory refusal to grant them WBA, in the amount that they would have received had they been widows, plus interest. They cited in their support three cases where the Court had awarded compensation for the wrongful levying of taxes or refusal of a tax allowance (S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, ECHR 2002-III; Darby v. Sweden, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187; P.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 6638/03, 19 July 2005) and also the case of Willis, cited above. They submitted that the Court\u2019s approach in these cases complied with the principle of restitutio in integrum and also encouraged compliance with the Convention, since there would be less incentive for States to avoid if they were not required to pay compensation."], "id": "8068a8cc-b110-4255-b5ee-1eda04012994", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted that the applicant could not be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention because he had not suffered on the ground of his sexual orientation. In particular, he had not demonstrated that he had indeed been treated less favourably than other persons in an analogous situation. The domestic courts had based their decisions on the objective prerequisite, namely the fact that the applicant had not met the basic condition laid down in section 8(1) of the 1994 Act since he had not resided permanently with the statutory tenant until his death. The same condition \u2013 which, as such, could not be regarded as unreasonable or unjustified \u2013 would have been applied to all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation."], "id": "918f836e-c482-45ae-b7ba-6fc66038c7b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted on the ground of his religion, prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 4."], "id": "5a2f1a35-3501-4a1b-9127-71c0646d457a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicants submitted that while their older siblings\u2019 claims for compensation in connection with their sister\u2019s death had been allowed, their similar claims had been dismissed by the court of last resort on the ground of their young age at the time of the accident (see paragraph 13 above). They claimed that the distinction made by the court of last resort between their claims and those of their older siblings had amounted to prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention and caused them substantial loss."], "id": "373c4ec2-3cb5-4387-8a21-53fa4cf0b319", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government observed that the applicant had become liable to the payment of a fine because he had chosen to ignore his summons for jury service. He had not complained of an unfair trial or of a lack of independence or impartiality of the domestic tribunal. Nor had he complained that the situation would have been different if he had been a woman. Therefore, no on the ground of sex could be disclosed."], "id": "e5588ecf-0f86-48d8-98f6-a928055d700a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicants mainly complained that the authorities had failed to take the requisite measures in compliance with their obligations under national law and the Convention to ensure that the first applicant\u2019s physical integrity and dignity were respected at school and that he enjoyed the right to quality education without . They relied on Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention."], "id": "649a4ce6-863b-48d3-b129-4c6c6537eb75", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant claimed that the reduction in her pension under the General Old Age Pensions Act constituted on the ground of sex prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in that at the relevant time a married woman was only insured under the Act for periods when her husband was insured, whereas there was no equivalent rule for married men."], "id": "08ff009a-4516-4c4a-8033-42b8f435fa76", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government submitted that the applicant's complaint based on contrary to Article 14 was ill-founded. They pointed out that the distinction made, prior to the 1998 Act, between nationals and foreigners when awarding the allowance for disabled adults pursued a legitimate aim, which was a balance between the State's welfare income and expenditure. The requirement of proportionality had also been satisfied, as foreign nationals had not been deprived of all resources since they were entitled to, among other things, the RMI. The Government also pointed out that, although the applicant had been unable to acquire French nationality by declaration, he could have requested his naturalisation and benefited from the allowance for disabled adults without being disqualified by the nationality condition."], "id": "587595a4-aa16-4ade-ab3e-1b599f9ff9c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["130. The applicants observed in particular that in explaining why it had refused to shift the burden of proof in Nachova and Others (cited above, \u00a7 157) the Court had been careful to distinguish between racially-motivated violent crime and non-violent acts of racial in, for example, employment or the provision of services. In their submission, racial discrimination in access to education fell precisely in the latter category of discriminatory acts which could be proved in the absence of intent. More recently, the Court had ruled in Zarb Adami v. Malta (no. 17209/02, \u00a7\u00a7 75\u201176, ECHR 2006-VIII) that a difference in treatment did not need to be set forth in legislative text in order to breach Article 14 and that a \u201cwell-established practice\u201d or \u201cde facto situation\u201d could also give rise to discrimination. As, in the instant case, the applicants considered that they had indisputably succeeded in establishing the existence of a disproportionate impact, the burden of proof had to shift to the Government to prove that the applicants\u2019 ethnic origin had had no bearing on the impugned decisions and that sufficient safeguards against discrimination were in place."], "id": "7a281cdd-2f5d-4c84-9eea-1658eb8c0b09", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant further argued that the ban on wearing clothing designed to conceal the face in public, which undoubtedly targeted the burqa, generated in breach of Article 14 of the Convention on grounds of sex, religion and ethnic origin, to the detriment of Muslim women who, like her, wore the full-face veil. In her view this was indirect discrimination between Muslim women whose beliefs required them to wear the full-face veil and other Muslim women, and also between them and Muslim men. The exception provided for by the Law of 11 October 2010, according to which the ban did not apply if the clothing was worn in the context of \u201cfestivities or artistic or traditional events\u201d was also, in her view, discriminatory, in that it created an advantage for the Christian majority: it allowed Christians to wear in public clothing that concealed their face in the context of Christian festivities or celebrations (Catholic religious processions, carnivals or rituals, such as dressing up as Santa Claus) whereas Muslim women who wished to wear the full-face veil in public remained bound by the ban even during the month of Ramadan."], "id": "640b9f23-a58c-4f1d-ab9e-c0a2ba784866", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant contested this view and maintained that if the relevant domestic legislation provided for exemptions from military or alternative civilian service, it should do so without any . During the time of his civilian service he had had to work forty hours a week, and thus had been unable to perform his functions as a deacon and preacher and had had to limit the practice of his religion to his spare time."], "id": "26ea2d93-0d08-4b0a-8759-94b355413fa2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant submitted that \u201cvery weighty reasons\u201d had to be provided to justify sex and that the more lenient test under Article 1 of Protocol 1, whereby only measures \u201cmanifestly without reasonable foundation\u201d were challengeable, did not apply in such cases. There was no reason why he should have to pay towards the NHS for a longer period than women, which obligation had no objective connection with the state pension age. The recent increase in deductions from the NI Fund for NHS funding purposes was manipulating NICs as a general taxation source which aggravated the existing inequality. As the NI Fund was not in fact self-financing but could be topped up by money from general taxation, it could not be said that changes in contributions would prejudice the equilibrium of the scheme. If women were required to pay, it would in fact boost the amount of funds. Any differences in entitlement were a consequence only of the way in which the Government had chosen to structure the benefit system."], "id": "8d5f866b-8d3b-4fd9-8aab-afc122d13e85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant association submitted that it had sustained considerable non-pecuniary damage because, for nine years, the national authorities had regarded it and presented it to the public as an apologist for terrorism. It assessed this damage at FRF 100,000. As to the damage arising from the excessive length of the proceedings, the association assessed this at FRF 100,000. Lastly, the fact that it had suffered on grounds of its national origin and language amounted to a specific grievance causing it non-pecuniary damage amounting to FRF 100,000."], "id": "c09a8ba6-a3c6-4f5a-ba41-47a5c075ebcc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant complained that the statutory ban on wearing clothing designed to conceal the face in public deprived her of the possibility of wearing the Islamic full-face veil in public places. She alleged that there had been a violation of her right to freedom of association and in the exercise of that right. She relied on Article 11 of the Convention, taken separately and together with the above-cited Article 14. Article 11 reads as follows:"], "id": "888a463f-bae0-490a-ac7b-f0620d5bdd64", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government further submitted that in 2004 the Music Academy had had neither the infrastructure (in terms of resources, equipment and teaching staff) for students with disabilities nor any regulations on matters relating to disability. As regards the allegation that the applicant had suffered discriminatory treatment, the Government pointed out that meant treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in similar situations. \u201cNo objective and reasonable justification\u201d meant that the distinction in issue did not pursue a legitimate aim or that there was not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Sejdi\u0107 and Finci v. Bosnia-Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, \u00a7 42, ECHR 2009, and Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40385/06, \u00a7 53, 11 January 2011). They also cited the case-law of the Court regarding the margin of appreciation enjoyed by States (see Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, \u00a7 82, ECHR 2009). The Government concluded by stating that they were well informed of the Court\u2019s case-law relating to the applicant\u2019s complaints and that they respected the Court\u2019s decision to intervene."], "id": "c15f271a-4ca6-4ecd-b3cd-5db277a66bf5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["131. The Government submitted that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the applicant's allegation that her husband was killed by State agents. According to the Government, the Ekinci family is a well-known family in Turkey. Its members are wealthy and have close connections with high-ranking officials. The situation of the Ekinci family serves to contradict the allegation that persons of Kurdish origin are victims of . "], "id": "84a4f5a9-f331-403e-b9e4-a1a0e5821ae4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government first argued that the applicant churches had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They submitted, in particular, that the applicant churches could have brought a civil action for mandatory conclusion of a contract under section 248 of the Obligations Act, an action for the protection of rights of personality under section 1048 of the same Act (see paragraph 33 above), or an action under the Anti- Act (see paragraph 36 above)."], "id": "404ec8aa-bc4c-4d9f-b363-89d9bb09b706", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government contended that the applicant's complaint was unfounded and completely unsubstantiated. They noted that the applicant had had a very good working relationship with the other employees at the School and that she had not had any criticism of her work, a fact which they considered could not be reconciled with her complaint of . The Government reiterated their argument that the applicant's dismissal was the result of the elimination of certain deficiencies in the administration of the School."], "id": "57bbb88c-2d94-4612-bdec-950cade8ac6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant submitted that the Government did not deny that the pension rules in force at the relevant time discriminated against married women and considered that there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised, namely to avoid the undesirable accumulation of pension rights. In the applicant's opinion other legislation could have been brought in. As to the point in time when social attitudes had changed, the applicant argued that even in 1957 the principle of equality and the resulting prohibition on were a general principle of both national and international law. In that connection, she referred to Article 1 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stated that \u201cAll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights\u201d. She further referred, inter alia, to Article 14 of the Convention (1950), the Netherlands Act of 14 June 1956 abolishing the legal incapacity of married women, and Article 12 \u00a7 4 of the European Social Charter (1961), by which the Contracting States undertook to ensure equal treatment of their own nationals with nationals of other Contracting Parties in respect of social-security rights. The applicant was of the opinion that there were no weighty reasons to confront a small group of women, who did not fall within the scope of Directive 79/7/EEC, for the rest of their lives with the consequences of a discriminatory provision from the past that had been abolished in the meantime."], "id": "d29bd207-55b2-4de2-962d-e8917dccd766", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant further complained that in denying her the right to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections for the sole reason that she did not have a command of Latvian at the highest level defined by the domestic regulations the Latvian authorities had caused her to suffer prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention in the exercise of her right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of Article 14 provide:"], "id": "f20a0bd4-67da-4b23-8298-acc11aeba5c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widowed Mother\u2019s Allowance (\u201cWMA\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted against him on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8."], "id": "eeff1ecf-16ba-4590-84db-f1801ea4226f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["375. The applicants submitted that, even assuming that the relationships between the prospective adoptive parents and the children did not constitute \u201cfamily life\u201d or \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8, they still fell within the ambit of Article 8 for the purposes of Article 14. In their view, having adopted the Bilateral Agreement on Adoption, Russia provided rights extending beyond those expressly guaranteed by the Convention. The Court held that the protection from enshrined in Article 14 extended to such additional rights, in particular in the context of adoption (see E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, \u00a7\u00a7 47-51, 22 January 2008). The applicants contested the Government\u2019s argument that the cases at hand were substantially different from E.B., cited above, and Frett\u00e9, cited above. They maintained that both E.B. and Frett\u00e9 related to discrimination in the matter of adoption, and the fact that they concerned discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation whilst the present cases concerned discrimination on grounds of nationality was immaterial, since the latter was likewise prohibited by the Convention (see Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, \u00a7 42, Reports 1996\u2011IV). Accordingly, the present cases fell within the ambit of Article 8 for the purposes of Article 14."], "id": "fb825327-e87a-401c-8972-ac4f25e25857", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant first of all submitted that he had compensated for any shortcomings in such essential subjects as mathematics and literature by having private lessons throughout his high-school years. On leaving his vocational high school not only had he had a sound command of mathematics and the technical and social sciences, but also he had assimilated elementary knowledge of communication techniques. In his view, this had enabled him to obtain marks which were as good as, if not better than, those achieved by students from ordinary high schools in the national university entrance examination. Despite these results, however, he had been refused entrance to university. The applicant attributed this failure to the 0.2 weighting on his average high school marks \u2013 which was applied in calculating the final marks in the examination \u2013 whereas the weighting on average marks for students from ordinary high schools was 0.5, which, in his view, had put him at a clear disadvantage. He claimed that years of effort had thus been wiped out by what he described as negative against students from vocational high schools."], "id": "09db2713-db64-4cc7-885d-00a9644d1ab7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant rejected that argument. In her submission, the way in which such a verification was carried out and the almost total freedom enjoyed by the examiner made it easy to strike out of the list any person whose mother tongue was not Latvian. As a result, a truly discriminatory practice vis-\u00e0-vis members of national minorities was to be feared. The applicant further observed that of the twenty-one candidates who had not been educated in Latvian only nine, including her, had been required to take the above-mentioned test. In that connection, she presumed the existence of covert ."], "id": "a2838cea-1100-4e9e-8119-8e4e6ad8799e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government also argued that the third party\u2019s submissions were general and vague (see paragraphs 61-62 below). They submitted that Roma in Montenegro were protected by the Constitution, which incorporated all international legal standards, and a number of statutes, including the Prohibition Act, and the Minority Rights and Freedoms Act. Montenegro had also adopted a \u201cStrategy for improving the situation of Roma and Egyptians 2012-2016\u201d, which defined a whole set of legal, political, economic, social, health and other measures and activities, and whose implementation was monitored by a commission composed also of representatives of Roma, Egyptians and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for such groups. The Government further maintained that Montenegro had worked on improving the living standards of Roma, particularly their living conditions, by building a number of residential units in several towns."], "id": "0003aa49-82be-4825-9539-c987fbd951ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant argued that according to the Court's case-law, a difference in treatment based on sexual orientation required very weighty reasons if it was to be accepted as compatible with the Convention. The Government had not been able to point to any legitimate aim served by the different treatment of same-sex couples. The reasoning of the majority in the House of Lords did not constitute an objective justification for the purposes of the Convention. The fact that it took much time and effort to draft, discuss and implement the Civil Partnership Act could not justify the previous discriminatory situation. The applicant also criticised the Government's reliance on the Mata Estevez decision. In her view, this had been superseded by the Court's judgment in Karner, which should be treated as a statement of general principle applicable to any comparisons between heterosexual and homosexual couples in analogous circumstances. Moreover, as that case arose out of a judgment of the Austrian Supreme Court of 1996, and since the Court did not attach any temporal limitation to the effects of its reasoning, it followed that equal treatment should have been secured as of that date. The applicant rejected the Government's argument that she could not complain of just one element of the child support system. Such an argument was repugnant to any modern equality law paradigm. The mere fact that, at the relevant time, the situation of heterosexual couples was subject to different principles did not explain why no comparison between the two groups was possible. Rather, the difference existed because of , and so could not be relied upon by the Government to defeat the applicant's claim."], "id": "3335fb78-7d17-48cb-b7eb-00cd23a5935f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant argued that the refusal to give him a retirement pension violated the principle of non- enshrined in Article 14 of the Convention combined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He considered that the domestic legislation discriminated against Evangelical ministers compared with Catholic priests, who had been admitted to the general Social Security scheme much earlier. Also, when Evangelical ministers were eventually admitted to the general Social Security scheme, unlike Catholic priests they were not given the possibility of using their previous years of service as ministers to make up the minimum period of contribution required to qualify for a retirement pension."], "id": "60883cda-dccf-4000-aeaa-bd0d5e830a95", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant also complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to pay him the widow's payment and widowed mother's allowance to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position constituted on grounds of sex contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. He made an identical complaint as regards his future non-entitlement to a widow's pension."], "id": "c94b3013-5f28-49c5-afe0-631be5cf5059", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government submitted that no breach of Article 14 could be found in the absence of an interference with Article 8. Moreover, the applicants had not established on which ground covered by the Convention they claimed to be suffering . Furthermore, the applicants had not been identified as being in an analogous situation to any person treated differently from them. Indeed, it had not been proved that other persons living in an \u201cinhabited area\u201d had been given preferential treatment. In actual fact, distances of sites for letting off fireworks were always measured from areas where at least a hundred people lived."], "id": "7957344c-3f4c-4230-ad37-2eb295dd55ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicants alleged that the fact that the civil unions introduced by Law no. 3719/2008 were designed only for couples composed of different-sex adults infringed their right to respect for their private and family life and amounted to unjustified between different-sex and same-sex couples, to the detriment of the latter. They relied on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. Those provisions read as follows:"], "id": "cec19af7-471c-41b1-9aff-3a301ee00c63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government pointed out that in its judgment of 15 January 2007 the Constitutional Court had found in favour of the applicant and allowed her amparo appeal in respect of her complaint concerning the principle of non\u2011 when in fact, as her child had reached the prescribed age limit by the time the execution proceedings were pending before the Constitutional Court, the applicant was no longer entitled to the reduced working hours she had applied for. In the Government\u2019s submission, the fact that it was materially impossible to execute the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment did not constitute a violation of the right to a fair hearing in this case, unlike the facts examined in the Hornsby judgment (cited above), which concerned the administrative authorities\u2019 delay in complying with court judgments."], "id": "0d0f295a-e840-4da4-a289-069f9b57b262", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant contested this view and maintained that if the relevant domestic legislation provided for exemptions from military or alternative civilian service, it should do so without any . During the time of his civilian service he had had to work forty hours a week and, thus, had been unable to perform his functions as a deacon and preacher and had had to limit the practice of his religion to his spare time."], "id": "a74027d0-29a6-4a4f-b2af-641875cb2e09", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant pointed to this aspect of the discriminatory nature of the Latvian Sentence Enforcement Code before the Constitutional Court in his third complaint. The latter, on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Law on the Constitutional Court, rejected it on the grounds that the legal reasoning in the complaint was insufficient. The majority concludes, and we can accept, that in his third complaint the applicant raised \u201cexpressly and in substance\u201d the complaint which he subsequently brought before this Court.[14]"], "id": "95f0812d-4e6d-450e-9852-0974b13c17a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant was unable to explain the increasing number of women registered as jurors from 1996 to 1997, but pointed out that the increase had only occurred three years after the 1994 amendments. The fact that the number of women selected as jurors was constantly growing might also be explained by the judgment given in his case by the Constitutional Court, in which a revision of the system of compiling the lists had been recommended. In any case, the complained of had lasted for at least twenty-six years, including the year when the applicant had lodged his complaint before the national courts."], "id": "8517f464-9f67-427e-83e8-dd4423f63206", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["85. The applicant complained that the ill-treatment he suffered and the refusal of the military prosecutor to indict the police officers responsible for the ill-treatment was in substantial part due to his Roma ethnicity, and therefore inconsistent with the requirement of non- laid down by Article 14 taken together with Articles 3 and 13. Article 14 of the Convention provides:"], "id": "b3ab3612-fafa-445c-91be-a8e54a679609", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government pointed out that only Mr Atanasov, and none of the other applicants, had brought proceedings before the Commission for Protection Against , at the close of which the Commission had recommended to Parliament to repeal the offending statutory provisions. The Government secondly argued that the applicants could have brought a claim under section 71(1) of the Protection Against Discrimination Act and obtained an award of damages."], "id": "d6adbb5f-ac12-44c1-a532-ce841d2d20a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government asserted that the application should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. They argued that on the facts of the case there was no issue of . In particular, they submitted that the domestic courts had refused to authorise the second applicant\u2019s adoption on the ground that his father had not consented and that it was not in the child\u2019s interests. Consequently, the legal impossibility for a homosexual to adopt his or her partner\u2019s child, resulting from Article 182 \u00a7 2 of the Civil Code, had not come into play. In the Government\u2019s view, the applicants were therefore requesting the Court to review this provision in the abstract."], "id": "441bdf1b-dad8-4c44-bb1d-70d78c4fd5b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants did not deny that it had been reasonable for the respondent State to seek to address the anomaly whereby industrial injury earnings-replacement benefits continued to be paid to workers after the age when they would, in any event, have ceased paid employment. There was, however, no justification for introducing sex-based into the scheme by linking the cut-off date to pension age. The same objective could have been achieved, without unacceptable financial consequences, by adopting a common age-limit for men and women and/or by the use of overlapping benefit regulations, ensuring that any State pension received was offset against REA. Other age-related benefits, such as winter fuel payment, prescription charges and bus passes were paid with a common age threshold."], "id": "9855ccf0-7015-4d41-9de3-ab82cd8347ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["110. The applicants challenged the Government's claim that the complaint should be declared inadmissible on account of a failure to exhaust the domestic remedies. They argued that an action under the Protection against Act was not a remedy that they were required to exhaust because it was neither effective nor available. The applicants noted that the Court had repeatedly held that there is no requirement that remedies that are neither adequate nor effective should be used (see, mutatis mutandis, Sak\u0131k and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 26 November 1997, Reports 1997\u2011VII, p. 2625, \u00a7 53) and that an individual must have clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act which is an interference with his or her rights (see De Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253\u2011B, p. 43, \u00a7 34 and Bellet v. France, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333\u2011B, p. 42, \u00a7 36). In respect of the lack of availability of the remedy claimed by the Government, the applicants noted that the Protection against Discrimination Act entered into force close to four years after they had lodged their complaints with the Court. With regard to its effectiveness, they argued that an action for damages, be it based on anti-discrimination legislation or general tort law, could not remedy the substance of their complaint before the Court, which was that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the death of their relative and to prosecute the perpetrators. Moreover, an action under the Act would be directed against the investigation authorities and would require the applicants to prove discriminatory treatment by them on the basis of race, of which there was no direct evidence. Thus, the applicants claimed that there was no clear link between the complaints they raised before the Court and the remedy suggested by the Government."], "id": "76e71e98-fb57-4201-9473-3ca78bfc9b29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant submitted that the Court of Cassation had \u201chad an obligation\u201d, in the circumstances of the case, to rule the dismissal unfair on the ground of . He considered that he had been treated less favourably than his colleagues on account of his health. If he had not contracted the virus, his colleagues would not have refused to work with him and his employer would not have dismissed him. If it were a well-established principle in Greece that an HIV-positive employee could not be dismissed, employees who harboured prejudice would know that they could not obtain a dismissal, would not disrupt the operation of the company, and would refrain from interfering in the professional and private life of the employee in question. In the present case the motives of the employees were inseparable from those of the employer and it could not be claimed that the dismissal was not discriminatory on the pretext that the employer\u2019s motives, taken alone, constituted valid grounds for dismissal."], "id": "664482e2-f2ad-4e9b-a497-8ba10b794a59", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government denied that the scheme involved any on the grounds of nationality or poverty. Any discrimination on the ground of nationality was justified by reference to the legitimate objective of immigration control. Moreover, insofar as the level of the fee was alleged to be too high, that issue ought to be considered under Article 12 and not under Article 14."], "id": "2ab355a6-fdaf-4bc9-8b24-f69d03c5dc7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant complained that, since the wearing in public of clothing designed to conceal the face was prohibited by law on pain of a criminal sanction, if she wore the full-face veil in a public place she would expose herself to a risk not only of sanctions but also of harassment and , which would constitute degrading treatment. She relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:"], "id": "c3bbbe8b-8b0f-4176-92bf-d7886c92641e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant argued that even if the flowed from primary legislation it would nonetheless have been possible to provide some sensible intermediate form of relief and pointed to the later introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, which provided for a declaration of incompatibility of legislation and the European Union provisions which had the effect of setting aside domestic primary legislation which conflicted with EC law."], "id": "f875f69d-0a64-4f73-837c-df5a546ac4eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant complained that the refusal to grant her a survivor\u2019s pension, on the ground that her marriage solemnised according to the rites of the Roma minority to which she belonged had no civil effects, infringed the principle of non- recognised by Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The provisions in question read as follows:"], "id": "b8b79951-f7f4-4106-be35-2b050479b476", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government emphasised that there was no obligation to treat in the same manner those who had complied with the statutory formalities and those who, without being prevented from doing so, had not complied with them. The statutory requirement that there had to be a legal marital relationship for a survivor\u2019s pension entitlement to be granted did not constitute on racial or ethnic grounds. The refusal to grant the said pension to the applicant stemmed solely from her free and voluntary decision not to observe the statutory formalities of marriage, which were not based on the fact of belonging to a particular race, nor on the traditions, habits or customs of a particular ethnic group to the detriment of others. Those formalities did not therefore constitute direct or indirect discrimination against the Roma community."], "id": "0e11db53-3305-4bde-9a06-0b8fa60cefde", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant submitted that the of widows and widowers under the amended Pension Act in fact prolongates the discrimination of widows and widowers in respect of entitlement to a survivor\u2019s pension before 1 January 1995. He maintained that there is no reason why excessive benefits should only be prevented when paying survivor pensions to widowers but not also to widows who had acquired a survivor\u2019s pension before 1 January 1995. He submitted that his position as a widower was just as well worth protecting than those of widows."], "id": "a986ac8a-7f93-48d0-8364-463756040f9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant also stated that she had provided all the requisite documents within the stipulated time-limits. The medical report presented to the Music Academy had stipulated that she could receive education in the sections of the Music Academy that did not require eyesight. She submitted that other students had been enrolled even though their medical reports had merely stated \u201ccan attend college\u201d, \u201ccan be enrolled at university\u201d or \u201ccan study at the Music Academy\u201d, such that the refusal to enrol her had not been based on sound reasons but solely on the fact of her blindness, which proved that there had been ."], "id": "adc8b657-dc74-4331-89bb-85914a1ce9f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government maintained that the applicant had not suffered . In the first place, it argued that the situation of same-sex couples at the material time had not been analogous to that of heterosexual couples since the child support legislation and the wider legislative regime for social security benefits treated the groups according to fundamentally different principles for all purposes. This entailed both beneficial and detrimental effects for the two groups. It was therefore artificial and inappropriate for the applicant to isolate just one element of a much wider interlocking set of rules governing entitlement to a variety of State benefits. In many respects, the situation before the entry into force of the Civil Partnership Act had been advantageous for same-sex couples. To properly assess the applicant's situation, it would be necessary to take account of the entirety of the benefits and burdens in the system as a whole. But as soon as the wider perspective was adopted, the applicant could no longer be regarded as being in a comparable or analogous situation for the purpose of analysis under Article 14. If the applicant's arguments were to be accepted, it would follow that heterosexual couples would be able in turn to complain of any provision of the child support and State welfare system that treated them less favourably than the members of a same-sex couple. This would create a \u201cratchet effect\u201d whereby in the end everyone would have to be assessed on the best possible basis that anyone might have at any stage in the calculation. This would lead to a situation where everyone would receive every available benefit, and any burden would be disregarded altogether."], "id": "345f447e-8647-4b4a-b886-4cc7aace1ef6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["111. The applicants submitted that they were being treated differently both from pensioners who had had lower salaries and whose pensions thus fell below the cap, and from the high officials to whose pensions the cap did not apply. That difference in treatment concerned rights protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and could therefore be examined under Article 14. There were no grounds to treat the applicants differently from pensioners whose pensions fell below the cap, for the same reasons as those set out in relation to the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. That differential treatment did not pursue a legitimate aim. However, even if it were to be accepted that the money saved as a result of the cap could be used to make payments to other pensioners, the effects of the measure were disproportionate. The interference with the applicants\u2019 pension rights, which had become permanent, was quite serious, because they received only a fraction of their full pensions; at the same time, capping the pensions of only 2% of all pensioners could not have a significant effect on the pensions of others. In 2009 those arguments had led the Commission for Protection Against to find that the cap amounted to indirect discrimination. Lastly, the applicants submitted that it was not justified to treat them differently from persons who had held high office. Like them the applicants had been subjected to restrictions regarding the taking up of new employment."], "id": "bc6a7e3b-d6eb-4d41-8b7a-af5431727a00", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants\u2019 core submission was that there was a fundamental difference in the level of justification required for a progressive move to eradicate existing sex in the pension system and the introduction, from 1986, of new discrimination in relation to industrial injury benefits which had existed on equal terms for men and women for almost forty years. The labour market had already changed by 1986, and ten years earlier the Sex Discrimination Act 1976 and the European Community\u2019s Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC had rendered discrimination in the field of employment unlawful. The assumption that a woman\u2019s working life would be five years shorter than a man\u2019s was therefore entirely illegitimate."], "id": "606a91a8-0526-40b4-bec9-f1e76029a1a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant submitted that he had suffered in the enjoyment of his rights under Article 8 on the ground of his illegitimate status and/or the sex of his Maltese parent. Indeed, had the applicant\u2019s parents been married, he would have fallen within the parameters of section 5(2)(b) of the Maltese Citizenship Act; However, he fell outside that provision because of his illegitimacy. Moreover, had the applicant\u2019s mother been Maltese the applicant could have obtained citizenship; he failed to do so because it was his father who was Maltese. The applicant was in an analogous situation to any other child with a Maltese father and a foreign mother and who fulfilled all the criteria of section 5(2)(b), and like them would have become a Maltese citizen had it not been for his illegitimate status. This status transpired from his birth certificate, and irrespective of whether his father had voluntarily recognised him or whether there had been a judicial determination to that effect, he was not eligible for citizenship owing to his status."], "id": "cbc451f0-aa49-4542-84ff-163d7d174775", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicants contended that Article 57 of the Russian Criminal Code established a sentencing policy which differentiated on the basis of sex and age with regard to life imprisonment. The Court notes that \u201csex\u201d is explicitly mentioned in Article 14 as a prohibited ground of and that it has previously accepted that \u201cage\u201d is also a concept covered by this provision (see Schwizgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, \u00a7 85, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and Nelson, cited above)."], "id": "20f8180a-cae4-4030-881c-2858ddc3e400", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicants observed that the Commission\u2019s recommendation was not binding for Parliament. Even if Parliament chose to act on it and repeal the impugned provisions, that would not provide the applicants with any redress in respect of past losses. As for the possibility to bring a claim under the Protection Against Act, it had to be borne in mind that under section 74(2), where the alleged damage was a result of actions or omissions of State bodies, those concerned had to bring proceedings under the State Responsibility for Damage Act, which did not envisage the liability of Parliament. It was therefore not possible to pursue such a claim with success."], "id": "18a1446e-93b3-4970-b8c0-a1ac9a3510de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["183. The applicants\u2019 allegation in the present case is not that they were in a different situation from non-Roma children that called for different treatment or that the respondent State had failed to take affirmative action to correct factual inequalities or differences between them (see Thlimmenos, cited above, \u00a7 44, and Stec and Others, cited above, \u00a7 51). In their submission, all that has to be established is that, without objective and reasonable justification, they were treated less favourably than non-Roma children in a comparable situation and that this amounted in their case to indirect ."], "id": "70babec0-5f04-4e55-81af-636f525266d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicant pointed out that both the child\u2019s mother and the legal father were entitled to challenge paternity notwithstanding the existence of a social and family relationship between the child and the legal father. According to the applicant, there were no relevant reasons which justified such different treatment. This was further exacerbated by the fact that the growing intensity of the social and family relationship between the legal father and the child during the paternity proceedings had not impaired the mother\u2019s right to contest paternity. Furthermore, it had to be borne in mind that children, when challenging paternity, did not have to take into account their own social relationship with their mother and legal father. By contrast, the biological father was precluded from challenging paternity even if this would serve the child\u2019s best interests."], "id": "66de4515-6deb-41f9-816e-6fd2cc4bb593", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant also claimed EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the emotional pain and suffering caused by the violation of her rights under Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention. She stressed that as a result of the actions of the School's authorities she had been discriminated against on the basis of her religious beliefs and that the domestic courts had failed to provide redress for her complaints. In addition, the applicant claimed that, on account of the accompanying media campaigns during the period, she had also suffered significant public prejudice. Accordingly, she had been unable to find employment for a considerable length of time and had had to start work as a self-employed trader at an open-air market. Lastly, the applicant argued that the domestic courts' refusal to examine in substance her complaint had further contributed to her feeling of distress and helplessness, and had increased her emotional suffering."], "id": "e37808d1-8d48-475c-8748-259dab8e03fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant argued that there was a \u201cright\u201d under domestic law to be free from sex , as evidenced by her first successful claim against the Embassy. Sovereign immunity did not extinguish the right but simply prevented the courts from examining disputes thereon. Moreover, the right was \u201ccivil\u201d. The posts for which she had applied did not fall within the scope of the Pellegrin exception. They were of a strictly administrative or secretarial character and they would neither have required nor enabled her to wield a portion of the State\u2019s sovereign power. "], "id": "d2714bf5-ed7b-49d2-999c-0bc85fc1dbdc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government submitted that the decision to grant a residence order in respect of the second applicant in favour of the mother had been based on the best interests of the child. There had therefore been no . The Government referred to the case of Tiemann v. France and Germany ((dec.), nos. 47457/99 and 47458/99, 27 April 2000) where the decisions to grant a residence order to the mother had been found to be in the bests interests of the children and therefore compatible with Article 8 of the Convention. Like in Tiemann, the first applicant in the present case had been trying to separate the second applicant from his mother. In such circumstances the domestic courts had achieved a balance between the interests of the first applicant, the second applicant and M., in particular by granting the first applicant contact rights. Despite the fact that the second applicant lived in another town, the first applicant could still visit him and maintain contact by other means."], "id": "3345b6a8-52c5-4b91-9779-93ea5196ecc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the court decisions refusing joint custody had infringed his right to respect for his family life, and under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that the application of Article 1626a \u00a7 2 of the Civil Code amounted to unjustified against unmarried fathers on the grounds of sex and in comparison with divorced fathers."], "id": "9d5949a0-9101-4a78-9bb9-94b9e7d39b77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant, who owns land included in the hunting grounds of an approved municipal hunters\u2019 association, complained of the fact that, as he was not opposed to hunting for ethical reasons and the surface area of his land fell below a certain threshold, he was unable to have the land removed from the association\u2019s hunting grounds in order to derive benefit from it by leasing it for hunting. He alleged on the ground of property, relying on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These two provisions read as follows:"], "id": "0e55b7ac-38d1-464e-b20e-1ad8ffc6f984", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant company submitted that by adopting the administrative circular abandoning proceedings against companies that had not paid the VAT, the authorities had been guilty of by giving those who had defaulted on their tax an advantage over law-abiding taxpayers; that discrimination had been compounded by the authorities' failure to take action to refund the sums which the law-abiding taxpayers had paid in error. "], "id": "054140aa-169c-401a-9412-13b5acb0f89b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government considered that the applicant's arguments to the effect that the difference of treatment of same-sex couples was demonstrative of a lack of respect by the State for a most intimate aspect of private life, and that it exerted a coercive effect on her freedom to make decisions about her sexual orientation, were theoretical constructs rather than factual observations. The implication of these arguments would be that any difference in treatment referable in any way to sexual orientation would engage Article 14 even in the absence of a link to substantive Convention rights. The correct approach was to have regard to the real factual implications of the circumstances of each given case and take account of how remote the facts were from the core value of the substantive right at issue. Here there was no discernible impact on the applicant's private life. She was effectively inviting the Court to dispense with any ambit threshold and establish a free-standing prohibition on on grounds of sexual orientation."], "id": "f7ff87c4-c1f9-4030-9037-786187707308", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government contended that the application was inadmissible, since the complaint fell outside the scope of Article 8 of the Convention and, consequently, Article 14. In any event, unlike in Frett\u00e9 (Frett\u00e9 v. France, no. 36515/97, \u00a7 32, ECHR 2002-I), the refusal to grant the applicant authorisation had not been based, explicitly or implicitly, on the applicant's sexual orientation and could not therefore amount to direct or indirect based on her homosexuality."], "id": "23af3687-17ce-4d4f-b78e-047e56031f48", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government submitted, in the alternative, that the two categories were not in the same situation. Where the disability had been directly caused by medical negligence, the negligence preceded the disability, was the cause of it and was therefore the original source of the prejudice sustained by the parents through the birth of a disabled child. In the applicants\u2019 case, the negligence had not been the direct cause of the disability, which already existed. The only prejudice it had occasioned lay in not having an abortion, or in not having the possibility of aborting. As the causal links between the medical negligence and the disability were different in the two cases, they \u2013 rightly, in the Government\u2019s opinion \u2013 formed the rationale for two different sets of liability rules. It could not therefore be concluded that there had been since the situations were not the same."], "id": "837b840e-b50e-488b-af53-bc48e3ebc06c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government submitted that, in accordance with the Italo-Swiss Convention, the INPS paid out pensions after taking into consideration the working period in Switzerland and contributions paid there, in order to avoid the above-mentioned advantage. In the case of individuals who had not contested the amounts paid by the INPS, the latter was the final decision in respect of the amount of pension. Those who opted to contest that amount could only hope for a favourable outcome. However, the practical effects of Law 296/2006 were that the judicial decisions of the pending proceedings confirmed the original amount awarded by the INPS. Thus, there had been no , particularly because Law 296/2006 aimed to establish a homogenous situation while eliminating unjustified privileges for persons who had worked abroad. In the Government\u2019s subsequent observations, referring to a report prepared by the INPS, they submitted that any favourable treatment enjoyed by persons whose pensions had already been liquidated was an inevitable situation, in view of the necessity of the Government to regulate possessions in the general interest."], "id": "b639c2ae-7ebf-4f62-a3dc-b09872dcc408", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted on the ground of his religion, prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 9."], "id": "b9e31d34-9780-441b-a712-38fa81be92eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government referred to paragraph 53 of the Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment ([GC], no. 65731/01, ECHR 2006\u2011VI) and did not dispute the fact that if a State decided to set up a benefits or pension scheme it must do so in a manner compatible with Article 14 of the Convention. They noted, however, that the ministers of the various churches had been brought into the Social Security scheme at different moments in time for practical reasons and not through , and they pointed out, citing the Stec judgment (cited above, \u00a7 49), that the State enjoyed a broad margin of appreciation in such matters. The Government further noted that the inclusion of the ministers of the different faiths in the Social Security scheme was possible only if there existed a prior agreement with the State, under which the faith concerned took on certain obligations vis-\u00e0-vis the State; they referred to Royal Decree 369/1999 (see paragraph 23 above)."], "id": "a93b9d00-026c-4f54-85e2-81726a63f0b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicants also complained that the loss of their former jobs and the subsequent employment restrictions under Article 2 of the Act also breached Article 10 of the Convention (which guarantees freedom of expression), and constituted in breach of Article 14 of the Convention. The Court observes however that in the Sidabras and D\u017eiautas case it found no scope for the application of Article 10 of the Convention, either alone or taken together with Article 14 of the Convention (loc. cit., \u00a7\u00a7 64-73). The Court finds no basis on which to distinguish the present cases from that conclusion."], "id": "e4d6915a-6d04-45dd-b974-52ed58cae8a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["129. The Government asserted that the applicants had enjoyed the same protection of their rights and freedoms as all other Russian citizens. In particular, they had made use of their right to strike and had applied to the State Labour Inspectorate and to various prosecutors' offices. As to the court action seeking a finding of , the Government referred to the decision of the Kaliningrad Regional Court to the effect that the applicants' complaint concerned, in substance, an alleged violation of equality between individuals and as such was to be determined in criminal proceedings under Article 136 of the Criminal Code. They further submitted that since 1997 six persons had been convicted under this provision. The Government pointed out that the applicants had failed to challenge the decisions of the prosecutor's office not to institute criminal proceedings for alleged discrimination, and thus had not exhausted the available domestic remedies."], "id": "0893e59e-5006-4efc-807b-888fbb845fe0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["85. The Government contended that there had been no of the applicants in respect of the first applicant\u2019s status as a registered recognised community, as the criteria introduced by section 11 of the 1998 Religious Communities Act had already corresponded to the administrative authorities\u2019 practice for granting recognition under the 1874 Recognition Act before the entry into force of the 1998 Act. In respect of the ten-year waiting period for registered religious communities, the Government referred to the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding of 3 March 2001 (VfSlg. 12.102/2001) that that requirement served the legitimate aim of ensuring that the competent authority could verify during this period of time whether the religious community was ready to integrate into the existing legal order, in particular whether it performed unlawful activities as a consequence of which legal personality had to be withdrawn (section 9(2) and section 5(1) of the Religious Communities Act). Examples of such unlawful activities were incitement to commit criminal offences, endangering the psychological development of minors, violating the psychological integrity of persons or using psychotherapeutic methods to disseminate its religious beliefs."], "id": "dd6d9522-ed6f-48c1-a25a-ce0d41d4b530", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicants acknowledged that in assessing evidence the standard of proof applied by the Court was that of \u201cproof beyond reasonable doubt\u201d, but noted that the Court had made it clear that that standard had not be interpreted as requiring such a high degree of probability as in criminal trials. They affirmed that the burden of proof had to shift to the respondent Government when the claimant established a prima facie case of ."], "id": "f9211e7b-8121-4710-b06a-cd3b39295a94", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government argued that in the instant case no provisions, acts or omissions of the public authorities had exposed the applicants to treatment less favourable than that to which other persons in an analogous situation would have been subjected. There was no indication that their treatment had been based on any prohibited grounds. Consequently, the applicants had not suffered in the enjoyment of their freedom of assembly contrary to Article 14 of the Convention."], "id": "284d53e7-803f-4097-9e31-4b9d18640049", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government submitted, as their main argument, that the two categories were not in the same situation. Where the disability had been directly caused by medical negligence, the negligence preceded the disability, was the cause of it and was therefore the original source of the prejudice sustained by the parents through the birth of a disabled child. In the applicants\u2019 case, the negligence had not been the direct cause of the disability, which already existed. The only prejudice it had occasioned lay in not having an abortion, or in not having the possibility of aborting. As the causal links between the medical negligence and the disability were different in the two cases, they \u2013 rightly, in the Government\u2019s opinion \u2013 formed the rationale for two different sets of liability rules. It could not therefore be concluded that there had been since the situations were not the same."], "id": "8be96280-6dd1-4ea3-85c1-e0cde66464cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant added that the Court of Cassation had given no reasons for refusing to seek a preliminary ruling and had misunderstood the \u201cpersonal\u201d and \u201cmaterial\u201d aspects of the non- principle, which were two quite separate concepts. The allowance in question had been placed in the \u201csocial assistance\u201d category solely on the basis of domestic law, without reference to the criteria established by the CJEU (namely the statutory nature and dual function of the benefit and its connection to one of the risks referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71). Hence, the \u201cCommunity\u201d dimension of that categorisation operation had been overlooked. In the applicant\u2019s submission, it was clear from the European legislation and the case-law of the CJEU that State\u2011funded \u201cnon-contributory\u201d benefits could not be automatically excluded from the scope of the non-discrimination principle established by the Agreement (the applicant cited, by way of example, the cases of Yousfi, Case C-58/93, judgment of 20 April 1994, concerning the granting of a disability allowance; Commission v. Greece, Case C-185/96, judgment of 29 October 1998, concerning various categories of benefits for large families; and Hughes, Case C-78/91, judgment of 16 July 1992, on the subject of the \u201cfamily credit\u201d in the United Kingdom). On the basis of his references to that case-law, the Court of Cassation should either, of its own accord, have included the allowance he was claiming within the scope of Regulation no. 1408/71, by analogy, or referred the question to the CJEU, which had not yet ruled on the nature of this particular allowance."], "id": "0f8f55b1-e670-456c-a06e-17274ca1f17f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant further maintained that he had submitted truthful data about his place of residence and that he had been forced to leave Ukraine on account of his persecution by the authorities on political grounds. He alleged that the Central Electoral Commission and the Supreme Court had restricted his right to stand for election, contrary to Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which prohibits on the ground of residence."], "id": "1245986c-cdfb-43df-8ae7-707b4bad3aee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["127. The applicants contended that the generic anti- provisions in the Russian legislation to which the Government referred were ineffectual in the absence of a working mechanism for their implementation and application. As to the Government's reliance on the provisions of criminal law, they had failed to show that anyone had ever been charged, tried or convicted under Article 136 of the Criminal Code."], "id": "cc3d7093-7c0a-4d05-9655-361bfc50f4c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicants complain that the non-enrolment of their Romani children for the 2004-2005 school year is due to inertia and to the competent authorities\u2019 omissions. In addition, they see based on race and ethnicity in the fact that their children have had to attend special preparatory classes, held in separate rooms in the main building of the primary school of Aspropyrgos, where the other children from a comparable situation are welcomed. They invoke, in this respect, Articles 2 of Protocol No. 1 and 14 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "6816b2fb-65cf-42a8-b754-fa66833b5054", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["123. The applicants also alleged that their conviction amounted to a violation of Article 9 of the Convention (freedom of conscience), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of association) and Article 14 (the prohibition on discrimination). After the events in Moscow in August 1991, the CPL/CPSU was banned, and its leaders convicted of crimes against the State. However, the Convention guarantees the rights of political parties without . The applicants claimed that the domestic court assessment of the facts and law in their case had been wrong, that the CPL/CPSU had been a party upholding the principles of democracy, and that their activities within the CPL/CPSU and its subsidiary organisations could not have been foreseen as constituting criminal offences at the material time. The applicants stated that they had thus been unjustly punished in the exercise of their beliefs as communists, their legitimate work as journalists, their right of association with other individuals, and their support for the idea of Lithuania\u2019s continuing membership of the USSR during politically turbulent times."], "id": "5b384732-f850-4c56-a2f7-4ea56cd0ed4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant argued that the respondent State discriminated against him by refusing to grant him an old-age pension on the grounds of nationality criterion enshrined in the 1998 Act. Between 1 November 1998 and 1 April 2003 he had not received any pension or other benefits which had, consequently, seriously affected his life. He maintained that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions and in particular, the fact that he had been granted an advance on his military pension until the enactment of the 1998 Act showed that he had not participated in aggression against Slovenia following its declaration of independence. He submitted that it was unacceptable for the Government to assume that in general all military personnel of the YPA without Slovenian citizenship had participated in hostilities against Slovenia. The applicant further argued that the protection of the economic system could not justify on the basis of nationality in his case."], "id": "95355560-5152-4c85-8a0b-bc0fa17bdf78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant claimed to have been a victim of on the ground of his sexual orientation in that the Supreme Court, in its decision of 5 December 1996, had denied him the status of \u201clife companion\u201d of the late Mr W. within the meaning of section 14 of the Rent Act, thereby preventing him from succeeding to Mr W.'s tenancy. He relied on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, which provide as follows: "], "id": "c201c0ca-a2e9-462a-8997-8966b7fdc450", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government noted that Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention prohibited in relation to \u201cany right set forth by law\u201d. While its scope was therefore broader than that of Article 14, it was not unlimited. The Government submitted that for Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to be applicable it was first necessary to establish whether the right in question was actually \u201cset forth by law\u201d. That being so, the Government pointed out that the Religious Communities Act and the Family Act provided for a possibility rather than an obligation to conclude an agreement between the Government of Croatia and one or more religious communities on issues of common interest in order to regulate, inter alia, religious education in public schools and nurseries and recognise the civil effects of religious marriages. Accordingly, the applicant churches could not claim that they had \u201cany right set forth by law\u201d in this regard."], "id": "c23b4bd6-c2c0-4ab8-87fb-9b1d21f479e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant submitted that the House of Lords judgment had defined the term \u201cambit\u201d so narrowly as to render imperceptible the difference between interference with a Convention right and in the enjoyment of it. If the equality guarantee of Article 14 was to be practical and effective, that difference should be real and significant. In view of the importance of equality as a fundamental principle of democracy, it was appropriate to give Article 14 an expansive meaning, and to construe \u201cambit\u201d broadly, as it was the cornerstone of the protective scope of the provision. States were required simply to justify differences in treatment as between classes of persons that were based on one or more of the protected grounds. This was no greater an obligation on the State than could properly be expected in a modern liberal democracy. She refuted the Government's assumption that there had to be significant interference or impairment with a right in order to satisfy the ambit test. The threshold for the engagement of Article 14 was altogether different and less exacting than the threshold for interference. To fall within the general scope of Article 8, it was sufficient for the complaint in issue to relate in some material way to a person's private or family life, or home."], "id": "9b539bc9-a17a-48d2-8061-4f04a73e00f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government submitted that the applicant must demonstrate that there was a relevant difference in treatment, that it had no legitimate aim and that the treatment was not proportionate to that aim. While he was undoubtedly treated differently to other minors, adults and citizens, that is not the relevant distinction. The real question is whether he was treated differently to other minors in the same position and he clearly was not \u2013 any other minor with the same problems would have been treated similarly. Even if the Court finds that he was treated differently to other minors, the Government argue that any such treatment had a legitimate aim and was proportionate. The applicant maintained his allegations of ."], "id": "5094810e-a3a6-4152-9746-bb715d7650aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant submitted that he had properly exhausted remedies before the administrative authorities and the Constitutional Court. In particular, his complaints at the domestic level concerning the alleged by dint of unfair application of the tax legislation had not been so different as to require a separate examination of the discrimination from the property complaint. Accordingly, by properly exhausting the administrative remedies he had not been required to pursue any other remedy under the Prevention of Discrimination Act with the same objective since it was the Court\u2019s well-established case-law that in the case of several potentially effective remedies an applicant was required only to use one of them. At all events, the Constitutional Court had not declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which suggested that he had properly exhausted the relevant remedies before the administrative authorities. The applicant also emphasised that he had properly raised his complaints before the Constitutional Court, complaining in substance of a discriminatory violation of his property rights related to an unfair application of the tax legislation."], "id": "c4c365cb-b018-4883-9203-f03c4d31a208", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that the immunity in question, being attached to a function provided for in the Constitution, did not breach either the principle of the equality of citizens before the law or the prohibition of . Its purpose was neither to create a \u201cprivileged\u201d class nor to allow parliamentarians to make arbitrary use of their privileges. On the contrary, it pursued the legitimate aim of allowing Parliament to debate any issue relevant to public life freely and openly without its members having to fear persecution or possible legal consequences."], "id": "86fa43fe-8615-4892-a011-79edbd257fa9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government submitted that, unlike in the case of Moldovan and Others (no. 2), the applicants in the present case had failed to prove that they had been forced to live in cramped and unhygienic conditions. In addition, they argued that, except for the first applicant\u2019s statement given before the public prosecutor on 19 January 1995, there was no other evidence in the file that proved that the applicants had had the same address and living conditions between 1994 and 2000 as Petru (D\u00eegal\u0103) L\u0103c\u0103tu\u015f and M.F.Z. From the documents submitted by the Government, it appeared that their registered address during that period had been an address in the village of Voiniceni, and that from 2001 their living conditions had improved after they had moved. Moreover, there was no evidence in the file that the first applicant had been the owner of a house in the village of H\u0103d\u0103reni at the time of the events. Furthermore, although the first applicant alleged that she had been forced to leave the village after the events, she had failed to notify the authorities of any alleged damage she might have suffered. Lastly, the applicants had failed to bring criminal proceedings or proceedings before the National Council for Combating concerning the alleged abusive or discriminatory actions of the authorities and of private individuals."], "id": "dc51ff87-4b1f-4b5c-a9a1-8359d60707c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant also sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage, arguing that the and alleged attacks against their human dignity had caused his family severe suffering. He further complained about political persecution. He claimed a total of EUR 200,000 under this head. He additionally claimed a sum of EUR 200,000 as compensation for the violation of the Convention to the detriment of thousands of families."], "id": "49b56337-4637-4d6d-9882-88d3727f5400", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicants maintained in the first place that the child, who had not chosen her situation, had been the subject of unjustified . Although an adoptive mother had been designated for her in all conscience and according to a well-organised procedure by the authorities of her country of origin, the adoptive tie was denied by the Luxembourg courts. The minor child thus suffered discrimination by comparison with another Peruvian child who had been adopted by a Luxembourg married couple and whose family ties had been recognised in Luxembourg, even if the couple had subsequently separated or if one of the parents had subsequently died."], "id": "4817368e-685b-4c77-a98c-f02831635185", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government noted that the applicant had not personally suffered any discrimination on grounds of religion. None of the judicial decisions had referred to her religion as grounds for applying Sharia law to her situation or refusing to recognise her as inheriting all the bequeathed . The application of Sharia law to the applicant\u2019s case had been based not on her own situation, but on the specific category of property concerned. The decision not to apply Article 1724 of the Civil Code had been based on the nature of the estate, which consisted of property \u201cheld in full ownership\u201d."], "id": "fb01aaf1-55b4-4ac9-aec6-956d1116bd19", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government relied on the findings of a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for National and Ethnic Minority Rights, according to which \u201cby means of two weeks of continuous presence, the police was able to ensure that no violence against people or took place and the aggression remained at the level of words\u201d. They stated that the Hungarian authorities had taken all the necessary steps to protect the Roma minority in Gy\u00f6ngy\u00f6spata by policing the rallies."], "id": "a469a3b3-804a-4c54-b0db-518ae706980e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["120. The Government argued that the applicants\u2019 (unrealistic) expectation that dwellings constructed before the Second World War with private funds (and not with social resources) and nationalised under the socialist system would not be returned to their \u201cprevious owners\u201d was based on a misinterpretation of the nature of the occupancy right. They pointed out that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 should apply only to a person\u2019s existing possessions. The occupancy right did not confer ownership rights and the dwellings had been allocated to the applicants for \u201cmanagement\u201d and permanent use. In compliance with the social order then in force, they had to recognise the authority of the \u201cindirect possessor\u201d of the so-called \u201csocially-owned property\u201d (which according to the then applicable principles of real- law was jointly owned by the people of Slovenia). The possession of the dwelling was linked to the duration of the occupancy relationship, but was not based on a permanent and inalienable right to ownership or another right in rem. This was demonstrated, inter alia, by the fact that for a certain period of time the occupancy right could even be allocated in respect of privately owned flats."], "id": "33a392ab-d6fa-43cc-bb3a-486fe81bc904", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["157. The Government also considered that the relevant law and practice had not imposed on the applicants an excessive burden. While it was true that the modalities of compensation changed several times, that was the reflection of State policy priorities and the availability of State resources. Compensation by bonds was a normal practice in a number of countries from Central and Eastern Europe. In Bulgaria, bonds could be traded in accordance with the relevant stock exchange rules and in July 2005, for example, they were traded at 70 % of their face value. The Government also referred to the fact that in accordance with the relevant law and practice the pre-nationalisation owners were entitled to restitution but could not claim compensation for damage or changes in the since the nationalisation in the 1940s. It was therefore justified that the post\u2011nationalisation owners, who had to return the apartments they had possessed on the strength of a void title, could not claim compensation for improvements they had made. In the Government's view, this solution struck a fair balance between all interests involved."], "id": "b3c6808a-1974-4588-820a-b4a68f2e7a5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant, who also relied on the Court's findings in Gaygusuz, contested the Government's arguments as to the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She argued that, in that case too, there had been no link between contributions paid and benefits received under the domestic emergency-assistance scheme. She submitted that pecuniary claims on the basis of statutory rules or regulations were closely linked to a person's social security and subsistence and thus of equal weight to other rights. They therefore had to be considered as falling within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. "], "id": "1f4bf696-be5c-4189-a210-a66906d4767b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government, for their part, maintained that these claims were manifestly excessive. They submitted that since, under Andorran law, the first applicant\u2019s father could have kept for himself half the assets inherited from his mother, the Government were liable for only half the value of the estate in question, this being the assets that had to be transferred to the first applicant. They did not accept the applicants\u2019 valuation of the assets. According to their expert\u2019s valuation, the H\u00f4tel Pla was worth EUR 661,885. The aggregate value of the other (land) was EUR 89,281. In all, the Pla family\u2019s fortune had to be estimated at a maximum of EUR 751,166, to be reduced by one half: one quarter being the reserved portion of the estate and a further quarter being the amount of which the life tenant (the first applicant\u2019s father) could freely dispose. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, the Government submitted that the finding of a violation would constitute in itself adequate just satisfaction."], "id": "2a32eaab-0a0c-45d2-9ffa-b92034670b2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicants pointed out that the 2009 amendments had applied to all pre-1995 leases and as such should also have applied in their case. However, the very fact that they had not obtained anything out of the new law (since the rental value of their at EUR 466 per year at the termination of the emphyteusis had already been higher than EUR 185) showed that that law, which was meant to address the imbalance in controlled leases, had failed to differentiate sufficiently between properties and had not ensured that all the owners could benefit from some increase in rent in order to lessen the gap between the established rent and the prevailing fair market rent."], "id": "25877894-4613-4314-baf5-58882da63c40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["376. The applicant further complained under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the destruction of his and the Orhans' home, and possessions represented a serious violation of their right to respect for their private and family lives and their homes and of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. He also argued that his expulsion from his home, village and community represented a separate and serious violation of his rights under these provisions. The Government disputed that there was any such military operation in Deveboyu as alleged or at all."], "id": "16c9cccf-5d2c-4747-9108-742cb4381e84", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["628. The Government further submitted that the procedure for compulsory recovery of arrears of mandatory tax payments had been used in respect of the applicant company, that such tax payments were recovered by way of charging the company\u2019s cash flows on bank accounts, that in the case of insufficient or non-existent funds, the recovery of tax was carried out using the taxpayer\u2019s assets and that the whole procedure was described in detail in the domestic legislation and had been followed by the authorities. In the circumstances, the measures represented the control of the use of and were in full compliance with the Convention."], "id": "d8da6b8c-20dd-463a-b9e5-1f99a476a080", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["109. The Government submitted that the applicant had not been discriminated against in the instant case. The Court of Cassation had confirmed its established case-law and pursued the aim of protecting the Muslim minority in Greece by applying the special law of succession uniformly applicable to a specific category of belonging to Greek Muslims. In doing so it had protected the specific nature of such property and of its owners, avoiding any infringement of the principle of equality. The settled case-law of the Court of Cassation pursued an aim of overriding public interest in a complex multidimensional area entailing, in particular, respect for and protection of the Thrace Muslim minority, a legitimate aim which was also connected with Greece\u2019s fulfilment of its obligations under international law. It was unthinkable that that aim could be achieved in any other way, in view of the complexity of the many parameters involved, which transcended the individual case."], "id": "e5412a13-1874-489a-b459-a92e584d524a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government accepted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights, but considered that such interference had been lawful, that it had pursued a legitimate aim of securing public finances and that it had been proportionate. Specifically, the Government stressed that the State enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in tax matters and that the domestic authorities had been best placed to assess individual cases. In the applicant\u2019s case, the domestic authorities had sufficiently taken into account his personal situation but had considered that he could not be exempted from taxation as he had not met the requirements under the relevant domestic law."], "id": "e4612aff-4f14-41ee-a2e5-56102d37b18f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government considered that the Court at this stage in the proceedings, and in the absence of a comprehensive and final settlement of the issue, should not proceed to determine the title over the properties or award compensation without, at least, allowing the \u201cTRNC\u201d authorities time and an opportunity to consider their Compensation Law in the light of its decision on the admissibility of the instant case. Further, the award of compensation to individual applicants such as the present one would seriously hamper and prejudice negotiations for an overall political settlement, including the complex property issue which it was hoped would be solved by diplomatic means. There was also the question of what an appropriate remedy in cases of this nature would be where a significant period of time had elapsed and legitimate third-party and community interests were involved. There was no entitlement to an award. If the Court nevertheless found that the applicant had title to the properties in question, contrary to the Government\u2019s submissions, the Court should exercise its margin of appreciation and discretion in view of the circumstances of the present application and such an award should not be held to be \u201cnecessary\u201d at the present stage of the proceedings."], "id": "b95a9e1e-60d4-4401-935d-4a4b55677f16", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government in their submissions on the merits raised the same objection as at the admissibility stage concerning the victim status of the applicant. In particular, they maintained that the allegedly owned by the applicant had been registered in the books of the Turkish Muslim religious trust (vakf) as having been dedicated to the religious trust in perpetuity in accordance with the relevant rules and principles and could not be transferred to individuals as private property. They noted that the applicant had not produced an authentic title deed showing registration of her name as recorded in the books of the Land Office but a document certifying that the properties in her name were \u201cTurkish-held properties\u201d. Turkey was not in possession or control of the Land Office records of the \u201cTRNC\u201d and the Government therefore wished to reserve their position to finalise the information about the history of the title to the properties in question."], "id": "4552b973-b6d1-4206-9b3e-67e8ef85d6e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicants contended under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for their family life and home had been violated as they had been forcibly displaced from their village and had been prevented from returning. They maintained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had lost the possibility of using and enjoying their on account of the restrictions imposed by the authorities on their return to their village. They further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy for their various Convention grievances."], "id": "7c435a0d-4675-4225-a4a7-c0fa471f783e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant submitted that his eviction from his family home and deliberate destruction of his by the State security forces constituted a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and his right to respect for his family life. He also claimed that the circumstances surrounding the destruction of his property and his eviction from his village also amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment."], "id": "32b8be30-8db2-4c51-a73e-519f8964770a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["2. The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of destruction of home, and possessions resulting from the acts of agents of the State in south-east Turkey, obliging civilians to leave their villages, and of failure by the authorities to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances surrounding such events, as in the case of the applicant, H\u00fcseyin Ate\u015f, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such acts and to remedy such failures. "], "id": "dffdcf44-7c1b-47be-b096-f95c599a86b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained first that the refusal of the authorities to grant her a refugee card breached her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She maintained that having a refugee card provided the holder with a number of benefits such as financial aid, scholarships, free education, medical treatment, housing assistance, and help in the form of clothing and footwear. She had applied for a refugee card with a view to seeking housing assistance."], "id": "6f5657f3-97a3-4879-9940-7eaa2f898d98", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["97. The applicant noted that the annulment of her husband\u2019s will by the Court of Cassation had radically altered the apportionment of the estate between herself and the deceased\u2019s sisters, since she had lost three-quarters of the bequeathed, even though the Komotini Court of First Instance had approved the will and she had accepted her husband\u2019s estate. Accordingly, she had had a legitimate expectation that the civil courts would adjudicate on the basis of the Civil Code and that she would enjoy her property rights in respect of her entire inheritance."], "id": "eaf4fdc7-bc89-40e6-bbf1-fc61f774161e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["278. The applicants argued that, as tenants of nationalised flats, they had been deprived of the right to purchase their dwellings, unlike all those previous holders of specially protected tenancies who had been living in dwellings not subject to restitution. In addition, even though they had a right akin to a right, they were treated differently from bona fide buyers of nationalised dwellings, who could not be compelled to restitute their properties."], "id": "0135f52e-7ff7-4fae-9d77-05c5bfe26386", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained that the fact that the domestic courts had preferred the former owner\u2019s title deed to his own made it impossible for him at present to exercise his property rights over the apartment, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He also complained of discrimination, under Article 14 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in so far as the same Court of Appeal adopted contrasting decisions in identical cases brought against the buyers of apartments situated in the same building."], "id": "a0c07dd6-4ecf-4e22-8384-424a27edb25e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government contested that argument. They maintained that the applicants were challenging the outcome of the proceedings that had led to the judgment of 11 April 2001. That being so, they had failed to initiate enforcement proceedings before the Tirana District Court in order to request the issuing of a writ for the enforcement of the judgment in question. Moreover, in the Government\u2019s submission the applicants had also failed to make use of the remedies introduced by the new Act (Law no. 9235 of 29 July 2004) in relation to the issue of compensation. Hence, the applicants\u2019 claim under this head should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies."], "id": "7cae2bbb-47f5-4310-86f2-4e26856de749", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government contended that, if Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was at all applicable, what had occurred in the present case had to be considered as a control of the use of falling within the scope of its second paragraph. They left it to the Court to decide whether an interference giving rise to State responsibility had occurred. They submitted, however, that the alleged interference had been lawful. Furthermore, the wage monitoring system that followed from the Construction Agreement, and the costs to which the applicants were compelled to contribute, served not only the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, but also pursued the general interest of the community, namely to uphold the legitimacy of the Swedish approach in the area of industrial relations."], "id": "03e5e2ba-e4c5-4528-ac1b-14afbee56288", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government limited their submissions under this head to contesting the applicant\u2019s ownership of the in question (see paragraph 14 above) and the status of Famagusta (Varosha), where the properties in question were situated. With regard to the latter, the Government stated that the Greek-Cypriot authorities had been responsible for the evacuation of Varosha and for rejecting proposals for and attempts at resettlement of the area. In this connection, they referred to the inter-communal talks concerning this area, various proposals and excerpts of statements made in that context. They submitted that it was not possible for Turkey unilaterally to open this area for settlement on an individual basis without agreed administrative arrangements and the setting up of funds for development and infrastructural projects designed to assist in the process of readjustment. The Government also considered that the Court at this stage in the proceedings and in the absence of a comprehensive and final settlement of the property issue should not proceed to determine the title over the properties in question."], "id": "a2521dc8-a49a-4048-b921-a063868a989d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant submitted that his forcible eviction from his family home and deliberate destruction of his by the State security forces constituted a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and his right to respect for his family life. He also claimed that the circumstances surrounding the destruction of his property and his eviction from his villages also amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment."], "id": "e6ebbfd4-c44e-4494-adb0-2c671f5711da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government argued firstly that the complaint was inadmissible ratione personae. With regard to the association Synthessi \u2013 Information, Awareness-raising and Research, they contended in particular that, as a legal entity, it could not be considered as a direct or indirect victim of the alleged violations. Moreover, the individual applicants could not be considered as victims of the alleged violation from the standpoint of Articles 14 and 8, as they did not suffer direct and immediate adverse consequences as a result of their inability to enter into a civil union. By way of example, the Government observed that the payment of maintenance following the dissolution of a civil union was optional under section 6 of Law no. 3719/2008. Furthermore, the applicants were in any case free to enter into a contract within each couple laying down obligations and reciprocal rights in that regard. As to partners\u2019 inheritance rights, the Government conceded that section 11 of the Law at issue provided for the surviving partner in a civil union to inherit on intestacy. However, the applicants, in view of their age (the oldest of them was still under sixty), could be regarded only as hypothetical victims of the alleged violation. In any case, they could at any time regulate inheritance issues or general issues concerning each partner\u2019s status (including their financial relations) by means of a will or contract."], "id": "d92d45e3-5a5b-47e6-ae81-626b01064c54", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["136. The Government submitted that for there to be an infringement of a within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, an applicant must demonstrate that he had a title to that property. With reference to the Court\u2019s jurisprudence on the subject, they maintained that the description and identification of property rights were matters for the national legal system and that it was incumbent on an applicant to establish the precise nature of the right under domestic law and his entitlement to enjoy it. The Government noted in this connection that under Turkish law all transactions related to immovable property and all proof concerning ownership had to be based on records of land registry. In cases where the immovable property, such as land, was not recorded at the registry, proof of ownership had to be established in accordance with the rules set out in the Civil Code. Further, where no land survey had been conducted, a decision of a judge was necessary to provide proof of ownership. Finally, the Government stressed that the statements of the mayor of Boyda\u015f village (see paragraphs 23 and 24 above) had no evidential value as such unless they had been admitted as evidence by a national judge in a case which concerned the ownership of land or the ownership of movable property such as livestock."], "id": "70e163ba-229b-4103-8077-e9ff32bb7f8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicants complained of a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as they were being discriminated against with regard to the enjoyment of their , since as the law stood, they were obliged to renew their rent agreement on a yearly basis, while people having commercial rents had been freed from such obligation through amendments introduced to the Civil Code in 2009. Article 14 reads as follows:"], "id": "80d717cb-43f8-453d-b87e-03a2b491ac7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["113. The applicants argued that the police intervention had been neither proportionate nor gradual, in contradiction with the domestic requirements on the use of force by the police. The police officers treated the second applicant as if she had been a complete stranger trespassing on school , thus ignoring the fact that, at that point, she had been providing personal assistance to her son on an almost daily basis for more than six years. They averred that the disproportionate character of the police intervention was emphasised by the gravity of the injuries caused to the second applicant, the relatively insignificant offence for which she had been sanctioned and the minor sanction applied."], "id": "59c24306-e6f5-49df-bb2a-8eef4c626ce8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicants submitted that according to Article 1531I of the Civil Code, commercial leases which were protected by law (before the amendments introduced by Act X of 2009) were liberalised in the sense that a termination date was established (not later than 2028). This gave the opportunity to the landlords of a commercial lease to enjoy their once the lease agreement terminates (in 2028). Moreover, it made it feasible for a long-term investor to buy commercial premises, notwithstanding a running lease, in view of the knowledge that possession of the property would be returned within a foreseeable future. However, the applicants were being discriminated against since, as the law stood, they were obliged to renew their lease agreement on a yearly basis."], "id": "04ca78e5-c293-4aa6-a0e0-2ee24f3a9af3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that protection of urban , which in their view comprised band clubs, under controlled rents with an obligation to renew the lease had been in force since 1925. They argued that the 1955 amendments had been effected to distinguish band clubs from other urban property as these clubs had evolved over the years, and by 1947 there were sixty band clubs, with one or more for every parish. Nevertheless, the applicants\u2019 ancestors had freely entered into the lease agreement with KOBC on 1 May 1946, knowing what the consequences would be. Thus, in the Government\u2019s view, the applicants had not been subjected to an interference and could not claim to be victims of the alleged violation."], "id": "fe05c44b-2a5e-4de8-a80e-0421241297d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["172. The Government argued that they enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in reforming the country\u2019s political and economic system. Restitution of dwellings to the \u201cprevious owners\u201d was meant to correct the injustices committed in the post-war period and excluded the right of the occupancy right holder to acquire ownership of the same dwelling. The reforms had a legal basis in the SZ and ZDen, as well as in Amendment XCIX to the Constitution, which provided for the transformation of socially-owned into public and other forms of property to be regulated by law. The occupancy right, a typical element of the former socialist system based on a planned economy and socially-owned property, could not continue to exist in a market economy."], "id": "0d91ab83-3684-4df8-8fd2-6eb7dcf7cd98", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to raise his complaint of discrimination during the proceedings before the administrative authorities concerning the adoption of the decision on his request for tax exemption. In particular, he had not relied on the provisions of the Prevention of Discrimination Act in his appeal against the first-instance decision, nor had he raised the matter in his administrative action before the High Administrative Court. Moreover, he could have instituted separate civil proceedings for damages under the Prevention of Discrimination Act but had failed to avail himself of that opportunity. He had thus failed to use the effective domestic remedies concerning the allegations of discrimination. The Government conceded that the Constitutional Court had not declared the applicant\u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of remedies, but they considered, without elaborating further on the matter, that the provision on exhaustion of remedies under the Constitutional Court Act had a different scope and meaning from the rule on exhaustion of remedies under the Convention. The Government also pointed out that in his constitutional complaint the applicant had failed to cite the exact provision of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to ."], "id": "707e6ee6-cb90-4c38-b371-a2406fc4cce2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["164. The applicant claimed 967,686.75 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage resulting from the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In support of her claim she produced documents from the Greek tax authorities for the located in Greece and expert reports drawn up in Turkey for the relevant property there. She also claimed EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from the violation of Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention. She claimed EUR 8,500 in respect of costs and expenses."], "id": "d968cabe-945c-46cb-be0d-d50c879f99d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["123. The applicant claims that his house and in Baso\u011f were attacked and damaged by the village guards and gendarmes, after they had raided Ormand\u0131\u015f\u0131. In his memorial, he claims that the walls were riddled with bullets and all the windows broken. The guards set fire to some sacks outside, destroyed farming equipment also by riddling them with bullets and burned the harvested crops."], "id": "0b1a1d9d-672e-4685-b4b9-525779fc2965", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant also pointed out that he had not sought any preferential status but had merely requested the authorities to exempt him from the obligation to pay tax due to the particular circumstances of his case. To the applicant, it was obvious that he had not sought tax exemption so as to become unjustly enriched, since he had sold his old flat in order to buy a smaller real adapted to the his family\u2019s needs in relation to his son\u2019s disability."], "id": "2ce3a8fd-71d4-49f1-8ad1-95c3df2963f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicants pointed out that A. had been conceived in Belgium via anonymous donor insemination. Although she had been raised from birth by both women, for legal purposes she had only one parent, namely the second applicant. The latter had passed on her surname to A., exercised sole parental responsibility and would leave her to A. on her death. By contrast, from a legal viewpoint the first applicant had no obligations or rights vis-\u00e0-vis the child. The applicants explained that they had sought to remedy that situation by applying for a simple-adoption order, which would have created a legal parent-child relationship in addition to the original relationship. A. would thus have had two parents in the eyes of the law, with the legal certainty that entailed. This had been refused them by the domestic courts."], "id": "e89e33ce-6a2c-4f5c-8cb8-1461d300c270", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["162. The applicants also alleged that they had suffered certain pecuniary damage, namely the loss of earning opportunities in Latvia, and that their had been taken away by the Latvian authorities. The applicants stated that they were unable to submit any documents in support of their claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage as all the relevant documents had been left behind in Latvia. Therefore, the applicants specified no particular sum in regard to this claim."], "id": "b22ac765-6e54-4fea-bb89-cfcea473c5b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant complained that he had been denied any share at all in his mother\u2019s estate as a result of the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to recognise his right to bring an action for abatement in respect of the deed of inter vivos division; this had, he alleged, been to the detriment of his rights as heir statutorily entitled to a reserved portion of the estate. He submitted that the discrimination he had suffered was a direct consequence of the interpretation of the transitional provisions of the Laws of 3 January 1972 and 3 December 2001 by the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation. Like the court of first instance, he contended that section 14 of the Law of 3 January 1972, which had had the effect of depriving illegitimate children of their inheritance rights where their parent had made a gift prior to the date on which the Law had come into force, should be disregarded as being contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. In his submission, the provisions of the Law of 3 December 2001 should apply to the present case because his mother\u2019s succession had opened on the date of publication of the Law but had not yet given rise to division. The deed of inter vivos division of 1970 did not itself produce final and unalterable effects, since it contained a reserve clause retaining title to all the immovable and a sum of FRF 130,000. He added that the deed had also contained a provision whereby the donors retained throughout their lives the possibility of revoking the terms of the deed and securing the return of the property."], "id": "932bd3bf-a5b4-4ef9-82b9-d1b6ff4eae2c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government submitted that they had no knowledge about the applicant's alleged possessions. Moreover the described in paragraph 8 above was registered in the name of a limited company whose legal personality was separate from that of its shareholders. Therefore, the applicant could not, as an individual, claim a \u201cpossession\u201d in respect of that property. Her allegation that the declaration made at the District Land Office in Kyrenia on 11 June 1973 was not registered until 20 July 1974 was \u201chighly doubtful\u201d. The inability to register the property for a period as long as 13 months gave the impression that there had been some impediment."], "id": "16fae93b-a33c-45b4-a496-5ddbc8f168ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government submitted that the reform of the rent laws had been principally aimed at tackling the old leases, namely the controlled leases that had been created prior to 1995. According to the Government the reasons for such different treatment (between the old and the new leases) was that the rents applicable to the old leases had been tied to the rental values applicable at the beginning of the 1900s, which had amounted to a disproportionate burden on the owners of . The Government noted that the sub-emphyteusis relative to the property in this case had been converted to a lease in 1987 and such a lease had been a controlled lease which had been based on free market lease values of the 1960s. Therefore in the Government\u2019s view it was not correct on the part of the applicants to argue that they had suffered a violation by the introduction of the new leases that had not been subject to rent control (that is to say leases post 1995)."], "id": "63d5762e-d199-40f3-9d6b-b36e4989bef0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government noted that the applicant had on many occasions in her observations erroneously referred to compulsory divorce legislation. However, if the spouse\u2019s consent was received, the marriage turned automatically, ex lege, into a registered partnership. The expression \u201cturns into\u201d in section 2 of the Transsexuals (Confirmation of Gender) Act had been explicitly used to illustrate the fact that the legal relationship continued with only a change of title and minor changes to the content of the relationship. This continuity preserved certain derived rights, such as a widower\u2019s pension, and did not create a right or obligation to divide the between the spouses. The length of the partnership was calculated from the beginning of the relationship, not from the change of title of it. Moreover, the rights and obligations pertaining to parenthood did not depend on the gender of the parent. Consequently, there was no obligatory divorce in Finland but, on the contrary, the possibility of divorcing was at the applicant\u2019s own discretion. Finnish legislation offered the chance to reconcile both the right to sexual self-determination and the right to marry, in the form of a registered partnership."], "id": "0459646c-1598-4d0f-b94b-61081d2ae023", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["241. The Government further observed that it was not established that applicant no. 1 (Mrs Cornelia Berger-Krall) had ever requested the \u201cprevious owners\u201d to remedy defects in the dwelling. Moreover, she had failed to institute judicial proceedings requesting the \u201cprevious owners\u201d to carry out maintenance work (Section 92 of SZ) in order to make the dwelling suitable for normal use. In a decision of 29 November 2010 the Ljubljana Court had ordered the said \u201cprevious owners\u201d to pay applicant no. 1 compensation for the investments she had made in the dwelling. Lastly, the husband of applicant no. 1 was the owner of a vineyard cottage and the co-owner of a 91 m\u00b2 residential building. As a family member of applicant no. 1 owned suitable for occupation, the applicant was no longer entitled to \u201cprotected tenant\u201d status."], "id": "58ae4f34-2f7d-4b27-8590-da6f7879f833", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government contested the applicants\u2019 complaints under this head. They maintained that since the Commission\u2019s decision allocating the applicants their father\u2019s had been overturned by court decisions, the applicants could not claim property rights over the villa. Accordingly, having regard to the court decision that had determined their property claims, the applicants were entitled to the guarantees offered by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in respect of the plots of land measuring 48.55 sq. m and 46.70 sq. m respectively."], "id": "beebb47a-9565-4dda-a629-670999e86567", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["141. The applicants further complained that the refusal to recognise the applicant Church was preventing it from acquiring legal personality, thus depriving it of its right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, so that any complaint relating to its rights, and in particular its rights, could be determined. In addition, they alleged that the refusal to recognise, coupled with the authorities\u2019 stubborn persistence in holding to the view that the applicants could practise their religion within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, infringed their freedom of association, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention."], "id": "d5145a6a-05a4-425f-bfc1-b14a480e0446", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicants submitted that the had not been assigned to J.G. because he had required social accommodation but only because of an automatic conversion of an emphyteusis into a controlled and protected lease by operation of law. In the opinion of the applicants, the fact that the law had not provided a mechanism for distinguishing between those in social need and others, had been one of the reasons why the law had failed to address the proportionality issue. As a result, J.G. and later his daughter P.G. had benefited and were still benefiting from a controlled-rent regime irrespective of their means."], "id": "d91c587a-d388-405a-8262-24eb03809206", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant alleged that on 18 September 1994 gendarmes had raided his village and that his home and possessions had been destroyed, together with those of six other villagers related to him. He requested the Court to find that the destruction of his and the failure to carry out an effective investigation by the authorities engaged the responsibility of the respondent State under Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that each of these Articles had been violated."], "id": "9a8ee30c-4fe6-4ff6-aa68-9a2d58fc8ede", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["178. The applicant alleged that the domestic law of the respondent State was discriminatory and insufficient to protect women, since a woman\u2019s life was treated as inferior in the name of family unity. The former Civil Code, which was in force at the relevant time, contained numerous provisions distinguishing between men and women, such as the husband being the head of the family, his wishes taking precedence as the representative of the family union. The then Criminal Code also treated women as second-class citizens. A woman was viewed primarily as the of society and of the male within the family. The most important indicator of this was that sexual offences were included in the section entitled \u201cCrimes Relating to General Morality and Family Order\u201d, whereas in fact sexual offences against women are direct attacks on a woman\u2019s personal rights and freedoms. It was because of this perception that the Criminal Code imposed lighter sentences on persons who had murdered their wives for reasons of family honour. The fact that H.O. received a sentence of fifteen years is a consequence of that classification in the Criminal Code."], "id": "20941575-30d4-4e03-b029-be0a289c28ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government also submitted that the comparison to the Government scheme mentioned by the applicants was not tenable as that scheme provided for acquiring shops on a temporary emphyteusis for forty\u2011five years. The Government submitted that an empyhteutae is granted a real right on the entitling him to exercise all the rights of ownership during the relevant period and thus his or her status was more similar to that of a landlord than a lessee. Moreover, an empyhteutae had an obligation to affect all necessary maintenance unlike the lessee."], "id": "4d0c8151-ad8b-4e6a-9ffc-aec8dd6dfe99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government submitted that the applicants Abdullah Do\u011fan, Cemal Do\u011fan, Ali Murat Do\u011fan, H\u0131d\u0131r Bal\u0131k, \u0130hsan Bal\u0131k, Kaz\u0131m Bal\u0131k, Mehmet Do\u011fan, H\u00fcseyin Do\u011fan and Ali R\u0131za Do\u011fan (applications nos. 8803, 8804, 8807, 8809, 8810, 8811, 8813, 8816 and 8819/02 respectively) did not have victim status in respect of their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 since they had failed to prove that they had owned in Boyda\u015f village."], "id": "1d06f0a3-bb35-43ee-963c-4b45f74da6d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants noted that according to law the lease will never terminate and will subsist indefinitely meaning that the applicants will never enjoy their as its owners, and that, in that light, any eventual sale transaction will suffer from a price reduction. Thus, the legislative measures introduced also failed to meet the \u201cforeseeability\u201d requirement since the law did not provide a termination date for the lease in question."], "id": "6b190224-dce7-4470-ba7f-dc8b3c2a35db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government considered that the case was complex, given that it concerned crimes committed by many villagers during a whole night, and that an expert assessment of the value of the damaged was needed. They alleged that the applicants were partly responsible for the length of the civil proceedings, as for many weeks they had refused to pay the expert appointed by the court."], "id": "df0bc1a5-c8c0-4c0f-8a1b-9d2aad1c413d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government then proceeded to analyse the rights and obligations arising out of civil unions and concluded that the applicants\u2019 and personal status had in no way been affected by their exclusion from the scope of the legislation on civil unions. With regard to property issues, the Government reiterated their arguments concerning the admissibility ratione personae of the complaint. They observed that civil unions did not produce any automatic and binding effects with regard to the partners\u2019 property status. As to social security matters, same-sex couples were in an identical position to different-sex couples who decided to enter into a union. As far as maintenance and inheritance issues were concerned, these could be regulated within a same-sex couple without a civil union, by means of a contractual agreement."], "id": "21cf6433-d514-48ff-97a1-a172d7e156b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["268. The applicant claimed EUR 4,730 for approximately 68 hours of legal work on the case at the hourly rate of EUR 70. She also claimed EUR 331 in respect of translation, mailing and copying costs. The applicant submitted a legal fees' agreement between her and their lawyer, a time-sheet and receipts. She requested that the above amounts \u2013 EUR 5,061 in total \u2013 be paid directly into their lawyer's bank account, after deduction of the legal aid received from the Council of Europe. Finally, the applicant also claimed EUR 128 for the cost of the report on the value of the . The Government did not comment."], "id": "5d7c7407-87a4-46fb-9309-a3fbae1d1475", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicants considered that there had been no objective justification behind such a legislative choice. The Government considered that the objective justification for the exclusion of the applicants from the relevant amendments was the fact that it was more important to protect band clubs than used for commercial use, and that in any event the applicants had had other benefits, which had not been applied to owners of property leased for commercial purposes. The Government were also of the view that the owners of property leased for commercial purposes were suffering more than the applicants as a result of the applicable rent laws prior to the reform and that it was for that reason that the reform firstly tackled the latter group and then the group of persons in the applicants\u2019 position."], "id": "019233c1-0d13-416a-86d0-85adb11c0bea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government further stressed that the State, as a Party to the CRPD, had implemented a number of positive measures aimed at ensuring accessibility for disabled people, and that almost seventy per cent of public buildings in Zagreb had been adapted for that purpose. Moreover, a recent visit to Croatia by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Disability had commended those efforts expended by the State. With regard, in particular, to the tax exemptions set out in the Real Transfer Act, the Government stressed that the positive measures implemented by the State were primarily aimed at financially disadvantaged individuals and that they could not address the needs of all vulnerable groups. However, the State had put in place various tax benefits for disabled persons relating, for instance, to income and health services taxation. Moreover, in harmonising its activities with the relevant international standards, the State had adopted a National Strategy to Secure Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities 2007-2015, and was actively implementing various measures at the national and local levels in order to meet the needs of disabled people."], "id": "f3652253-27b0-4ed7-a4ac-db39ee4e1ee7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government emphasised that shares in the tips left by customers in cheque and credit card vouchers were in fact paid to the applicants by their employer. The applicants ultimately obtained in those sums. It was clear from the terms of their contract of employment that they had a legitimate expectation that the tips would pass to them \u2013 but only after the tips had become the property of their employer. However, the applicants could not rely on the principle of legitimate expectation to base an argument that it was the intention of the customers to transfer property in the tips directly to them without the tips first becoming the property of their employer. The domestic courts rejected their customer-intention plea and the Government relied on the reasons given by the domestic courts in this connection (see paragraphs 20 and 21 above). "], "id": "b2383248-9a90-493e-97fc-669108cf5395", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant averred that there had been no need for him to join the State in the proceedings lodged against him, in so far as the court of first instance and the appeal court had found in his favour. He also considered that as the interference with his rights had been caused by the 28 January 2003 decision, if he had lodged a new action against the State he would have missed the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "a074db50-e9bc-48cb-9c4e-5ef152def0e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government reiterated that they could not be held liable under the Convention for the acts of the authorities of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. They further maintained that the applicant's claims to his needed to be considered in the context of the political situation in Cyprus and the de facto state of affairs on the island. In particular, they averred that the applicant was not restricted in his access to his property in the \u201cTRNC\u201d by the actions of Turkey or the Turkish armed forces, but by, inter alia, the existence of the United Nations Buffer Zone. Furthermore, property rights were the subject of on-going inter-communal talks and the applicant's claim could only be resolved through negotiations aimed at a bi-zonal and bi-communal settlement of the Cypriot problem."], "id": "05140be0-f044-4401-81a9-54a1bed8a485", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["104. The applicant company submitted that, in the light of the circumstances of the case, it was entitled to seek from the State, pecuniary damage caused by the violation of its right of , reimbursement of the value of its initial 49% shareholding in Sovtransavto-Lugansk less 9,200 United States dollars (USD), being the payment it had received on the winding-up. It sought USD 14,921,674 under this head."], "id": "9ca47e5f-e0e4-4a57-9d02-424a4b29abd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government asserted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In the Government\u2019s view, the applicant had only claimed a violation of the principle of equality (Gleichheitsgrundsatz) under Article 7 \u00a7 1 of the Federal Constitution, but had neither explicitly nor in substance relied on her right of in her complaints lodged with the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. Noting that the applicant had been represented by counsel throughout the domestic proceedings, the Government argued that she could have been expected to raise her complaint concerning her right of property with the domestic authorities, in addition to her allegation of discrimination. In conclusion, the Government claimed that the applicant had not duly exhausted domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention."], "id": "e3336db9-e8bc-4d2e-9d29-a71725f40a89", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government pointed out that foundations were entitled to acquire immovable only to the extent provided for in their constitutions. If the applicant foundation was not so entitled, this had to be regarded as the consequence of the fact that, in its declaration of 1936, it had not reserved for itself the legal capacity to acquire other immovable property by purchase or donation."], "id": "6cd4577f-7036-458a-8dc2-c7d5b32a83aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicants claimed 1,260,996 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. That sum reflected (i) the rent due to them from 1998 to 2015 amounting to EUR 730,330 calculated on the basis of the valuation of an estate agent at EUR 3,500 per month, (EUR 42,000 annually) in 2015, projected backwards to the year 1998 based on two indices for prices published by the Central Bank of Malta \u2013 by means of example, such projections show the rents for the respective years as follows: EUR 6,857 annually in 1988, EUR 18,476 in 1998 and EUR 41,649 in 2008; (ii) EUR 502,006 in simple interest at 8% (capped so as not to exceed the rent of a particular year); and (iii) EUR 28,660 (supported by an architect\u2019s report) in repairs needed to the property since the tenant had failed to take adequate care of the property. In this connection the applicants noted that as things stand, they will remain suffering the effects of the violation even after the Court judgment, for an unspecified amount of years to come. In this light they also considered that their claim of EUR 54,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage already suffered, representing EUR 2,000 annually since 1988, should be upheld in full."], "id": "6a5299f1-1ec5-463d-8663-fef6416073b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government noted that the rent paid by J.G. \u2013 EUR 233 (MTL 100) per annum \u2013 in 1962 had been considered to be a substantial sum of money. They submitted that, following the conversion of the sub\u2011emphyteusis into a lease by operation of law in 1988 the applicants had bought the at a considerably reduced value (in the light of the fact that the property had been occupied). Thus, the applicants were aware, prior to the purchase of the property \u2013 for the modest sum of EUR 25,600 (reflecting its limitations) \u2013 that it had been leased to J.G. and in fact they had accepted rental payments from J.G. until his death on 7 May 2008. The rent had also been raised (every fifteen years) in accordance with the rate of inflation as established in the law. Therefore, the Government considered that the applicants, who had made a business decision assuming the risks associated with it, had been well aware of the consequences of the legal regime applicable to their property and they could not argue that they had been subject to a forced lease or that the interference had been arbitrary or unforeseeable."], "id": "0bee7236-17ea-4f3a-bc52-86faa3f0d641", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["2. The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of destruction of home, and possessions resulting from the acts of agents of the State in south-east Turkey, obliging civilians to leave their villages, and of failure by the authorities to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances surrounding such events, as in the case of the applicants, Makbule and Ramazan K\u0131nay, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such acts and to remedy such failures. "], "id": "deb13fa8-efc2-4d1d-9721-c30d743dbf85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicant claimed CYP 4,086 (EUR 6,981) for the costs and expenses she had incurred before the Supreme Court, plus interest. She further claimed EUR 10,000 for the costs and expenses she had incurred in proceedings before the Court. Finally, the applicant claimed EUR 575 for the preparation of the valuation report on prices in Kokkynotrimithia (see paragraph 93 above)."], "id": "42d6b681-f84f-40b6-819e-344def6a9409", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants maintained in reply that at the moment a gratuity was handed over by a customer the waiter had a right to receive a share in it, which was capable of computation at that point. This was so whether the gratuity was paid in cash into the tronc administered by the tronc master, or by cheque or credit card to be administered by the employer. In either case, the employee had a legal right to claim the payment from the intermediary. That legal right was a right. In their submission, the applicable legislation made it clear that they were to receive remuneration for time worked and their employer in reality appropriated their entitlement to shares in the tips left by customers who paid by cheque or credit card in order to discharge its statutory obligations."], "id": "63d44483-6435-4f42-a743-3b3af8cad704", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government argued that the applicant foundation did not have a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. That provision only applied to actually owned and the annulment of the applicant\u2019s title corresponded simply to the rectification of a registration error. Following the annulment of its title, it transpired that the foundation had not possessed the property in question ab initio and that it had been re-registered in the name of its original owners and not in that of the Treasury. The property had been transferred under the law on inheritance."], "id": "2956546e-8637-41c3-a81b-d7af4189a42d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant stressed that she did not claim compensation for any purported expropriation of her since she was still the legal owner of the property and no issue of expropriation arose. Her claim was thus confined to the loss of use of the land and the consequent lost opportunity to lease or rent it. Relying on two valuation reports assessing the value of her property and the return that could be expected from it, she claimed 587,399 Cyprus pounds (CYP) by way of pecuniary damage concerning the period between 28 January 1987, the date of the acceptance by Turkey of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, and the end of 2005."], "id": "57222f81-d86f-4f38-9621-84141d813303", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government argued that the present case was considerably different from the case Amato Gauci (cited above) since in that case the owner of the had been forced into a unilateral lease, while in the present case the applicants had acquired a property which had already been subject to an existing lease of which they had had full knowledge. Thus, unlike in the present case, in that case it had been unforeseeable that an emphyteutical concession would have been converted into a lease. As to the case of Zammit and Attard Cassar (cited above) the Government pointed out that that case had referred to property which had involved a private interest of a commercial nature, while in this case the property concerned was purely intended for residential purposes."], "id": "e97dc7d3-2614-4276-b91f-8aa2d376b44f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants argued that other security measures would not be sufficient. Indeed, before the domestic courts it had been shown that there was no access to the applicants\u2019 for fire engines, except for a Scout fire engine, which would be inadequate for a house fire. The relevant insurance also did not cover bodily injury or damage to property from a defect in the fireworks, or the failure of fireworks to ignite. They considered it ironic that streets in the vicinity were closed off for safety reasons but that the State felt no need to protect the applicants from the same dangers."], "id": "5b7e7c8d-e33f-47da-9161-3b98a6fe951b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["152. The Government submit that the applicant himself made no complaint to the authorities and, when questioned by the public prosecutor, did not allege that any damage had been caused to his . The event that was subject of the applicant\u2019s allegations was investigated by the Silvan public prosecutor, who took statements from villagers and village guards. At the end of the investigation and trial, the village guards were released, the evidence against them being held insufficient."], "id": "bad571e6-c00c-422d-a784-b11215f498c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants challenged the effectiveness of the remedies referred to by the Government. As regards the remedy introduced by the new Act, they argued that it could not provide an effective remedy within the meaning of the Convention. They further observed that their property rights had been determined in a final judgment and that an administrative body could not therefore re-examine the same issue. Lastly, they maintained that, had the domestic court awarded compensation in one of the forms provided for by law, the bailiffs would not have been able to enforce that decision. It was up to the Government to adopt effective measures, either by classifying the State properties available for compensation in kind or by providing sufficient budgetary funds for pecuniary compensation, in order to make such a means of redress feasible. In conclusion, the applicants maintained that the Government had so far failed to take effective steps to find solutions relating to the issue of compensation."], "id": "32e8c0c0-8d93-478d-9397-453360dcaee4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant submitted that the domestic authorities had established his liability to pay the tax on the basis of an imprecise and unforeseeable provision and without a proper assessment of the particular circumstances of his case. Moreover, they had failed to make any assessment of proportionality of the interference with his rights. The applicant therefore considered that the refusal to grant him the tax exemption imposed an excessive individual burden on him, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Whereas the applicant accepted that the domestic authorities enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in matters of taxation, he pointed out that according to the Court\u2019s well-established case-law their discretion could not be exercised in a manner incompatible with Article 14 of the Convention."], "id": "5d935939-0426-4990-ad98-cc52508f1398", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant submitted that he had properly exhausted remedies before the administrative authorities and the Constitutional Court. In particular, his complaints at the domestic level concerning the alleged discrimination by dint of unfair application of the tax legislation had not been so different as to require a separate examination of the discrimination from the complaint. Accordingly, by properly exhausting the administrative remedies he had not been required to pursue any other remedy under the Prevention of Discrimination Act with the same objective since it was the Court\u2019s well-established case-law that in the case of several potentially effective remedies an applicant was required only to use one of them. At all events, the Constitutional Court had not declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which suggested that he had properly exhausted the relevant remedies before the administrative authorities. The applicant also emphasised that he had properly raised his complaints before the Constitutional Court, complaining in substance of a discriminatory violation of his property rights related to an unfair application of the tax legislation."], "id": "6714b625-44ec-43e5-a5a0-a019b78be7cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicants claimed that the Government\u2019s observations gave the impression that Russian authorities had considered the child to be the mother\u2019s . Thus, they had put considerable emphasis on the mother\u2019s freedom of movement and her right to take the child with her wherever she had gone, irrespective of the child\u2019s best interests. The Court had however found in Maumousseau and Washington, cited above, that a minor had had the right not to be removed from one of his or her parents and retained by the other. M. had been indeed free to move to Nizhniy Novgorod or anywhere else; her freedom of movement had not however given her any right to take X with her without the first applicant\u2019s consent."], "id": "880f9b04-67d4-4a9e-8f2c-cf6c0a94fd0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["177. The Government noted that all investigations were carried out by the police, and all prosecutions were carried out by the Attorney\u2011General. The latter, who enjoyed all judicial guarantees of independence (Article 158), was the supervisor of the police forces in the conduct of investigations. The criminal justice system in Cyprus was based on the English \u201caccusatorial system\u201d, and the standard of proof was that of \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d. As to civil cases, the \u201cTRNC\u201d courts applied the provisions of the Civil Wrongs Law, which was a codification of the English common law. The standard of proof in a civil case was that of \u201cbeyond the balance of probabilities\u201d. The acts of assault and battery, trespass to , libel and harassment constituted crimes under the Criminal Code as well as civil wrongs."], "id": "afcddcc1-fff7-4da3-a302-4221583b4769", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant argued that the nationalisation and destruction of her late mother's were flagrant and continuous breaches of her property rights. She also claimed that the decision of 25 September 1992 and the judgment of 3 April 1996 restored her property rights and entitled her to the return of the plot or proper compensation. However, the plot was not returned to her, and no compensation was afforded in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. According to the applicant, the violation of her property rights occurred only because her late mother's land was on a valuable location in the centre of the resort. Accordingly, the State allegedly discriminated against her in breach of Article 14 of the Convention."], "id": "3afffbb0-bb5e-411b-aec6-ad5142ebcbd8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicants observed that the Government had failed to explain how the threshold of EUR 185 had been established. In this connection the explanation that the Government had attempted to give had been contradictory since the Government had first stated that the amount of EUR 185 had been fixed with reference to a date (that is to say the rental values applicable in 1914) and had then explained that such an amount was not based on a date but rather on the amount of the rent due. Furthermore, considering the justification given by the Government (that the amendments of 2009 had been deemed necessary in order to increase those rents that were very low) the Government ought to have recognised that there were cases where the limit of EUR 185 continued to be unjustifiable. In the applicants\u2019 view the distinction made by the Government between persons renting properties at amounts less than EUR 185 and persons renting properties at EUR 185 or higher was not objective since it failed to consider that the amount of the rent depended on the location and size of the . Moreover, comparing the threshold of EUR 185 per annum with the minimum wage applicable in Malta, it was evident that even persons on the minimum wage would be able to rent property for an amount higher than EUR 185 per annum."], "id": "0b1037bc-f2fb-4976-8bbe-68675b463e4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government submitted that the information supplied by the applicant was not sufficient to establish a proprietary interest. In particular, on the certificates provided by the applicant (see paragraph 8 above), the name of the owner was recorded as \u201cAndroulla Savva Olymbiou, n\u00e9e Kyriakos Anatolitis\u201d. Thus, there was no evidence that the applicant, Mrs Andri Olymbiou, was the same person as the alleged owner of the in question. Further, as the property had been acquired in 1980 (see paragraph 10 above), the applicant did not have any existing proprietary right in 1974; therefore, it could not be argued that she had been \u201cdispossessed\u201d due to the Turkish intervention, which had occurred six years earlier."], "id": "316d12d2-3c1f-4e68-9ec5-479eb9b23578", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government maintained that the relevant legislation regulating the use of prisoners\u2019 money was compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They argued that that provision did not impair the right of States to adopt such laws as they deemed necessary to control the use of in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes and other contributions or penalties."], "id": "99531309-cdda-42e1-a973-5143125eb0df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants further relied on Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, firstly, in so far as their lease had been subject to different and less favourable laws than leases entered into after 1995. Secondly, on the basis that Act X of 2009 had treated the applicants differently in so far as they had not been able to benefit from an increase in rent, unlike owners of other properties which had been rented at a sum lower than EUR 185. Furthermore the sum of EUR 185 had also been discriminatory as it had made no distinction according to the size, value or condition of the . The relevant Article reads as follows:"], "id": "455e68d8-d33c-4eb3-aae1-2609070229a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants contested the decision of the domestic courts to treat tips included by customers in cheque or credit card payments, and intended for them, as the of their employer with the result that the latter was entitled to treat such tips as remuneration. In the applicants\u2019 submission, the effect was to interfere with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which states: "], "id": "34f5a985-4763-4eae-922d-fad458cb8ca2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant further submitted that in any case not all the expressly listed grounds of prohibited discrimination in Article 14 fell within the notion of \u201cpersonal characteristic\u201d. He pointed to the inclusion of the word \u201cproperty\u201d in the list and the Court's conclusion in Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, ECHR 1999\u2011III that the different treatment of landowners based on the size of the they owned was discriminatory and in breach of Article 14. Accordingly, the applicant concluded that even if a ejusdem generis construction were to be considered appropriate, this would not lead to a limitation of the scope of Article 14 based on personal characteristics. The applicant further referred to a number of cases in which he claimed that the Court had found Article 14 to be applicable without insisting on a \u201cpersonal characteristic\u201d (citing, inter alia, Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, Reports 1996\u2011IV; National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium, 27 October 1975, Series A no. 19; Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, ECHR 1999\u2011I; and Sidabras and D\u017eiautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004\u2011VIII). He further pointed out that being a prisoner has previously been found by the Court to constitute \u201cstatus\u201d (see Shelley v. the United Kingdom, no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008) and argued that the correct test for deciding whether Article 14 applied was whether there was a distinct legal situation which was inextricably bound up with the individual's personal circumstances and existence. In the applicant's case, he was a member of a group to whom a differential legal regime applied, which was a regime that controlled his release into society and his relationships with his family, which were clearly matters of personal circumstances and existence."], "id": "35d6da53-bcce-4990-b065-80a758ffe161", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant submitted that she had incurred considerable pecuniary damage. Since the in issue had been in existence for twenty-seven years without having been subject to any measures, she had undertaken restoration of the land and house in good faith and invested considerably in it. When she had inherited the house from her father, it had been in poor condition; she had decided to renovate it, being in no doubt as to its lawfulness. She had thus incurred damage of 62,635 euros (EUR) for the loss of the house, EUR 43,865.46 for the investments made and EUR 3,025 for the demolition costs."], "id": "d9166155-15d6-46da-9011-b0671a37fd43", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["146. The applicants argued that the specially protected tenancy was the strongest civil right over a socially-owned dwelling. It was a sui-generis right comparable to ownership, and the exclusive right to purchase precluded everybody else from acquiring ownership of the same dwelling. The specialised literature cited by the Government, stating that the protected tenancy was a non- right, should not be understood in a negative sense but in the sense that it represented more than a property right, as it also comprised some managerial entitlements. In any event, the Government\u2019s allegations did not take due account of the reasoning followed by the Constitutional Court in its decision Up-29/98 (see paragraph 11 above)."], "id": "2abefd5b-f719-46b8-9b73-0f32ca7824f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["146. The applicants maintained that they had never had any reason to doubt the lawfulness of the transactions whereby they or persons from whom they had inherited had become owners in good faith. The initial idea underlying section 7 of the Restitution Law had been to sanction those who had obtained by abusing their position of power during the communist past. However, the open-ended language of section 7 and its interpretation by the courts had resulted in depriving individuals of their property for nothing more than a trivial administrative omission on the part of municipal clerks. Such a situation did not meet the Convention requirements for lawfulness as the applicable law opened the door to arbitrariness."], "id": "1c987ccd-6d83-4d67-931d-267d40b764bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicants submitted that according to the Court\u2019s jurisprudence, noise pollution, damage to and exposure to physical and personal hazards amounted to an interference with their Article 8 rights. In the present case, noise levels reached at least 120db according to expert reports, and in their view amounted to noise pollution. Moreover, the fireworks industry had claimed ten lives in the last two years, and the applicants had suffered damage to their property and developed hearing impairments."], "id": "4440a9f5-985a-4931-96f8-20fc4a56d418", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant further pointed out that small landowners whose hunting rights had been the subject of a compulsory transfer to an ACCA did not receive compensation unless those rights were being leased at the time of transfer. He added that, while large landowners retained that option, small landowners were permanently deprived of the possibility of leasing the hunting rights over their . This not only deprived them of income but also affected the market value of the property. Furthermore, the ACCA was only required to make good any damage to their land caused by game within the limits of its liability for negligence under ordinary law."], "id": "21a2d031-e79b-49ef-b667-7ec47ed6f69b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that the income of the tenant (a seventy\u2011year-old unmarried pensioner) was GBP 900 per month (circa EUR 1,200). Therefore, subtracting the rent (around EUR 39 per month) from the pensionable income, the amount left was EUR 1,160, a sum from which all expenses including medical expenses associated with old age and maintenance costs of the , had to be paid. Thus, in the opinion of the Government the authorities had struck a fair balance between the various rights and interests involved in the case at hand. Furthermore, the applicants had had procedural safeguards at their disposal to protect their interests."], "id": "11303121-4ce2-4fbe-9f38-6f301dfc72f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government considered that the amount indicated by the applicant as representing the market value of her was unrealistic. In their view, the house was worthless on the property market. Articles 141 and 142 of the decree of 18 May 1999 imposed an obligation, upon the sale of any immovable property, to inform the buyer of the existence of planning permission. Since she would have been unable to produce evidence of such permission, the applicant would not have been able to find a buyer. Her house had not thus added any value to the land, of which, moreover, she had not been dispossessed. Her claim in respect of pecuniary damage should therefore be dismissed."], "id": "f9c0075e-8758-4482-aa57-6b6ba57562c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government considered that it was not correct to say that the situation of the applicants had not benefited from the reform. According to the Government, the provisions of the reform had been applicable to leases which had arisen by operation of law upon the termination of contracts of emphyteusis or sub-emphyteusis by means of sub-article 4 of Article 38 (sic.) [39] of Act X of 2009 (see paragraph 30 above). Therefore, in the opinion of the Government the amendments introduced by Act X of 2009 had increased low rents to EUR 185 (with further increases every three years), while those rents which already exceeded EUR 185 had been excluded from the revision. The amendment had been deemed necessary in order to increase those rents that were very low even when compared to low incomes; thus the distinction between rented for an amount lower than EUR 185 and property rented for an amount higher than EUR 185 had objective and justifiable reasons based on economic assessments."], "id": "cc47eb8f-5b91-4136-9a84-dd9a7a95cb8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants submitted that their forcible eviction from their homes and deliberate destruction of their by the State security forces constituted a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and their right to respect for their family life. They also claimed that the circumstances surrounding the destruction of their property and their forcible eviction from their village also amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment."], "id": "ea2d9672-e95a-4659-bead-ce1dee468394", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicants considered that, contrary to that held by the domestic court, the comparators in the present case were not other landlords of a club, but landlords of other commercial leases as per Article 1531I of the Civil Code. Rent legislation in Malta broadly distinguished between residential and commercial premises. However, it was amply clear that premises used as a \u2018band club\u2019 were not residential in nature, particularly, if a significant part of the premises were operated commercially. Thus, landlords of commercial leases and landlords of a band club were in a \u2018relatively similar situation\u2019 and, the right of enjoyment of should thus apply to both indiscriminately. They recalled that the Convention prohibited discrimination on the bases of status, and that status included the status of the applicants as the landlords. They relied on Berger Krall and Others v. Slovenia (no. 14717/04, 12 June 2014)."], "id": "e24f8236-0220-4315-ba0a-0f00dac84809", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant submitted that his forcible eviction from his family home and deliberate destruction of his by the State security forces constituted a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and his right to respect for his family life. He contended that the circumstances surrounding the destruction of his property and his eviction from his village also amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Furthermore, the applicant disputed the veracity of his statements dated 9 November 2005, the content of which he learned from his lawyers, and claimed that he had never told the gendarme officers that he had not been intimidated or that the houses had not been burned by the security forces. He also had not told the gendarme officers that he had owned 3,000 trees. He had owned, together with his brother, 30,000 poplar trees, as he had already claimed in his application form. Finally, the applicant pointed out that the statements taken from Z.T., N.B. and H.\u00c7. should be treated with caution given that these witnesses were village guards and thus could not be impartial and that the first two witnesses had been tried on charges of murder."], "id": "cf966315-d6c3-4a2a-9779-5ba5ed4b127e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["300. The Government argued that the difference in treatment depended on the existence of a \u201cprevious owner\u201d, whose rights needed to be protected and who could not be forced to sell the he or she had obtained through restitution (see paragraphs 287 and 288 above). The Court accepts that obliging the \u201cprevious owner\u201d to sell would have rendered theoretical and illusory the principle of restitution in natura of expropriated real estate and could have been perceived as a de facto new expropriation (see, mutatis mutandis, Strunjak and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 46934/99, 5 October 2000)."], "id": "e9a418d9-bb20-4167-a1f3-2145e5042f72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants submitted that their forcible eviction from their homes and deliberate destruction of their by the State security forces constituted a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and their right to respect for their family life. They also claimed that the circumstances surrounding the destruction of their property and their forcible eviction from their village also amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment."], "id": "6b3b350d-c74d-44cf-aa6b-cf64b3a48a00", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["85. The Government submitted that if a violation were to be found a declaration to that effect would suffice. In any event, they considered that the valuations were exorbitant, speculative and not based on an architect\u2019s report. They noted that the had been purchased in 1988 at EUR 25,600 it had therefore hardly been imaginable that it could now have a rental value of EUR 42,000 annually. Indeed if it had to be divided over the years, their claim in rent amounted to around EUR 27,000 annually which would surely not reflect the rental value in the eighties and nineties. They further considered that since the applicants had accepted rent until 2008, their claim should only refer to the subsequent years. Moreover, the tenant had deposited rent for the period between 2009-15 amounting to EUR 2,796 which had to be deducted from the award of compensation. As to interest the Government noted that under domestic law, interest was due only on amount liquidated, which was not the case here. Moreover a rate of 8% was far beyond any commercial rate of interest currently available in the banking sector in respect of deposits. As to the structural works the Government considered this clam unproven and hypothetical. Lastly, the Government considered that an award under this head should not exceed EUR 10,000, which would be EUR 2,123.66 annually over six years, and an award for pecuniary damage should not exceed EUR 4,000."], "id": "f375729a-0500-4fc5-8e94-41ca5e1c0de4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants submitted that the requirement for them to pay fees for their secondary education had been unjustified. In their view, the manner in which domestic law regulated this matter bred a lack of clarity, led to errors and abuse and had imposed a disproportionate burden on them. It was unclear who was liable to pay the fees: the students, who had no income or , or their parents. The fees did not pursue any legitimate aim and failed to strike a proper balance between the interests of the individual and the public interest. In Bulgaria, secondary education was a precondition for any sort of employment, and the lack of such education meant that those concerned would be unable to integrate properly or even ensure their livelihood. Under Article 28 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the State had the duty to assist children in their drive to become fully fledged members of society. By erecting insuperable obstacles to the completion of their secondary education, the State was preventing them from developing in that way. The requirement for the applicants to pay fees had been discriminatory because they had been in an identical situation to the rest of their schoolmates. Under the 1991 Constitution, all individuals residing in Bulgaria had the same rights and obligations regardless of their nationality and status. Lastly, it had to be borne in mind that the applicants had been children at the material time and thus entitled to special protection under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was part of domestic law."], "id": "486cf131-86bf-444a-b15b-3a33d2f66dc3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["133. The applicant was questioned again by the public prosecutor on 2 July 1996, the public prosecutor also taking a statement from the village muhtar. Neither is recorded as upholding any allegation against the village guards concerning damage to the applicant\u2019s . The applicant asserts that both he and the muhtar were threatened by the gendarmes before they saw the public prosecutor and that he was too scared to say that his house had been burned down. There is no independent evidence in support of this assertion."], "id": "7f963865-3d14-4719-99c8-49cfd53c3d48", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "property", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["214. The applicants basically relied on the same reasons put forward under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They argued that by losing their specially protected tenancy, they had been deprived not only of their but also of their homes. The changes in the leases had further restricted their rights and the new entitlements of the \u201cprevious owners\u201d had jeopardised their situation, especially as the non-profit rent had been rising to levels that many of them could hardly afford, exposing them to the risk of eviction for overdue rent. They complained about various forms of chicanery, intimidation and lawsuits on the part of the \u201cprevious owners\u201d."], "id": "73e4a24b-1698-4e9c-a250-09336ca872ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants further argued that there was no for the difference in treatment. In this regard, they considered the fact that, prior to 1 July 1997, the Brigade\u2019s home base had been in Hong Kong (and before that, Malaya) to be immaterial as the Brigade was at all times eligible for deployment on any British Army mission in any country in the world. Likewise, they contended that the fact that Gurkhas historically retired to Nepal was not logically connected to the pension that they should receive for the service they rendered. Once it was acknowledged that Gurkhas served the British Army in the same way as other soldiers, it was inescapable logic that they should receive the same pension. This was particularly so given that a pension was a form of deferred pay, and where a worker comes from and how they spend their income should be irrelevant to the level of remuneration that they receive."], "id": "461a7f9c-c9a9-482e-91d9-f5799beac35e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government maintained that there had been an for the refusal of the domestic authorities to appoint the applicant to the post of security officer. They noted that the post in question had been reserved for male candidates in view of the nature of the service, which involved bearing and using firearms. They submitted that male candidates had already received training in use of firearms and were able to work in rural areas and at night time, where necessary."], "id": "cc9a3526-2b8f-4469-ba5e-a359e92bd43a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government further submitted that in 2004 the Music Academy had had neither the infrastructure (in terms of resources, equipment and teaching staff) for students with disabilities nor any regulations on matters relating to disability. As regards the allegation that the applicant had suffered discriminatory treatment, the Government pointed out that discrimination meant treating differently, without an , persons in similar situations. \u201cNo objective and reasonable justification\u201d meant that the distinction in issue did not pursue a legitimate aim or that there was not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Sejdi\u0107 and Finci v. Bosnia-Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, \u00a7 42, ECHR 2009, and Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40385/06, \u00a7 53, 11 January 2011). They also cited the case-law of the Court regarding the margin of appreciation enjoyed by States (see Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, \u00a7 82, ECHR 2009). The Government concluded by stating that they were well informed of the Court\u2019s case-law relating to the applicant\u2019s complaints and that they respected the Court\u2019s decision to intervene."], "id": "64ba4314-27db-4233-a463-849abbcfaaee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant considered that the differences in treatment complained of lacked any . Men did not have any specific abilities which might render them more fit for jury service than women. The aim of the jury system should be to ensure that the accused was tried by a sample of society. A jury predominantly composed of men would create an unbalanced system of criminal justice in relation to trials in which women were defendants, victims or witnesses."], "id": "b20ae3bb-0d01-40c3-9f5c-dce6df6eb9ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government, on the contrary, submitted that the difference in treatment which had persisted after the Second Inheritance Rights Equalisation Act of 12 April 2011 had come into force had been based on an . It had been justified by the overriding concern of protecting the legitimate expectations of people who had already acquired rights in an inheritance case, which themselves were protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The retroactive extension of the amendment to the date of the Court\u2019s judgment in Brauer (cited above) had struck a proportionate balance between the interests of descendants affected by that amendment and those of children born outside marriage. The fact that under domestic law an heir acquired the estate upon a decedent\u2019s death without any further legal action necessary precluded a more far-reaching change of that legal provision. Furthermore, it would cause legal and practical problems in inheritance cases where the estate had already been divided between the heirs. Proportionality, therefore, had not required a further expansion of the retroactive effect of the law, particularly with regard to the principle of legal certainty and the underlying principles set out in the Court\u2019s judgment in Marckx (cited above)."], "id": "1eb46787-954c-4d4c-b66d-89c5e52bd165", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government argued that even if this was not the case there was an for the difference in treatment. They referred to the historical development of the tax relief available for maintenance payments in the context of the taxation of married couples, in particular to maintain the status quo for the purposes of taxation for married couples after the breakdown of a marriage. They also submitted that it promoted the institution of marriage in conferring special rights and privileges on those choosing to marry, even after marriage break-down and that aim had been recognised as legitimate and within the margin of appreciation by Convention case-law. Legal obligations adhered to marriage and its breakdown that did not apply in non-legally binding partnerships. It was incorrect to state that the difference penalised illegitimacy, as the recipient of maintenance was always not taxable, irrespective of birth status. The very limited tax allowance made available to ex-spouses but not to former cohabitees was therefore objectively justified and well within the margin of appreciation to be afforded to the democratically elected national legislature in a complicated area of economic and social policy."], "id": "55e6ecac-3b94-4ca8-8f30-44b9875f9ae5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government, on the contrary, submitted that the difference in treatment had been based on an . The decisions taken by the legislature and the domestic courts had been appropriate and not discriminatory. The intention of the legislature had been to preserve legal certainty and any \u201clegitimate expectations\u201d that the deceased and their families might have had in view of the Federal Constitutional Court\u2019s settled case-law in that regard and in view of the legislature\u2019s repeated explicit decisions that the exception provided for in the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act was to be maintained. Furthermore, in the present case the deceased had bequeathed his whole estate to his wife, knowing that the applicant, under domestic law, was excluded from any statutory claims, a decision which had to be respected."], "id": "d860d6be-1b68-4f2d-933f-4e91aa05766e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government also argued that there had been no discriminatory treatment of the applicant in relation to his child\u2019s disability because the reason for the dismissal of his tax exemption request was his financial situation. This had an in that the State had sought to protect financially disadvantaged individuals. The applicant did not belong to that category of persons since he had owned a satisfactory flat."], "id": "6ffbd495-6cd8-4a9b-a1ef-bfb463a3c123", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["124. The applicants maintained that they had been discriminated against in that because of their race or ethnic origin they had been treated less favourably than other children in a comparable situation without any . They relied in that connection on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, which provide as follows:"], "id": "1da4a2e5-f8e0-449e-909f-c6557ed3bb32", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government denied that the applicants had been treated less favourably than non-Roma children in a comparable situation. Moreover, inasmuch as their treatment in education had been different from that of non-Roma (and other Roma) children of the same age, it had had an . Moreover, they had not been treated differently from non-Roma children with similar socio-cultural disadvantages."], "id": "3fa245fa-368d-43e7-b431-55b7f945e3e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government maintained that there had been an for the refusal of the domestic authorities to appoint the applicant to the post of security officer. They noted that the post in question had been reserved for male candidates in view of the nature of the service and the need to recruit male personnel. Referring to the considerations of the human resources department of TEDA\u015e (see paragraph 7 above) the Government contended that all female candidates had been refused appointment to the post in question."], "id": "d3d3f082-d475-48e0-94b5-66d8c188a811", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government acknowledged that the applicants had been treated differently from owners of commercial premises. However, they opined that the distinction had an . The Government submitted that commercial leases had been freed from the obligation of renewal as from 2028 as part of a rent law reform aimed to tackle old leases created prior to 1995. The rents applicable to those leases were tied to values of the early 1900s which created a disproportionate burden on owners. The Government also noted that the position of owners of premises leased as band clubs had also been improved through the reform by means of the 2014 amendments, which increased their rent - a measure which was not applied to owners of commercial premises."], "id": "746f915f-2b6e-4de1-bcb8-e305f0d3ef7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submit that there is an for making the difference in treatment at issue in the present case, namely \u2013 apart from the reasons set out in the explanatory memorandum to the Cassation Regulations for the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba \u2013 the purpose pursued by the Antillean justice system ensuring that as many cases as possible are tried in the presence of the accused. The means used to this end cannot, according to the Government, be regarded as disproportionate."], "id": "a73c727d-f3e9-4169-a249-98a83c830340", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government observed that, according to the judgment of 23 July 1968 in the Case \u201crelating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium\u201d (merits) (Series A no. 6), the equality of treatment enshrined in Article 14 of the Convention is violated only where a distinction has no (loc. cit., pp. 34-35, \u00a7 10). In the light of their arguments concerning the alleged violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken separately, the Government submitted that the distinction criticised had been based on such a justification. They pointed out in particular that the applicant was not the only candidate on her list who was required to undergo a verification of her linguistic competence. There had accordingly been no violation of Article 14."], "id": "4877b851-84b0-4020-86cb-21506f1a5b0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["183. The applicants\u2019 allegation in the present case is not that they were in a different situation from non-Roma children that called for different treatment or that the respondent State had failed to take affirmative action to correct factual inequalities or differences between them (see Thlimmenos, cited above, \u00a7 44, and Stec and Others, cited above, \u00a7 51). In their submission, all that has to be established is that, without , they were treated less favourably than non-Roma children in a comparable situation and that this amounted in their case to indirect discrimination."], "id": "8ac2110e-aad5-425b-a312-d2d33669cbb5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicants added that it would be helpful for the Grand Chamber to clarify the Court\u2019s case-law by determining whether there was an for the purposes of Article 14 for the difference in treatment in the present case and specifying the conclusions that should be drawn in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. Referring to, inter alia, the judgments in Timishev v. Russia (nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, \u00a7 56, ECHR 2005\u2011XII) and Moldovan and Others v. Romania (no. 2) (nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, \u00a7 140, 12 July 2005), they stated that where an applicant had established a difference in treatment the onus was on the respondent State to prove that it was justified. In the absence of a racially neutral explanation, it was legitimate to conclude that the difference in treatment was based on racial grounds. In the applicants\u2019 submission, neither an inadequate command of the Czech language, nor poverty nor a different socio-economic status could constitute an objective and reasonable justification in their case. They denied that the disproportionately large number of Roma children in special schools could be explained by the results of intellectual capacity tests or justified by parental consent (see also paragraphs 141-42 below)."], "id": "d3102271-b957-41aa-8967-749b3debfbe2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant further pointed out that she had first come to Latvia at the age of 12 and had spent all her working life there, and that her employment during the Soviet era had involved protection of Latvia\u2019s environment. However, the amount of the retirement pension she received was considerably lower than the amount that a Latvian citizen in the same position would receive. Nationality was therefore the sole criterion for the distinction in issue, which had no . Firstly, the applicant pointed out that her former employers had paid social tax to the Soviet tax authorities on her behalf, on the same basis as for those who had been recognised as Latvian citizens after 1991. Had the Soviet Union not broken up, she would receive, just like them, a monthly pension of 97.50 Soviet roubles, paid from the USSR central budget. Secondly, she pointed out that the difference in treatment complained of had not existed before 1 January 1996; it had been introduced only by the State Pensions Act 1995, and no reasons had been given for this change in the law, even by the members of parliament who had proposed it."], "id": "96dbfafc-04be-4f24-8dc8-3eb035e62ee4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government maintained that there had been an for the refusal of the domestic authorities to appoint the applicant to the post of security officer. They noted that the post in question had been reserved for male candidates who had completed military service. According to the Government such a requirement could not be deemed discriminatory in view of the nature of the duties of the post, which involved using firearms and working at night."], "id": "f1231ce7-798e-497a-88a5-d146b22e5045", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government argued that there was an for the difference in treatment complained of, and that the distinction fell within the Contracting States' margin of appreciation. On this point, the Government submitted that, given the prevailing social attitudes at the material time, a married woman's entitlement to insurance under the Act was linked to her husband as the latter was the breadwinner in the vast majority of cases. After social attitudes had changed, the system had been altered with effect from 1 April 1985 and gave married women an independent right to insurance and benefits under the Act. As changes in social attitudes occurred gradually, it was virtually impossible to indicate with precision when a change had taken place in society that eliminated a justification derived from social attitudes. However, the question of whether periods were insured had to be answered on the basis of the provisions that applied at the material time. Finally, arguing that the receipt in full of two or more social-security pensions should be avoided, the Government pointed out that the applicant was receiving a pension from a foreign country as well as a reduced pension under the General Old Age Pensions Act."], "id": "f1c21d71-3c24-4a7d-8a40-b4c316cbefb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants complain of a difference in treatment on the basis of sex, which falls within the non-exhaustive list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in Article 14. Article 14 does not prohibit a Member State from treating groups differently in order to correct \u201cfactual inequalities\u201d between them; indeed in certain circumstances a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may in itself give rise to a breach of the article. A difference of treatment is, however, discriminatory if it has no ; in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, \u00a7 51, ECHR 2006; Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, \u00a7\u00a7 14-26, ECHR 2002-IV)."], "id": "c3734e04-4a26-4054-a397-310113ba6276", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant submitted that in its judgment in Chassagnou and Others (cited above) the Court had not confined itself to criticising the Loi Verdeille for obliging small landowners who were opposed to hunting on ethical grounds to tolerate hunting on their property. In his view, the Court had taken issue with the very principle of compulsory transfer of hunting rights to the ACCAs, whether or not the landowners in question were opposed to hunting, on the grounds that there was no for compelling only small landowners to transfer their rights, particularly since the system introduced by the Loi Verdeille applied only in some parts of the country. He referred in that regard to paragraphs 89-94 and 120-21 of the judgment."], "id": "3d8f71ab-4720-4e62-aa6c-9a3aee5d60d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government agreed that Article 14 of the Convention was applicable here as the case fell within the scope of Article 8, but argued that there was no separate issue under Article 14. Were the Court to have a different opinion, the Government pointed out that cissexuals were not in a similar situation to the applicant because they were not applying for a change of their gender. In any event, there had been an . The Finnish legal system prohibited discrimination based on transsexualism."], "id": "39db72aa-0127-4278-81ab-a04157954554", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant also sought support for his claim of discrimination from the military service record of four soldiers of his unit \u2013 R.L., V.S., J.\u0160. and M.I. He considered that those four soldiers had been in a similar situation to that of himself, but had been treated differently. On this point the Court reiterates that Article 14 of the Convention affords protection against different treatment, without an , of persons in similar situations (see Hoffmann v. Austria, 23 June 1993, \u00a7 31, Series A no. 255\u2011C, and Vojnity v. Hungary, no. 29617/07, \u00a7 29, 12 February 2013). However, having given due consideration to the facts (paragraphs 36-40 above), it is the Court\u2019s opinion that such an assertion is not substantiated. The professional military service histories of those four servicemen show that each of them was entitled to serve until the expiry of their contracts, despite the fact that they had reached retirement age, because, unlike the applicant, they had military specialist codes. Conversely, as the applicant himself acknowledged during the court proceedings, at the time of his discharge from the army he had no such status (see paragraphs 19 and 26 above)."], "id": "7e93501f-5845-4c21-9597-c0b85a8c649d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant argued that the difference in treatment between men and women as regards entitlement to a widow's payment and a widowed mother's allowance was not based on any . In particular, it was based upon gender-stereotyping and broad generalisations which were no longer an accurate reflection of social conditions in the United Kingdom. The fact that widows' benefits were not means-tested meant that high-earning women in a position similar to that of the applicant would benefit, while the applicant and other men would be denied such benefits regardless of their need. The fact that resources were finite did not justify concentrating all the resources which were available on the protection of bereaved women to the detriment of widowed men. Indeed, the applicant highlighted the fact that working women in his wife's position were required to pay the same proportion of their earnings to the National Insurance Fund as men, notwithstanding the more limited benefits offered to their surviving relatives in the event of their death. He pointed out the less discriminatory approaches taken by the majority of the other member States of the Council of Europe in the context of survivors' benefits."], "id": "a1019b90-fda7-4d66-b820-a0c3b8f48d3e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["402. The applicants contended that by excluding only US nationals from its international adoption programme, the Russian authorities were subjecting US applicants to differential treatment based on their nationality in breach of the Convention. Before December 2012 the US applicants had had the right to adopt children from Russia on an equal footing with other foreigners. They had started the procedure in compliance with the requirements of both the US and Russian authorities. However, the procedure had been cut short by the introduction of the ban on adoption which only extended to the US nationals and was devoid of any ."], "id": "d229bdad-01de-443f-b97a-c4df45f8dc74", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "objective and reasonable justification", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant argued that there was no . The tax break might have been small to the Government but was a significant proportion of his weekly net earnings. He disputed that the historical background of the previous system provided any justification or explanation for why they did not provide the QMPA (qualifying maintenance payment allowance) in a non-discriminatory fashion to all couples, who having separated, had to bear the costs of two households. Nor had the Government explained convincingly why the fact of marriage provided a justification for treating child maintenance payments differently; the fact that there might exist an objectively justifiable basis for the difference in treatment in respect of spousal maintenance payments did not mean that there was also a justifiable basis for the difference in treatment in respect of child maintenance payments. A father was compelled by statute to provide maintenance for children irrespective of his married status. It was inconsistent to treat unmarried fathers the same as married fathers for the purpose of imposing financial obligations and then treat them differently by denying them tax breaks for those payments. He also doubted the validity of arguments that providing the tax break to married fathers after divorce somehow promoted the institution of marriage or that the margin of appreciation justified such blatant discrimination."], "id": "6418f81e-70c6-4dd5-8347-6cd4ac410457", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["160. The applicants noted that, if, as the Court of Cassation had pointed out (judgment no. 4184/12), the notion of marriage under Italian law included same- marriage (in line with the Charter and the Convention), then it was contradictory to argue that a same-sex marriage celebrated abroad was against the international public order. Despite this judgment and the decision in Schalk and Kopf, the Italian authorities continued to apply the regulations issued by the Ministry of the Interior. Furthermore, the guidelines used by the registrars of civil status simply referred to public order, without clarifying whether it was national or international; those guidelines also indicated that judgment no. 4184/12 was irrelevant in relation to registrations. The applicants disputed that Article 16 of Law no. 218/95 was applicable to the circumstances of the case, as that provision governed the application in Italy of foreign law, but the applicants were not asking the authorities to apply Dutch law (to give them the right and protection they would have obtained under Dutch law), but simply to register their marriage celebrated abroad and thus to obtain the limited effects of registration under Italian law, namely certification that the marriage was valid, which could be used every time conjugal status needed to be proved for the application of a specific law."], "id": "1c6f3273-8b6d-4bb3-b0e1-1e9b78c9174c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government argued that the lower courts had rejected the applicant\u2019s claim not only because the applicant and A.Z. were of the same but principally because their community had insufficient substance. The applicant was neither A.Z.\u2019s relative nor was he his partner under Slovenian law. The Constitutional Court ruled that the lower courts had not breached the principle of equality before the law protected by the Constitution."], "id": "c0cb9f93-b721-4e70-bf9a-5a36e373912c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant further contended that very weighty and convincing reasons were necessary when justifying discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. In the case at issue no such reasons existed, as it was unreasonable to allow for the possibility of obtaining a residence permit for unmarried different- couples while excluding such a possibility for same-sex couples. Any possible argument concerning the protection of family in the traditional sense was inapplicable in this context since there had been various other less restrictive means for achieving that aim. The applicant also stressed that her request for a residence permit on the ground of family reunification with her partner had been dismissed at the outset since the relevant domestic law per se excluded the possibility of family reunification of same-sex couples. This, in her view, amounted to a direct discrimination contrary to the requirements of the Convention."], "id": "f9629e8e-941e-4f04-a97e-ed67a250f8a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Wpt, WMA, WBA and WP constituted discrimination against him on grounds of contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8."], "id": "f43bbcf2-2cd9-420a-a285-3e02a5f14806", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widowed Mother\u2019s Allowance (\u201cWMA\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. and / or Article 8."], "id": "fd768c97-0d70-44c9-b1f1-b66b817c0992", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted that since citizenship was not a right covered by the Convention differential treatment based on illegitimate status could not violate Article 14 of the Convention. As to any distinction based on , according to the Government this protection only applied to persons claiming discrimination when compared with other persons of a different sex. In the present case, the applicant was not ineligible for Maltese nationality on the ground of his sex, and the legal distinction based on the sex of his parent was a condition applicable irrespective of his sex. They further submitted that there was no distinction between voluntary acknowledgment of a child and judicial acknowledgment, as even if a father was recognised on the birth certificate, the child would not be eligible for citizenship on the grounds that he or she was illegitimate."], "id": "eef4b0c1-e692-4b07-9a27-ded1d8a3e504", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained that the national authorities\u2019 refusal to allow her to bear only her maiden name after her marriage, despite the fact that she had submitted the Court\u2019s judgment on the same topic (\u00dcnal Tekeli, cited above) to the domestic courts in support of her request, had amounted to a breach of Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. She further claimed that the fact that Turkish law allowed married men but not married women to bear their own surname after marriage constituted discrimination and was incompatible with Article 14 of the Convention."], "id": "b380282c-9f2b-4939-a0cb-570d9b96c474", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government have argued that the situation was justified by the differences that existed at the material time between the overall sets of benefits and burdens for same- and opposite-sex couples, married or unmarried. The Court considers this more an explanation of the situation in domestic law at that time than a weighty reason that would prevent the difference of treatment at issue in this case from falling foul of Article 14. Bearing in mind the purpose of the regulations, which is to avoid placing an excessive financial burden on the absent parent in their new circumstances, the Court perceives no reason for treating the applicant differently. It is not readily apparent why her housing costs should have been taken into account differently than would have been the case had she formed a relationship with a man (see P.M., cited above, \u00a7 28)."], "id": "05310f6a-e85c-417e-899d-e55a1b5d27c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained of a violation of her right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and also that she had been a victim of discrimination on grounds of . She further alleged that she had been unable to obtain redress for the violation of her fundamental right as acknowledged by the Constitutional Court. She relied on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 14 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "cca3f276-6d49-420e-af8f-1022be87c9fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government stated that, prior to the enactment of Law no. 3719/2008, domestic law had afforded limited recognition to different\u2011 couples living together outside marriage. In particular, Article 1444 of the Civil Code made reference to \u201cde facto partnership[s]\u201d. Under that provision, divorced persons who remarried or lived in a de facto partnership lost the right to maintenance payments. De facto partnerships were also mentioned in Articles 1456 and 1457 of the Civil Code concerning assisted reproduction. Article 1456 provided that, if an unmarried woman sought recourse to assisted reproduction techniques, the man with whom she lived in a de facto partnership had to give his consent before a notary. Article 1457 laid down the conditions in which \u201cartificial insemination [was permitted] following the death of the woman\u2019s husband or the man with whom she live[d] in a de facto partnership\u201d."], "id": "b6321e52-0302-4469-a4ba-ccaa2d809761", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government also considered that the applicant was not in a comparable situation with unmarried different- couples given that the relevant domestic law defined extramarital relationship of different-sex couples and same-sex couples differently. Moreover, even if the Aliens Act allowed for a family reunification of unmarried different-sex couples, the applicant would not satisfy the requirements of the relevant domestic law as at the moment when she had submitted her request for family reunification she had not been in a relationship with D.B. for a period of three years. In any case, there was nothing under the Convention imposing an obligation on the State to allow for family reunification, in particular in matters concerning same-sex couples."], "id": "b6d85885-977f-4a2b-b089-49ad5770ae8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicants contended that Article 57 of the Russian Criminal Code established a sentencing policy which differentiated on the basis of and age with regard to life imprisonment. The Court notes that \u201csex\u201d is explicitly mentioned in Article 14 as a prohibited ground of discrimination and that it has previously accepted that \u201cage\u201d is also a concept covered by this provision (see Schwizgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, \u00a7 85, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and Nelson, cited above)."], "id": "6827f1a6-a9c2-498c-bd5e-b4928a06671b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicants referred to the judgment in Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (no. 30141/04, ECHR 2010), in which the Court had acknowledged that the relationship of a cohabiting same- couple living in a stable de facto partnership fell within the notion of \u201cfamily life\u201d. They contended that, although European countries\u2019 legislation on the issue was not entirely uniform, there was nevertheless a trend towards legal recognition of same-sex couples. The applicants observed that, to their knowledge, Greece was to date the only European country to have introduced a legal alternative to marriage that was confined to different-sex couples. In other words, Greece was the only country to have enacted legislation governing a form of civil partnership while under the same legislation excluding same-sex couples from its scope. Greece was thus clearly and radically out of step with the norm among European countries in that regard. The applicants argued that the wish to preserve the ties of the traditional heterosexual family could not constitute substantive grounds such as to justify treating same-sex couples differently. Instead of taking positive steps to overcome prejudice against gays and lesbians in Greek society, the respondent State had reinforced that prejudice by enacting Law no. 3719/2008 without including same-sex couples. In the applicants\u2019 view, the Law in question cast a negative moral judgment on homosexuality as it reflected an unjustifiable reserve, not to say hostility, towards same-sex couples. Having decided to move away from marriage as the sole formal basis of family life, the legislature had shown a clear disregard for same-sex couples by excluding them from the scope of Law no. 3719/2008."], "id": "3e8a591f-f5ac-4a3b-93c4-48e3064b10cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government distinguished the present case from Kiyutin in that none of the applicants could be considered a long-term or settled migrant within the meaning of the Court\u2019s case-law. They submitted in particular that Mr Novruk\u2019s second marriage had been very recent, that he had not had any children with his new wife and had lived with her at different addresses, and that he did not work or maintain contact with his child from the first marriage. In Ms Kravchenko\u2019s case, the domestic courts had duly taken into account the fact that her husband and child were Russian nationals. Ms Ostrovskaya had recently arrived in Russia; her sister lived far away in Magadan Region; and her adult son was no longer a member of her \u201ccore family\u201d (here the Government referred to Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, \u00a7\u00a7 94, 97, ECHR 2003\u2011X). Although V.V. claimed in the domestic proceedings that he had lived for a long time with his same- partner, he did not give any details about their duration of their relationship, nor did he submit any evidence of \u201cfamily life\u201d showing that they shared expenses, jointly acquired household items, or lived under the same roof. When asked by the medical authorities, V.V. stated that he had not had any sexual relations in the past year. Moreover, V.V. did not prove that he was working or continuing his studies at the material time. The Government concluded that he did not have a stable relationship similar to \u201cfamily life\u201d, nor did he maintain any other activities falling under the notion of \u201cprivate life\u201d (here they referred to W.J. and D.P. v. the United Kingdom, no. 12513/86, Commission decision of 13 July 1987)."], "id": "217386a5-0215-47aa-aaad-24b23c660e19", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicants also referred to the judgment delivered on 14 December 2009 by the United Kingdom Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Rodriguez v. Minister of Housing ([2009] UKPC 52 \u2013 Privy Council Appeal No 0028 of 2009) finding that a policy excluding same- couples in a stable and long-term relationship from access to joint tenancies was discriminatory. They pointed out, further, that, in his opinion of 15 July 2010 in the case of R\u00f6mer v. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (case C-147/08), the Advocate General of the CJEU had considered that disallowing any form of legally recognised union available to persons of the same sex could be regarded as practising discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They submitted that a consensus was emerging in democratic societies, which, in their view, was against a government being able to reserve a certain right or advantage to married couples while denying it to same-sex couples on the pretext that the persons in question were not married."], "id": "e851efbb-6b2a-490a-858c-8b05791ed91c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicants pointed out, lastly, that the aim of their application was not to obtain a right to marry or access to a form of registered partnership. They explained that they were merely asking the Court to develop its decision in Karner v. Austria (no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003\u2011IX) and state that excluding same- couples from the right to a residence permit for family reasons was discriminatory. They submitted that, with regard to other rights recognised as belonging to married couples, the Court could decide on a case-by-case basis, distinguishing, for example, the right to obtain a residence permit from the right to adopt. Accordingly, in their view, concluding that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in the present case was not incompatible with the conclusions reached by the Court in its judgment in Gas and Dubois (cited above)."], "id": "1e2c8458-f816-4785-9331-773dff3c46ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants complain of a difference in treatment on the basis of , which falls within the non-exhaustive list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in Article 14. Article 14 does not prohibit a Member State from treating groups differently in order to correct \u201cfactual inequalities\u201d between them; indeed in certain circumstances a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may in itself give rise to a breach of the article. A difference of treatment is, however, discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification; in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, \u00a7 51, ECHR 2006; Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, \u00a7\u00a7 14-26, ECHR 2002-IV)."], "id": "cd94761a-635a-4e8b-80f2-864b7b0046e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant contended that the various health conditions from which she suffered had been caused by the medical intervention of May 1995. She also argued that those specific conditions had not resulted from her previous health problems, contrary to the findings of the Supreme Administrative Court. In fact, her faecal and urinary incontinence, the difficulty in having and her depression had been caused exclusively by the medical error which had occurred during the operation."], "id": "6bbe60f0-e92e-49a3-b0b7-9afea6687957", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicants complained of discrimination based on their and sexual orientation because of their permanent exclusion from the legal institution of a registered partnership. Maintaining the arguments they had already raised in the domestic proceedings (see paragraph 9 above), they argued that marriage was not a suitable alternative for them because of the differences between the legal frameworks governing marriage and the registered partnership. In their view, Article 8 of the Convention did not oblige the Contracting States to introduce a registered partnership as such; however, if a State decided to do so, it was barred from excluding couples from this new partnership institution solely on the basis of their sex and sexual orientation. Moreover, the applicants argued that the Court\u2019s conclusions in the case of Schalk and Kopf, which had concerned the opposite situation (namely a same-sex couple being denied access to marriage), could not be applied in the present case."], "id": "b590b088-ab6f-45fa-bf7d-301b491f2e09", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicants also stated that 24 member States of the Council of Europe had enacted laws allowing same- couples to register their partnership (a survey on this subject, which had been updated to 30 June 2015, appeared in Oliari and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 53 to 55), and that the possibility of obtaining a residence permit, for a homosexual partner who was not an EU national, existed in at least31 States. They considered that the European consensus on that point was therefore greater today than that which had been observed at the time of adoption of the judgments in Schalk and Kopf and Gas and Dubois (cited above)."], "id": "fe4a3071-b263-47d7-a3e0-e62d0bc1b677", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant submitted that \u201cvery weighty reasons\u201d had to be provided to justify discrimination and that the more lenient test under Article 1 of Protocol 1, whereby only measures \u201cmanifestly without reasonable foundation\u201d were challengeable, did not apply in such cases. There was no reason why he should have to pay towards the NHS for a longer period than women, which obligation had no objective connection with the state pension age. The recent increase in deductions from the NI Fund for NHS funding purposes was manipulating NICs as a general taxation source which aggravated the existing inequality. As the NI Fund was not in fact self-financing but could be topped up by money from general taxation, it could not be said that changes in contributions would prejudice the equilibrium of the scheme. If women were required to pay, it would in fact boost the amount of funds. Any differences in entitlement were a consequence only of the way in which the Government had chosen to structure the benefit system."], "id": "3ff72743-dd00-4c3d-848f-b5d5d2b67978", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government submitted further that, under Article 3 \u00a7 1 of the above-mentioned directive, which had been transposed into Italian law by Law no. 97 of 6 August 2013 ..., the host Member State had to facilitate entry and residence for the following persons: \u201ca) any other family members, irrespective of their nationality ... where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen\u201d, and \u201cb) the partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested\u201d. They observed that those provisions did not confer a right to the residence permit requested: firstly, the person with a serious illness was the first applicant, who was an Italian citizen; secondly, it fell to the States which, like Italy, did not guarantee same- couples a means of legal recognition, to decide whether the conditions for obtaining a residence permit were satisfied. The Government concluded on that point that the decisions made by the Italian authorities in the present case were compatible with EU law. In any event the second applicant had not lodged an application under Law no. 97 of 2013 and had not registered in the population register for Cecina (Livorno) as a person cohabiting with the first applicant."], "id": "b6d718f2-3e6a-4796-9f6f-214487d30e4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government submitted that the applicants had not been the subject of discrimination prohibited by the Convention. They referred first to judgment no. 138 of 15 April 2010, in which the Constitutional Court had stated that homosexual unions, namely, those in which persons of the same lived together as a couple, had to be regarded as a \u201csocial group\u201d within the meaning of Article 2 of the Constitution. Accordingly, in the Government\u2019s submission, in order to protect specific situations, homosexual couples had the right to request \u201cequal treatment\u201d, that is, treatment comparable to that of married couples (judgment no. 138 of 2010 is described in Oliari and Others v. Italy, nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11, \u00a7\u00a7 15 to 18, 21 July 2015). Moreover, the civil rights of unmarried homosexual and heterosexual couples were the subject of debate in several European States and in the Italian Parliament, in the light, inter alia, of the Court\u2019s case-law and of Council of Europe documents."], "id": "b0fe8275-d3e6-45e3-acf3-1ec2457cc062", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant argued that, under the domestic law, she was forced to choose between two fundamental rights recognised under the Convention, namely, her right to sexual self-determination and her right to remain married, with the result that she was effectively compelled to forego one of them. Such legislation placed her in a quandary. She referred in that respect to a judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany of 27 May 2008. The object of her application was not to extend marriage rights to same- couples but only to preserve her pre-existing marriage to her spouse. In her case, same-sex marriage was an unintended and accidental outcome of legal gender recognition. She sought protection of a pre-acquired right and not the presumptive right to marry a woman."], "id": "0e9d1ad2-bb81-4ea8-a801-44805842db55", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicants observed at the outset that they could in theory approach a notary to request that he or she draw up a civil union contract in accordance with the impugned Law. However, if the notary, against all expectations, were to agree to their request, he or she would be liable to disciplinary action for a breach of official duty. Accordingly, it was extremely unlikely that any notary would dare break the law in order to accede to the applicants\u2019 request. Furthermore, the applicants pointed out that notaries in Greece were members of a liberal profession. Consequently, any legal action before the administrative courts would have no prospect of success since notaries were not agents of the State. As to an action in the civil courts, that would have no greater chance of success, as a notary who refused to draw up a notarised instrument in respect of a same- couple would not incur any liability in tort as a result. Such a refusal would be neither unlawful nor intentional, as required by the domestic legislation in order for an individual to incur liability in tort."], "id": "0920ae46-a031-43e0-ba41-f8107ccbe33c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["162. The applicants noted that to avoid a finding of a violation the Government argued that same- couples were in fact protected (by means of cohabitation agreements). The reality was that the public authorities were reluctant to advance the rights of same-sex couples, and the few rights which had been gained over the past decade were the result of litigation and court proceedings. Thus, such protection deriving from case-law and not legal statute constituted only an indirect protection. It was also left to the judge to decide when such protection was required after the same\u2011sex couple had proved that i) they were cohabiting in a stable relationship, ii) that the right they were seeking to enjoy was a right enjoyed by heterosexuals, and that a different degree of protection was unreasonable. Such discretion created uncertainty and would often need direction by the Constitutional Court. Moreover, it burdened persons in the applicants\u2019 situation with having to go to court and prove cohabitation in order to obtain the relevant protections. In that connection the applicants noted the relevance of having their marriage registered (and thus having the validity of their marriage controlled and certified by the authorities) to enable them to fulfil the burden of proof concerning the stability of their relationship. They also noted that this approach to protection did not distinguish between cohabiting same-sex couples and married same-sex couples, despite the latter being granted recognition and protection in all jurisdictions in which same-sex marriage was regulated."], "id": "66c8bb17-6808-4a62-8f43-0fc4a56f410a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government pointed out that the only differences between marriage and registered partnership appeared in two areas: establishment of paternity on the basis of marriage did not apply to registered partnerships, nor did the provisions of the Adoption Act or the Names Act regarding the family name of the spouse. However, a registered partner could adopt the other partner\u2019s child. Those exceptions were applicable only to those cases in which parenthood had not been established beforehand. Paternity presumed on the basis of marriage or established paternity could not be annulled on the ground that the man later underwent gender reassignment and became a woman. Nor did the father\u2019s gender reassignment have any legal effects on his responsibility for the care, custody or maintenance of a child as such responsibility was based on parenthood, irrespective of or form of partnership. The applicant was not even claiming that her legal rights and obligations would be reduced were her marriage turned into a registered partnership, but rather relied on the social and symbolic significance of marriage. The Government stressed that the applicant\u2019s legal rights and obligations vis-\u00e0-vis her child arising either from paternity or parenthood would not be altered and the applicant had not produced any evidence to the contrary. Finnish law did not impose compulsory divorce on the applicant, nor annulment or dissolution of marriage. Nor was there any evidence of possible implications for the applicant\u2019s private or family life as she could continue her family life without any interference."], "id": "59768db4-a1d0-4974-bbd1-af7cd0cbe6f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["165. The Government submitted that same- couples wishing to give a legal framework to various aspects of their community life could enter into cohabitation agreements. Such agreements enabled same-sex couples to regulate aspects related to, for example: the manner of dealing with joint expenses and the opening of joint bank accounts; the criteria for the allocation of ownership of assets acquired during the cohabitation; the procedure for the distribution of assets in the event of termination of cohabitation; as well as acts of testamentary disposition in favour of the cohabiting partner (as for example the right to continue a lease following the decease of a partner, as established by judgment no. 404/1998). Furthermore, under Article 408 of the Civil Code it was possible to nominate a person living under the same roof as guardian in the event of incapacitation, as had in fact been done by Mr D.P. and Mr G.P. In the Government\u2019s view cohabitation agreements were the appropriate juridical instrument to give their union the status of family before the law, without any discrimination based on their sexual orientation."], "id": "3fa67c16-2266-4aa1-ae4b-0db16c2256b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicants complained, under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, of discrimination based on their and sexual orientation on account of their exclusion from the registered partnership, claiming that marriage was not a suitable alternative for them. They did not rely on Article 8 taken alone, so the Court considers that there is no need for it to examine this issue of its own motion."], "id": "338161ee-616e-4947-9edd-65aedb9d7c6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicants noted the Government\u2019s argument that Austrian adoption law was aimed at protecting the interests of the child. According to the Court\u2019s case-law, it was for the Government to show that the exclusion of same- couples from second-parent adoption was necessary to achieve that aim. There was a far-reaching scientific consensus that same-sex couples were as capable as different-sex couples of ensuring the positive development of children. From among the studies they submitted, the applicants referred at the hearing to a large-scale study entitled \u201cThe life of children in same-sex civil partnerships\u201d commissioned by the German Ministry of Justice (Marina Rupp (ed.), Die Lebenssituation von Kindern in gleich\u00adgeschlechtlichen Lebenspartnerschaften, Cologne, 2009)."], "id": "0eb8b94e-381d-4df2-9f3a-62a19e7634bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant argued that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of his because he, as a man convicted of serious and particularly serious crimes, started serving his sentence in a closed prison. Women convicted of the same crimes started serving their sentence in partly-closed prisons. Accordingly, male and female prisoners who had been convicted of the same crimes and given the same sentences were subjected to different prison regimes, and the rights of these two groups of prisoners were restricted to a different extent. Most notably, prisoners serving their sentence in closed prisons were not eligible for prison leave, while prisoners in partly-closed prisons, like female prisoners in a situation similar to the applicant\u2019s, did have such a right."], "id": "41113472-3199-44a4-9ec4-1efb8a11e123", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government referred to the Court's previous case-law (the above-cited Rees, Cossey and Sheffield and Horsham judgments) and maintained that neither Article 12 nor Article 8 of the Convention required a State to permit a transsexual to marry a person of his or her original . They also pointed out that the domestic law approach had been recently reviewed and upheld by the Court of Appeal in Bellinger v. Bellinger, the matter now pending before the House of Lords. In their view, if any change in this important or sensitive area were to be made, it should come from the United Kingdom's own courts acting within the margin of appreciation which this Court has always afforded. They also referred to the fact that any change brought the possibility of unwanted consequences, submitting that legal recognition would potentially invalidate existing marriages and leave transsexuals and their partners in same-sex marriages. They emphasised the importance of proper and careful review of any changes in this area and the need for transitional provisions."], "id": "b2515690-4724-4b35-b1b4-e3c070962ae8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicant Mr V.V. indicated that he had lived with his partner Mr X since 2007. The Government\u2019s claim that the evidence of their relationship has not been tested in the domestic proceedings sits ill with the actual findings of the Russian courts, which had taken that evidence but refused to recognise that their same- relationship amounted to a family or at least a social link (see paragraphs 38 and 45 above). On the strength of the material produced by Mr V.V., which included family photographs and travel vouchers, the Court is satisfied that V.V. and Mr X have been living in a stable de facto partnership which falls within the notion of \u201cprivate life\u201d and that of \u201cfamily life\u201d (see Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, \u00a7 73, ECHR 2013 (extracts))."], "id": "7eb19b67-dfe1-4d07-8b17-e38dc1ef8735", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["130. The applicants submitted that both before the domestic courts and before the Court they had produced certified copies of their marriage certificates released by the competent authorities of the place of the celebration of their marriages. It followed that they had submitted sufficient proof as to the validity of their marriages. Furthermore, the refusal of the Italian authorities had solely been based on the fact that they were same\u2011 couples, and not because of any doubt as to the validity of the marriages contracted."], "id": "159897c8-7bd3-4f70-896d-8b2709e253ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicant claimed that Article 12 of the Convention should either be interpreted restrictively to cover only the contracting of marriage or more broadly to cover also the continued existence of a marriage. In the former case, Article 12 would not be relevant to the applicant\u2019s situation as her marriage to her wife had been contracted when they were a different- couple. In the latter case, however, the test whether the \u201cforced\u201d divorce injured \u201cthe very substance of the right to marry\u201d would have to be satisfied. In the applicant\u2019s submission, the latter interpretation applied since the Government\u2019s ability to interfere with a marriage in a manner such as in the present case would render the right to marry largely ineffective. Thus construed, Article 12 of the Convention would apply to the present case and require an examination under that Article."], "id": "9c00104f-8d21-4015-b4e5-96c24491c905", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["159. The applicants submitted that it could no longer be said that same\u2011 marriage was against public order (as confirmed by the Court of Cassation judgment no. 4184/12). Indeed it was not the Italian public order that was at issue in the present case but the international public order, as the norms to be interpreted were norms of international private law. As the Court of Cassation had pointed out (decision of 26 April 2013, no. 10070, which quoted another two decisions of the Court of Cassation of 6 December 2002, no. 17349 and of 23 February 2006, no. 4040), it is the \u201cinternational public order\u201d which is included in the principles of international private law. Therefore the applicants argued that the international public order did not merely mirror Italian fundamental legal principles as provided by the Constitution or by other Italian legal statutes. Instead, it encapsulated the Italian fundamental principles that in turn derive from a plurality of sources of law and in particular from the interaction of the Italian system with the Charter and the Convention."], "id": "5d08cfc5-0191-4632-8df1-1525abd2b235", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["157. The Government had ignored that they were European citizens, and that Article 9 of the European Charter did not distinguish between married same- or different-sex couples (for example, in application of Article 9 and Directive 2004/38/EC recognising the right of EU citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of member states, the decision of 13 February 2012 of the Tribunal of Reggio Emilia, paragraph 85 above) and that each European citizen who was married was entitled to free movement within the EU, regardless of who he or she was married to and where they married. It followed that the European norms concerning married couples also applied in Italy and must apply to the applicants, who were legally married in another EU state. Thus, contrary to that held by the Court of Cassation in judgment no. 4184/12, same-sex marriage celebrated abroad produced legal effects in the Italian system every time the marital status represented a pre-requisite for the application in Italy of EU norms (as explained in the Reggio Emilia Tribunal\u2019s judgment). In connection with the last-mentioned judgment the applicants considered that since an Italian citizen\u2019s marriage to a non-EU same-sex partner was registered, the failure to register their marriage discriminated against them on the basis of their nationality (as they were both Italian)."], "id": "51cbf3a0-320d-4680-a9fa-9f8f05d9923a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["149. The applicants submitted that as a same- couple married abroad they were undoubtedly in the same position as different-sex couples married abroad as regards their request for registration of their marriage. Yet they had suffered different, disadvantageous treatment, as they had been refused registration of their marriage. This refusal also amounted to an interference with their rights to family life and to marry, since the decisions of public authorities jeopardised a relationship of marriage that two adult and consenting persons had created to regulate their private and family life (they referred, mutatis mutandis, to Negrepontis-Giannisis v. Greece (no. 56759/08, \u00a7 57, 3 May 2011)."], "id": "b363e4c9-82e5-4a70-a8eb-fbe44192cea7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security benefit to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Wpt and WMA constituted discrimination against him on grounds of contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "70994d2b-a5b2-4ad4-a2a0-53bd0e58b2de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicants asserted that they had indeed been treated differently in the proceedings in issue. Before the domestic courts, they had argued that the refusal by the second applicant\u2019s father to consent to the adoption was not justified as he had been acting against the interests of the child. Consequently, the second applicant\u2019s interest in the adoption outweighed his father\u2019s interest in objecting to it. Thus, they argued that the court should have overridden the father\u2019s refusal in accordance with Article 181 \u00a7 3 of the Civil Code. In the case of an opposite- couple, the District Court would have carried out a detailed examination and would have had to deliver a separate decision on this issue. However, in the applicants\u2019 case it had denied them any inquiry of the facts on the ground that the adoption requested by them was in any case not possible under Austrian law. This position had been explicitly confirmed by the Supreme Court."], "id": "4c226615-4cf7-4fbd-b835-35f811e6f6fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicants submitted that they had been victims of discrimination because of the refusal of the Austrian authorities to extend the second applicant's health and accident insurance to the first applicant on grounds of their sexual orientation. This had also been acknowledged in substance by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 10 October 2005. They maintained that, despite the Constitutional Court's judgment of 10 October 2005 and the subsequent amendment to the CSSAIA, they were still victims because same- partners were still excluded from joint insurance if they did not raise children in the common household. Moreover, the transitional provision guaranteed the joint insurance to those (male/female) couples who were entitled to it before the amendment, irrespective of whether they raised children or not. Given that this was not the case for same-sex partners they were continuously victims of discriminatory legislation."], "id": "95cff614-4a5a-483d-8d56-173b2fcf09ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicants submitted that they had been victims of discrimination because it had been impossible to have the cover of the second applicant's health and accident insurance extended to include the first applicant. This was because, under section 56(6) of the CSSAIA, as in force until 1 August 2006, such an extension was only open to cohabitees of the opposite and because this discriminatory situation did not effectively change after the entry into force of an amendment to the relevant provisions which imposed conditions they could not fulfil."], "id": "4cdfce38-7009-479f-8802-7d7480f346f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government then proceeded to analyse the rights and obligations arising out of civil unions and concluded that the applicants\u2019 property and personal status had in no way been affected by their exclusion from the scope of the legislation on civil unions. With regard to property issues, the Government reiterated their arguments concerning the admissibility ratione personae of the complaint. They observed that civil unions did not produce any automatic and binding effects with regard to the partners\u2019 property status. As to social security matters, same- couples were in an identical position to different-sex couples who decided to enter into a union. As far as maintenance and inheritance issues were concerned, these could be regulated within a same-sex couple without a civil union, by means of a contractual agreement."], "id": "a6b6e076-e57f-4482-a8d6-5b2dbadc2378", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant stated that adoption by homosexuals fell into three quite distinct categories: first, it might be a single person seeking to adopt, in a member State where adoptions by single persons were permitted (even if only in exceptional cases), in which case any partner the individual might have acquired no parental rights as a result of the adoption (individual adoption); second, one member of a same- couple might seek to adopt the child of the other partner, so that both partners had parental rights vis-\u00e0-vis the child (second-parent adoption); and lastly, both members of a same-sex couple might seek to jointly adopt a child with no prior connection with either partner, so that both partners simultaneously acquired parental rights vis-\u00e0-vis the child (joint adoption). The applicant specified that she had applied for individual adoption, which was the simpler legal option."], "id": "8c6fae61-3bf4-43dd-9d86-d990e1e6b3f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants argued that in today\u2019s society civil marriage was a union of two persons which encompassed all aspects of their lives, while the procreation and education of children was no longer a decisive element. As the institution of marriage had undergone considerable changes there was no longer any reason to refuse same- couples access to marriage. The wording of Article 12 did not necessarily have to be read in the sense that men and women only had the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Furthermore, the applicants considered that the reference in Article 12 to the relevant \u201cnational laws\u201d could not mean that States were given unlimited discretion in regulating the right to marry."], "id": "90329e91-9b4f-4979-a487-cfb0fe51dd74", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicants maintained that the heart of their complaint was that they were discriminated against as a same- couple. Agreeing with the Government on the applicability of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, they asserted that just like differences based on sex, differences based on sexual orientation required particularly serious reasons by way of justification. In the applicants\u2019 contention, the Government had failed to submit any such reasons for excluding them from access to marriage."], "id": "b1b628b8-1eed-4ac0-8561-4cdf3d7361b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant submitted that the facts of her case should be examined under the concepts of private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, she stressed that it clearly followed from the Court\u2019s case-law that a stable de facto relationship between same- couples should be considered as family life under that provision. In her case, she was in a stable relationship with D.B. with whom she maintained a relationship by constant visits for the periods of three months in which she was allowed to stay in Croatia without a residence permit."], "id": "f33fd432-c1e0-4e03-962f-43f0125e9ff1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government further submitted that even if the analogy could be established, the difference in treatment was objectively justified by the fact that the child support and welfare systems established a completely different set of benefits and burdens for same- partners and opposite-sex partners. Furthermore, there was at the relevant time, as the Court had said in the Mata Estevez case, a wide margin of appreciation for States regarding whether and how to afford formal recognition of same-sex relationships. There had been a progression in attitudes to same-sex couples in recent years in society and in European and domestic law. As had been acknowledged in the House of Lords, though, the whole issue of the recognition of same-sex relationships called for a wider consideration of how the disparate legal regimes should be amended. This culminated in the Civil Partnership Act, which introduced comprehensive and thoroughgoing reform, addressing the myriad of issues raised by the decision to recognise same-sex relationships in the United Kingdom. In the Government's view, this initiative had not been required by the Convention. While there was gathering momentum across Europe on this issue, it was still within the margin of appreciation of States when the United Kingdom introduced the relevant reforms. Even though it was not the first Contracting State to do so, it could not be said that it had lagged behind other Contracting States. It remained the case that most of these either provided a less comprehensive set of rights to same-sex couples, or did not recognise them at all. The scale of the change provided justification for the transitional period of one year between the adoption of the Act and its entry into force, during which time the necessary practical arrangements were made. There was a strong public interest in an orderly transition in relation to complex legal and administrative regimes. The Government concluded that the House of Lords had correctly held that the operation of the detailed child support rules prior to the coming into force of the Civil Partnership Act was objectively justified, and that the difference in treatment of which the applicant complained was within the United Kingdom's margin of appreciation."], "id": "6abd48f2-d20c-4c73-ba64-7669ace6e67e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the court decisions refusing joint custody had infringed his right to respect for his family life, and under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that the application of Article 1626a \u00a7 2 of the Civil Code amounted to unjustified discrimination against unmarried fathers on the grounds of and in comparison with divorced fathers."], "id": "360aa14b-a954-4733-8a9b-65112249defa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government pointed out that it was within the State\u2019s margin of appreciation to decide how to construe and treat the concepts of family and private life of individuals who entered into a relationship, in particular when it concerned same- couples. Moreover, the State had a wide margin of appreciation in matters of immigration. In the Government\u2019s view, in the case at issue the applicant had failed to demonstrate that she had had family life with D.B. In particular, she had not lived with D.B. or otherwise demonstrated their mutual commitment to a family life. The fact that she wanted to move and live with D.B. and to start their common business could not amount to the recognition of a de facto family life. Moreover, the Government did not wish to speculate as to whether the matter concerned the applicant\u2019s private life, since the right to a residence permit in Croatia could not be considered under the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her private life. In any case, the Aliens Act clearly listed instances in which family reunification could be sought and there had therefore been no reason for the applicant to consider that her situation could fall within these requirements."], "id": "9e36d792-3dbc-486b-b179-0c27f5c5938d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government further submitted that Law no. 3719/2008 was aimed at regulating an existing social phenomenon, that of unmarried different- couples who had children. Greek law differed in that respect from the legislation in other European countries providing for civil unions. The Greek legislature had stated expressly in the explanatory report on the Law that it was not seeking to regulate all forms of de facto partnership but rather to protect children born to different-sex couples in such partnerships, as well as the parents themselves if they did not wish to marry. In the Government\u2019s view, the whole structure of the Law and the content of its provisions were designed to reflect this. Consequently, the introduction of civil unions for same-sex couples would require a separate set of rules governing a situation which was analogous to, but not the same as, the situation of different-sex couples."], "id": "f0365d3c-2766-4ef2-89c7-ed066a930d0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained that the national authorities\u2019 refusal to allow her to bear only her maiden name after her marriage amounted to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. She also contended that the fact that Turkish law allows married men to bear only their own surname after marriage and not married women constituted discrimination on grounds of and was incompatible with Article 14 of the Convention. The applicant further submitted that the Turkish domestic courts, by disregarding the \u00dcnal Tekeli v. Turkey judgment (cited above) given by the Court and failing to make the necessary amendments to the domestic law, had breached her right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "0cc8690a-c3ca-4686-b5be-580b550b1a6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicants submitted a further argument based on the 2008 European Convention on the Adoption of Children (\u201cthe 2008 Convention\u201d), the Committee of Ministers\u2019 Recommendation of 31 March 2010 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In all these texts the key notion in respect of adoption was the best interests of the child and not the gender or the sexual orientation of the parents. Finally, they contested the Government\u2019s argument that there were sufficient alternative possibilities under Austrian law for giving legal recognition to the relationship between a child and his or her parent\u2019s same- partner."], "id": "d7e8fe9f-fe49-43a8-ae31-bb464721e763", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government accepted that Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention applied to the present case. Thus far, the Court\u2019s case-law had considered homosexual relationships to fall within the notion of \u201cprivate life\u201d, but there might be good reasons to include the relationship of a same- couple living together within the scope of \u201cfamily life\u201d."], "id": "73fb4762-cb94-49c4-971b-94ffa37f2015", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant further argued that the ban on wearing clothing designed to conceal the face in public, which undoubtedly targeted the burqa, generated discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the Convention on grounds of , religion and ethnic origin, to the detriment of Muslim women who, like her, wore the full-face veil. In her view this was indirect discrimination between Muslim women whose beliefs required them to wear the full-face veil and other Muslim women, and also between them and Muslim men. The exception provided for by the Law of 11 October 2010, according to which the ban did not apply if the clothing was worn in the context of \u201cfestivities or artistic or traditional events\u201d was also, in her view, discriminatory, in that it created an advantage for the Christian majority: it allowed Christians to wear in public clothing that concealed their face in the context of Christian festivities or celebrations (Catholic religious processions, carnivals or rituals, such as dressing up as Santa Claus) whereas Muslim women who wished to wear the full-face veil in public remained bound by the ban even during the month of Ramadan."], "id": "f77ae5d1-172c-4c00-ac33-48a5a9c7cadf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant submitted that the amendments were introduced after she had been refused a refugee card and after she had lodged the present application. As such, they did nothing to negate the discrimination she had suffered; if anything those amendments showed that the previous system was discriminatory. Whatever those changes, the original difference in treatment remained without reasonable and objective justification."], "id": "4218edbc-fa2e-46a5-8f52-5f731934e9c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant submitted that he had suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his rights under Article 8 on the ground of his illegitimate status and/or the of his Maltese parent. Indeed, had the applicant\u2019s parents been married, he would have fallen within the parameters of section 5(2)(b) of the Maltese Citizenship Act; However, he fell outside that provision because of his illegitimacy. Moreover, had the applicant\u2019s mother been Maltese the applicant could have obtained citizenship; he failed to do so because it was his father who was Maltese. The applicant was in an analogous situation to any other child with a Maltese father and a foreign mother and who fulfilled all the criteria of section 5(2)(b), and like them would have become a Maltese citizen had it not been for his illegitimate status. This status transpired from his birth certificate, and irrespective of whether his father had voluntarily recognised him or whether there had been a judicial determination to that effect, he was not eligible for citizenship owing to his status."], "id": "531f2383-0d8f-4e66-bb2b-95e88e232936", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["96. The applicants in application no. 29381/09 claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) jointly in respect of the non-pecuniary damage they had allegedly sustained on account of the violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard. They also requested the Court to make specific recommendations to the Government with a view to amending Law no. 3719/2008 and extending the application of civil unions to same- couples."], "id": "31ed26b6-a23c-4b19-8e83-e818925d8dc4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widowed Mother\u2019s Allowance (\u201cWMA\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8."], "id": "ff9fc65d-686f-41b7-9856-018c8e2ab486", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8."], "id": "3443b890-09c7-421a-a416-317c0e5a6b0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government maintained that the applicant had not suffered discrimination. In the first place, it argued that the situation of same- couples at the material time had not been analogous to that of heterosexual couples since the child support legislation and the wider legislative regime for social security benefits treated the groups according to fundamentally different principles for all purposes. This entailed both beneficial and detrimental effects for the two groups. It was therefore artificial and inappropriate for the applicant to isolate just one element of a much wider interlocking set of rules governing entitlement to a variety of State benefits. In many respects, the situation before the entry into force of the Civil Partnership Act had been advantageous for same-sex couples. To properly assess the applicant's situation, it would be necessary to take account of the entirety of the benefits and burdens in the system as a whole. But as soon as the wider perspective was adopted, the applicant could no longer be regarded as being in a comparable or analogous situation for the purpose of analysis under Article 14. If the applicant's arguments were to be accepted, it would follow that heterosexual couples would be able in turn to complain of any provision of the child support and State welfare system that treated them less favourably than the members of a same-sex couple. This would create a \u201cratchet effect\u201d whereby in the end everyone would have to be assessed on the best possible basis that anyone might have at any stage in the calculation. This would lead to a situation where everyone would receive every available benefit, and any burden would be disregarded altogether."], "id": "b11bfa8e-dfbe-4302-820a-1b4fc161ca8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["164. The Government referred to the domestic jurisprudence on the matter which they considered relevant for their defence of the present case. They noted that the domestic courts had acknowledged the existence of same- couples and their right to protection in specific circumstances and to equal treatment, which could be guaranteed by the courts acting in line with their common sense (judgments no. 559/1989 and 404/1998 in relation to leases and state housing in respect of cohabitations more uxorio). This notion of family was further confirmed by the Court of Cassation in its judgment no. 4184/12, which prompted various communes and regions to create a register of civil unions, or a register of de facto unions, which served to register the existence of such couples, an action in fact taken by Mr Gianfranco Goretti and Mr Tommaso Giartosio. However, the existence of such measures of registration in various regions and communes did not oblige the State to recognise such unions as a marriage, but solely to consider their existence as a family within a regulatory framework in line with the internal order of the State \u2013 the only requirement of the Convention (as interpreted in jurisprudence) on the subject matter."], "id": "8957b640-6561-4092-9a54-9ba5659bb456", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government contended that the concept of private life was very broad and did not lend itself to an exhaustive definition. An individual\u2019s physical and moral integrity fell within the notion of \u201cprivate life\u201d and was protected by Article 8 of the Convention. In that regard, they noted that the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court had sought, inter alia, to provide the applicant with adequate compensation for the damage caused by the surgical procedure to her physical and psychological integrity, which had had an impact on both her health and her well-being. In addition, the Government observed that the applicant had complained of discriminatory treatment on the grounds of and age, elements which formed part of an individual\u2019s personality and therefore included the concept of private life. The Government concluded therefore that the circumstances of the case fell within the scope of Article 8."], "id": "4215212f-968e-4e73-b12d-3927712b29d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants complained of the refusal of the first applicant\u2019s application to adopt her partner\u2019s daughter. They alleged that the reason given for that refusal, namely the legal consequences of such adoption, which would deprive the child\u2019s mother of parental responsibility, definitively ruled out adoption only for same- couples, who \u2013 unlike opposite-sex couples \u2013 could not marry and thereby take advantage of the provisions of Article 365 of the Civil Code. They submitted that the refusal to grant the first applicant a simple-adoption order in respect of A. for reasons of principle had infringed their right to respect for their private and family life, in a discriminatory manner."], "id": "bc5d5a9b-aa46-439a-8500-2d9cb9574144", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government further contended that an action for damages in the administrative courts under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code would have constituted an effective remedy in the instant case. Under that provision, the State was obliged to provide redress for damage caused by the acts or omissions of its organs in the exercise of public authority. The sole condition was that the act or omission had to be unlawful, that is to say, it had to infringe a rule of law establishing a specific individual right or interest. In the present case the applicants could have complained before the domestic courts under Articles 57, 914 and 932 of the Civil Code, read together with section 105 of the Introductory Law, of a breach of their personality rights and of their social marginalisation on account of their exclusion as same- couples from the scope of Law no. 3719/2008. In the Government\u2019s view, this remedy would have enabled the applicants to claim compensation for any damage caused by the impugned legislation and at the same time to challenge its constitutionality. They observed that, according to the case-law of the domestic courts, the latter could interpret the constitutional principle of equality broadly, extending a legislative provision favourable to a specific category of persons to cover another category in a similar situation. As authority, the Government cited two judgments of the Court of Cassation (nos. 60/2002 and 9/2004) concerning the salaries and allowances of different categories of employees, an issue that the court had examined from the standpoint of the equality principle."], "id": "ebabc532-4229-422d-8fa8-39529c8e5c39", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants noted that second-parent adoption was open to married couples. Same- couples were not allowed to marry under Austrian law. Even if they became registered partners, second-parent adoption was explicitly prohibited by section 8(4) of the Registered Partnership Act. However, the applicants stressed that they did not wish to assert a right which was reserved to marriage-based families."], "id": "170cc883-0fbc-4c18-9d17-d760e659e709", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["116. The applicant submitted that, in her case, the prosecutors had put undue emphasis on the absence of physical violence and had not taken into account the fact that, at the age of 14, she had never taken important decisions herself, particularly under the pressure of time. The prosecutors had failed to have regard to the unlikelihood of a 14-year-old girl who had never had sexual intercourse consenting to with two men in a row."], "id": "865c0269-1cea-4c53-9d6a-22c6ad931dcc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants\u2019 core submission was that there was a fundamental difference in the level of justification required for a progressive move to eradicate existing discrimination in the pension system and the introduction, from 1986, of new discrimination in relation to industrial injury benefits which had existed on equal terms for men and women for almost forty years. The labour market had already changed by 1986, and ten years earlier the Sex Discrimination Act 1976 and the European Community\u2019s Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC had rendered discrimination in the field of employment unlawful. The assumption that a woman\u2019s working life would be five years shorter than a man\u2019s was therefore entirely illegitimate."], "id": "aad06ed7-9076-417b-b828-e02e12fccfe3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants submitted that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. Referring to Schalk and Kopf (cited above, \u00a7 103), in which the Court had considered it unnecessary to examine whether the lack of any means of legal recognition for same- couples in Austria prior to 1 January 2010 constituted a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, they observed that in their joint dissenting opinion Judges Rozakis, Spielmann and Jebens had found that there had been such a violation. In the applicants\u2019 submission, that opinion applied by definition to one of the rights deriving from a marriage, namely, the possibility for the cohabiting partner who was a national of a non-EU State to obtain a residence permit for family reasons."], "id": "1853ca23-f069-4395-8b2f-ffe7f2d6b546", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widowed Mother\u2019s Allowance (\u201cWMA\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8."], "id": "446ffc8a-31d8-4e0b-95c5-a758a8c5c06a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widowed Mother\u2019s Allowance (\u201cWMA\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. and/or Article 8."], "id": "0f54e79a-d260-4a6d-b302-773e442b8e37", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government argued that the Supreme Administrative Court\u2019s decision to decrease the amount awarded by the first-instance court in respect of non-pecuniary damage had not been governed by prejudice or an intention to discriminate against the applicant on the grounds of her or age. On the contrary, it had been based on the fact that the Supreme Administrative Court had considered that the medical intervention had not been the only cause of the physical and psychological damage which the applicant had complained of. In that regard the Government emphasised that the amount awarded by the Supreme Administrative Court had been attributable to the fact that the applicant\u2019s gynaecological problem had developed a long time earlier, that she had already been treated unsuccessfully several times and that she had already been suffering unbearable pain and symptoms of depression before the operation. For the Supreme Administrative Court, therefore, the applicant\u2019s complains had not been new and surgery had merely aggravated what had already been a difficult situation. Moreover, the Government pointed out that the Supreme Administrative Court had also taken into account the fact that the applicant had become very unhappy and that she had felt \u201cdiminished as a woman\u201d in the wake of the injury she had suffered."], "id": "9e49d8e6-3fea-4f4e-a449-0f5c96ec5119", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants disagreed with the Government\u2019s submissions. They observed that, in Schalk and Kopf (cited above, \u00a7 94), the Court had clearly departed from the Commission\u2019s earlier case-law in stating that the relationship of a cohabiting same- couple living in a stable de facto partnership fell within the notion of \u201cfamily life\u201d. In their submission, the refusal to issue the second applicant with a residence permit had deprived them of any possibility of living in Italy as a couple and had resulted in a legal obligation for the second applicant to leave the country. In their view, it followed that the facts of the present case fell within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention, thus Article 14 was also applicable."], "id": "3b98a356-7a56-40c0-9e37-256f217ccf24", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant also complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to pay him the widow's payment and widowed mother's allowance to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position constituted discrimination on grounds of contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. He made an identical complaint as regards his future non-entitlement to a widow's pension."], "id": "4b3bc390-bfef-4505-87b3-565e81b52ec9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant contested that argument by submitting that the sole reason she had been refused the post in question had been her . The applicant also disagreed with the Government that the difference in the treatment of female and male candidates could be justified by taking into account the dangerous factors implied in the occupation of a security officer. She submitted in that connection that many women in Turkey were successfully employed in dangerous occupations, such as police officers, army pilots and prison guards."], "id": "dc058a86-61a7-46b0-861f-d0ba38c65a52", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government argued that the domestic authorities\u2019 and courts\u2019 decisions denying the applicants the right to enter into a registered partnership had been based only on section 2 of the Registered Partnership Act, which excluded different- couples from registered partnerships. The different legal consequences of marriage and the registered partnership which the applicants complained about were \u2013 in so far as they actually existed \u2013 based on provisions which had not been the subject matter of the domestic proceedings, such as those relating to divorce and the declaration of death of a spouse. Referring to Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (cited above, \u00a7 109), the Government argued that the question whether those provisions might have an effect on the applicants in the future was merely hypothetical. Contesting in substance the applicants\u2019 victim status, the Government claimed that the application was inadmissible in so far as it sought an in abstracto review of legal provisions which did not directly concern the applicants."], "id": "47fd7dd2-0d75-4f48-8ac7-ff96708c9063", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant contends that he has been discriminated against on the grounds of , as male and female inmates are subjected to different prison regimes resulting in a differentiation on the basis of sex with regard to the right to prison leave. The Court notes that \u201csex\u201d is explicitly mentioned in Article 14 as a prohibited ground of discrimination."], "id": "1a3962df-8e8b-415c-b595-8a0a49834d1e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["151. The applicants submitted that as adduced by the competent authorities the only reason for the refusal was the same- nature of their marriage. Thus, the aim allegedly pursued by the refusal of registration was the protection of the \u201cinternal\u201d public order (as per Circular no. 2 of 26 March 2001, mentioned above). This aim was rather general, as it allegedly included fundamental, ethical, economic, political and social principles of the legal order. However, the Government had failed to explain which specific fundamental principles had to be defended against the registration of same-sex marriages. Thus, it could only be deduced that the difference in treatment was aimed solely at protecting a concept of marriage as a heterosexual legal institution and an abstract idea of traditional family. Nevertheless, the applicants noted that the Court of Cassation (judgment no. 4184/12) acknowledged that a foreign same-sex marriage may no longer be considered non-existent. It had found that the refusal of its registration was simply a consequence of the fact that it could not be recognised as a marriage in the Italian legal order (marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman), irrespective of any considerations relating to the protection of public order. The applicants noted that in such a context the Civil Status Offices and the domestic courts were prevented from carrying out a proportionality assessment, namely whether giving publicity to a same-sex union would jeopardise internal public order. The situation was such that the lack of recognition of same-sex unions, despite a constitutional obligation on the legislature to fill this gap, also prevented domestic authorities from registering the marriage deed at least as a civil union, while reserving the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples. It followed that the refusal was not genuinely aimed at protecting fundamental principles of legal order, which in fact do not oppose, but actually require, the recognition of same-sex unions."], "id": "3660f29b-0d6f-486f-8c5b-3f64d30967b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants submitted, further, that a residence permit for family reasons had been issued by the Reggio Emilia Court to a Uruguayan national who had married an Italian citizen in Spain. They added that, since that decision, thirty other identical residence permits had been issued to other non-EU nationals in same- couples with Italian citizens on the basis of marriage or a civil partnership contracted in EU countries other than Italy."], "id": "c922f4ff-2b4a-4888-9cc8-837096bd3c8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant argued that according to the Court's case-law, a difference in treatment based on sexual orientation required very weighty reasons if it was to be accepted as compatible with the Convention. The Government had not been able to point to any legitimate aim served by the different treatment of same- couples. The reasoning of the majority in the House of Lords did not constitute an objective justification for the purposes of the Convention. The fact that it took much time and effort to draft, discuss and implement the Civil Partnership Act could not justify the previous discriminatory situation. The applicant also criticised the Government's reliance on the Mata Estevez decision. In her view, this had been superseded by the Court's judgment in Karner, which should be treated as a statement of general principle applicable to any comparisons between heterosexual and homosexual couples in analogous circumstances. Moreover, as that case arose out of a judgment of the Austrian Supreme Court of 1996, and since the Court did not attach any temporal limitation to the effects of its reasoning, it followed that equal treatment should have been secured as of that date. The applicant rejected the Government's argument that she could not complain of just one element of the child support system. Such an argument was repugnant to any modern equality law paradigm. The mere fact that, at the relevant time, the situation of heterosexual couples was subject to different principles did not explain why no comparison between the two groups was possible. Rather, the difference existed because of discrimination, and so could not be relied upon by the Government to defeat the applicant's claim."], "id": "13e15adb-5c43-472d-8412-e370aa3762d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant stated that he faced a very significant risk that he would, within the next few years, be deprived on the grounds of his of a widow's pension to which he would otherwise have been entitled. He argued that he was already suffering detriment due to his being deprived of the possibility of ever applying for a widow's pension."], "id": "0a9c8e76-5ff7-4a39-90e6-c9e0a68852c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicants alleged that the fact that the civil unions introduced by Law no. 3719/2008 were designed only for couples composed of different- adults infringed their right to respect for their private and family life and amounted to unjustified discrimination between different-sex and same-sex couples, to the detriment of the latter. They relied on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8. Those provisions read as follows:"], "id": "bef8cd5e-b809-4451-ade8-87b152ec3430", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicants argued that the wording did not necessarily imply that a man could only marry a woman and vice versa. The Court observes that, looked at in isolation, the wording of Article 12 might be interpreted so as not to exclude the marriage between two men or two women. However, in contrast, all other substantive Articles of the Convention grant rights and freedoms to \u201ceveryone\u201d or state that \u201cno one\u201d is to be subjected to certain types of prohibited treatment. The choice of wording in Article 12 must thus be regarded as deliberate. Moreover, regard must be had to the historical context in which the Convention was adopted. In the 1950s marriage was clearly understood in the traditional sense of being a union between partners of different ."], "id": "bf2784f9-3efe-43fd-8c91-b1dc3ab8ed72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that Article 14 was not applicable in the present case. In their view, in S. v. the United Kingdom (no. 11716/85, Commission decision of 14 May 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 47, p. 274) and R\u00f6\u00f6sli v. Germany (no. 28318/95, Commission decision of 15 May 1996), the Commission had indicated that the protection of the family was a legitimate aim capable of justifying a difference in treatment and that a stable homosexual relationship between two men did not fall within the scope of the right to respect for family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The Commission had also found that the deportation of an alien who was in a same- relationship with a person in the host State did not amount to an interference with the right guaranteed by that provision (see X and Y v. the United Kingdom, no. 9369/81, Commission decision of 3 May 1983, DR 32, p. 223; W.J. and D.P. v. the United Kingdom, no. 12513/86, Commission decision of 13 July 1987; and C. and L.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 14753/89, Commission decision of 9 October 1989)."], "id": "b2490486-f3ee-46c2-b5e6-e8dba37541b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant complained that although she currently enjoyed a full physical relationship with a man, she and her partner could not marry because the law treated her as a man. She argued that the Corbett v. Corbett definition of a person's for the purpose of marriage had been shown no longer to be sufficient in the recent case of Bellinger v. Bellinger and that even if a reliance on biological criteria remained acceptable, it was a breach of Article 12 to use only some of those criteria for determining a person's sex and excluding those who failed to fulfil those elements."], "id": "39a0fef6-84c3-497e-80c6-f1c72e2fea76", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant alleged that he had been discriminated against on grounds of because he had been refused the possibility of obtaining a stay of execution of his prison sentence, as under Article 453 \u00a7 1 b) of the CCP only convicted mothers of children under the age of one could seek a stay of execution. He relied on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention."], "id": "1a1dde46-b5dc-4952-bf8e-3107fa86f237", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government observed that the applicant had become liable to the payment of a fine because he had chosen to ignore his summons for jury service. He had not complained of an unfair trial or of a lack of independence or impartiality of the domestic tribunal. Nor had he complained that the situation would have been different if he had been a woman. Therefore, no discrimination on the ground of could be disclosed."], "id": "db3cfcfd-0b36-4fbb-9526-6f7766d72de8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicants also pointed out that, although it is true that the Member States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation when regulating such matters, the equality of the sexes is a major goal of Council of Europe. Therefore, there must be a compelling reason advanced before a difference in treatment on grounds of could be regarded as being compatible with the Convention. In their view, the Government had failed to put forward such an argument."], "id": "ad4b2846-2fb6-4c49-83a7-8bd6e7e70799", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government then submitted that, while acknowledging that the States enjoyed a margin of appreciation regarding the protection of the traditional family, in 2010 the Court had started examining under Article 8 of the Convention forms of cohabitation between same- couples (see, inter alia, Kozak v. Poland, no. 13102/02, 2 March 2010). In the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (no. 30141/04, ECHR 2010) the Court had acknowledged that same-sex couples could rely on their right to respect for family life, but pointed out that the Convention did not guarantee them the right to marry. It had also observed that where a State chose to provide same-sex couples with an alternative means of recognition, it enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation as regards the exact status conferred (see, inter alia, Gas and Dubois v. France, no. 25951/07, \u00a7 66, ECHR 2012)."], "id": "c725aab7-1ba1-4d08-903b-c2c127bfea90", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant complains that the national authorities\u2019 refusal to allow her to bear only her maiden name after her marriage amounted to a breach of Articles 6, 8 and 46 of the Convention. She also contends that the fact that Turkish law allows married men to bear their own surname after marriage and not married women constitutes discrimination on grounds of and is incompatible with Article 14 of the Convention. The applicant further refers to the Court\u2019s \u00dcnal Tekeli v. Turkey judgment (cited above) and submits that the Turkish domestic authorities should have complied with this judgment."], "id": "fe874a31-8238-4717-b84a-38859a92eae1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicant submitted that his homosexual orientation had been the single ground on which he had been denied the right to succeed to the tenancy of the flat in which he had lived with the late T.B. He had been refused the status of a person who had remained in actual marital cohabitation only because they had formed a same- couple. In contrast to heterosexual common-law partners, who could at the material time enjoy the right to succeed to a tenancy, homosexual relationships had been excluded on the basis of the well-established and categorical interpretation of the notion \u201cde facto marital cohabitation\u201d as covering only a different-sex relationship. For that reason, the courts, having established the fact that he and T.B. had remained in a homosexual relationship, had not even given him a chance to prove his compliance with the remaining statutory conditions laid down in section 8(1) of the 1994 Act."], "id": "82117f07-8696-47dd-bc96-a939f5451e7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government considered that the applicant's arguments to the effect that the difference of treatment of same- couples was demonstrative of a lack of respect by the State for a most intimate aspect of private life, and that it exerted a coercive effect on her freedom to make decisions about her sexual orientation, were theoretical constructs rather than factual observations. The implication of these arguments would be that any difference in treatment referable in any way to sexual orientation would engage Article 14 even in the absence of a link to substantive Convention rights. The correct approach was to have regard to the real factual implications of the circumstances of each given case and take account of how remote the facts were from the core value of the substantive right at issue. Here there was no discernible impact on the applicant's private life. She was effectively inviting the Court to dispense with any ambit threshold and establish a free-standing prohibition on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation."], "id": "061360e2-3cdb-4cc2-b066-2dd072161334", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicant, at domestic level and before the Court, thus complained about the allegedly discriminatory nature of the applicable Latvian prison regime writ large. However, the only complaint which this Court could consider on the merits was the specific complaint as formulated in the domestic proceedings and before this Court, namely that when refused permission to attend his father\u2019s funeral \u201che had [...] been discriminated against on the basis of , as women in his situation would have been able to attend the funeral.\u201d[13]"], "id": "3c86867a-d565-4b0d-beba-b2afcfc29c18", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["147. The Government advanced another argument to justify the difference in treatment complained of. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, they asserted that the margin of appreciation was a wide one in the sphere of adoption law, which had to strike a careful balance between the interests of all the persons involved. In the present context it was even wider, as there was no European consensus on the issue of second-parent adoption by same- couples."], "id": "105e6ae4-78dc-4617-a379-8313ebe54ca4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained that the Supreme Administrative Court\u2019s judgment in her case had discriminated against her on the grounds of her and age. She complained, in particular, about the reasons given by the Supreme Administrative Court for reducing the amount awarded to her in respect of non-pecuniary damage and about the fact that it had disregarded the importance of a sex life for her as a woman. She relied on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "42b18a24-3877-447a-af2e-176565abb774", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities\u2019 refusal to pay him the social security and tax benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely Widow\u2019s Payment (\u201cWpt\u201d), Widowed Mother\u2019s Allowance (\u201cWMA\u201d), Widow\u2019s Bereavement Allowance (\u201cWBA\u201d) and Widow\u2019s Pension (\u201cWP\u201d) constituted discrimination against him on grounds of contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8."], "id": "64f0a9c3-33b7-4cbc-a1bb-59c29da5115f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["156. The applicants stressed that the fact that it was impossible for them to register their marriage obtained abroad amounted to discriminatory treatment. They considered that a) the marriage registered abroad was valid and produced all legal effects and consequences which are proper of a legal marriage recognised and regulated by the law of the State in which the marriage was registered or celebrated; b) it was a marriage that in all its characteristics and aspects is identical to marriage as legally recognised by Italian law; c) in addition, contrary to the submission by the Italian Court of Cassation and as explained below, the marriage registered abroad would produce full legal consequences within the Italian legal system. This did not, however, mean, inter alia, that the State had the duty to allow same- marriage in Italy, or to extend to same-sex couples the full legal protection given to heterosexual married couples."], "id": "3043e760-6503-435a-a1a2-620463526d47", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom authorities' refusal to pay him the social-security benefits to which he would have been entitled had he been a woman in a similar position, namely a widowed mother's allowance and a widow's payment, constituted discrimination against him and his wife on grounds of contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He made an identical complaint as regards his future non-entitlement to a widow's pension."], "id": "41ad32a8-3630-4c1f-8399-e85c447a380f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government submitted that a fair balance had therefore been struck between the rights of the individual and the general interest of the community. To the extent that there were situations where a transsexual may face limited disclosure of their change of , these situations were unavoidable and necessary e.g. in the context of contracts of insurance where medical history and gender affected the calculation of premiums."], "id": "b52ab197-ca47-455a-837d-e7494ecbad58", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "sex", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicants maintained that the French courts\u2019 refusal to grant the first applicant a simple-adoption order in respect of A. infringed their right to respect for their private and family life in a discriminatory manner. They alleged that, as a same- couple, they had been subjected to an unjustified difference in treatment compared with heterosexual couples, whether married or not."], "id": "ad09171f-b311-4a37-ab1d-c401623aa82f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant submitted that national legislation together with the Constitution and the Convention gave him the right to freely choose his , to express it and change it, without having to prove it. The requirement that he had to prove his religious affiliation was contrary to Article 9 and he was treated differently from other citizens, effectively as a second class degree citizen, contrary to Article 14 as a result."], "id": "367008b0-8cbd-4bc9-b962-f158adda5c15", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government conceded that, through being subjected to a regime that those wishing to marry in the Church of England would not have been subjected to, the applicants' rights under Article 14, read together with Article 12, had been breached. The Government therefore accepted that the Certificate of Approval scheme was discriminatory on the ground of . With regard to the failure to remove the discriminatory aspect of the scheme, the Government submitted that they did not act following the judgment of Mr Justice Silber because they were reluctant to rush to remedy the Article 14 incompatibility until a final judgment on the whole of the scheme was available. Following the House of Lords' judgment, they entered into discussions with a view to bringing the Church of England within the scheme. In spite of the discussions, however, no agreement could be reached. The Government now plan to abolish the Certificate of Approval scheme in 2011. In the meantime, as the scheme was contained in legislation passed by Parliament, it would be contrary to the rule of law and the separation of powers for the Home Office to instruct registrars not to comply with it."], "id": "68a28840-33de-41e8-b163-3757c006f47a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government pointed out that the District Court's judgment of 7 August 2001 refusing re-registration of the applicant had had a lawful basis. The law required the original charter and registration certificate, the information on the basic tenets of , and the document indicating the legal address of the organisation. However, the applicant had failed to produce these documents and therefore the decision not to process the application for re-registration had been lawful. The Government claimed that the applicant is not precluded from lodging a new application for re-registration."], "id": "f12b89d5-4f86-497e-b31b-f97fca1eba78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["103. The applicant submitted that could only be used as a criterion if a special right was granted on that basis and activated in accordance with the wishes of the person enjoying that right, and not the reverse, that is to say at the discretion of the State. In her view, the automatic application of the special right by the courts according to religious criteria gave rise to a discriminatory difference in treatment."], "id": "3889e244-b3c2-47e2-9cb8-52950024dca2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government observed that the issue of whether or not pupils followed religion/ethics courses was a delicate one, since the parents' choice, taken in conformity with their own convictions, might cause their child to belong to a minority in a certain class or school. The authorities should do their utmost to minimise the risk of a child's stigmatisation because he or she did not follow a religion/ethics course. It was the school's duty to provide pupils who did not follow a class in or ethics with care and supervision whenever they were on the school premises. It was also the school's duty to react to all manifestations of intolerance towards such children. The Government claimed that those obligations had been complied with in the present case. They also noted that, owing to the nature of the issue, it was not only the school which had positive obligations with respect to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; it was first and foremost the parents' duty to ensure that their children understood the choice made by them as regards religion/ethics education at school. The Government observed that the press articles attached to the application lodged by Mr and Mrs Grzelak did not support the assertion that it was their intention to protect their personal beliefs from being disclosed."], "id": "280e9c08-4df5-4b6b-9674-288ace2bb189", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["170. The applicants on their part argued that the attacks, intimidation and assault, the theft and the violence in general perpetrated against them had been carried out with complete impunity and had been tolerated by the State because the victims\u2019 faith was different from that of the majority of the population. According to the applicants, this amounted to discrimination on the ground of . The applicants drew the Court\u2019s attention to the fact that the authorities had refused to apply the Criminal Code in their respect simply because they belonged to a religious minority."], "id": "8fba3723-f5fd-4d81-b4b6-52a3925c66aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government submitted that the applicants had not been convicted for their religious beliefs but for their membership of a terrorist organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. In particular, they had distributed leaflets and brochures promoting the superiority of Muslims over adherents of other religions, calling for a confrontation between Islamic fundamentalists and all others, for the violent overthrow of non-Muslim governments and for universal Islamisation of mankind. Hizb ut-Tahrir rejected the possibility of participating in the democratic political process and chose to conduct its activities in an illegal and clandestine manner. The interference with the applicants\u2019 freedoms of , expression and association had therefore been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. Moreover, given the terrorist and extremist nature of the organisation and its intention to create hostility between adherents of different religions, to foster disunity in society and to undermine the constitutional foundations of the Russian Federation, the applicants\u2019 actions within that organisation had been aimed at destroying the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. Referring to Article 17 of the Convention, the Government argued that the applicants could not therefore claim the protection afforded by Articles 9, 10 and 11."], "id": "e78c7aef-446c-4c0d-a14e-2e62f8a233b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government claimed that the third applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies with regard to his allegations of discriminatory treatment because no class in ethics had been provided as an alternative to religious instruction and because of the form of the school reports. They submitted that the Ordinance regulated in a comprehensive manner the duties of school authorities regarding the organisation of classes in or ethics. It imposed no obligation on schools to provide a class in ethics, as that depended on parents or pupils requesting it and on there being sufficient numbers of interested pupils. If Mr and Mrs Grzelak had considered that their son was being discriminated against by the school authorities on account of the absence of a course in ethics, they should have challenged the provisions of the Ordinance which did not provide for compulsory teaching of ethics instead of religious instruction. In their view, the applicant should have lodged a constitutional complaint against the manner of organising classes in ethics provided for in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Ordinance."], "id": "3ca2d1f2-81fc-44db-bba8-1b234f758ac2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicants complained that the refusal of the Austrian authorities to grant legal personality to the first applicant by conferring on it the status of a religious society under the Recognition Act violated their right to freedom of . They further submitted that the legal personality conferred on the first applicant under the Religious Communities Act was limited and insufficient for the purposes of Article 9 of the Convention. The applicants also relied on Article 11 of the Convention. These provisions read as follows:"], "id": "fc1b0b98-054e-4f80-be82-6823e6e4969d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government argued that the third applicant's situation in the present case was very similar to the Saniewski case. The school report was an official document which contained objective information as to the attendance and assessment of a pupil's achievements in courses which had been organised and had been attended by him or her. It might happen that a pupil did not attend some courses for various reasons, for instance because he or she was exempted from physical education on health grounds. Where pupils did not attend a given course, such as a course in or ethics or physical education, this was normally reflected in the standard school reports, as it would be unreasonable to expect that those pupils should receive their reports in a different form."], "id": "7ba53cc4-be09-4505-acce-63c06df997e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government admitted that, even though it was formulated in general terms, the ban introduced by the Law of 11 October 2010 could be seen as a \u201climitation\u201d, within the meaning of Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s or beliefs. They argued, however, that the limitation pursued legitimate aims and that it was necessary, in a democratic society, for the fulfilment of those aims."], "id": "03cafb7e-a366-4294-b07a-ee3432ed2e27", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant complained that she had not had a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in that the Court of Appeal had refused to order a social inquiry report. She also claimed that there had been interference with her freedom of within the meaning of Article 9, that this interference was discriminatory within the meaning of Article 9 taken in conjunction with Article 14, and referred in the submissions in support of her arguments to Article 2 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "c3ecdd5e-cd43-4fa5-8345-ae562a482be1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service or alternative civilian service, while assuming a function within the Federation of Evangelical Communities in Austria (Bund Evangelikaler Gemeinden in \u00d6sterreich) which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from such service, constituted discrimination on the ground of his , as prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 9."], "id": "c744dc3c-d1b3-48dc-9808-1ed66b1b3b47", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants submitted that the refusal of the Austrian authorities to grant legal personality to the first applicant by conferring on it the status of a religious society recognised under the Recognition Act violated their right to freedom of . In particular, before July 1998, the first applicant could not have been established as a legal entity and, thus, could not have entered into legal relations, concluded contracts or acquired assets. The first applicant had, thus far, no internal autonomy, could not hire the necessary religious ministers and was not entitled to perform its pastoral work for believers in hospitals or prisons. The second to fifth applicants, as leading executives of the first applicant, were also limited in exercising their right to freedom of religion. Neither the Basic Law 1867 nor the 1998 Religious Communities Act provided explicitly for the internal autonomy of a religious community. The Constitutional Court had found (in its judgment of 3 March 2001, B1713/98 \u2013 see paragraph 34 above) that registered religious communities, unlike recognised religious societies, did not enjoy the right to comprehensive organisation and administration of their internal affairs without State interference. Lastly, the applicants contested that they would have had the possibility of forming an association under the Associations Act. They referred to the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding of 1929 (VfSlg. 1265/1929), confirming the administrative authorities\u2019 practice not to allow religious societies to form an association, and thus refusing the request of the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses (Ernste Bibelforscher) to set up an association. Thereafter the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses had not tried again to form an association, but auxiliary associations (Hilfsvereine) with specialised religious aims had been created. The two examples of associations submitted by the Government were likewise merely auxiliary associations. It was not until the enactment of the 2002 Associations Act that religious societies had been allowed to set up an association."], "id": "538785d5-2f74-45df-96c1-64ce2bf85633", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government considered that the finding of a violation in itself would constitute sufficient and appropriate redress in the present case. They submitted that in the case of Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others the Court had granted the applicants compensation in the amount of EUR 10,000 for damage resulting from the violation of their rights to the free exercise of their under Article 9 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (cited above, \u00a7 129). In any event, they submitted that the amount of non-pecuniary damage claimed was excessive and the sum claimed as pecuniary damage would in any event be refunded to the applicant community following a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 2 July 2009 (B 1397/08), in which it had found, in a subsequent case brought by the applicant community, that the levying of inheritance and gift tax on the applicant community was unconstitutional."], "id": "ddffe09d-0a87-4b77-ae14-95c17f2f3786", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant contested this view and maintained that if the relevant domestic legislation provided for exemptions from military or alternative civilian service, it should do so without any discrimination. During the time of his civilian service he had had to work forty hours a week and, thus, had been unable to perform his functions as a deacon and preacher and had had to limit the practice of his to his spare time."], "id": "5d99b596-fd1f-4f33-bafe-7e51ec30de9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government further submitted that there was no violation of the applicant's right to freedom of or any restriction on that right. The penalty imposed on the applicant \u201cwas not harsh and was not motivated by religious factors, but by a failure to submit to the Religions Act and violation of the administrative procedure\u201d. The refusal of re-registration of the applicant did not entail a ban on its activity. Members of the applicant continued to profess their faith, hold services of worship and ceremonies, and guide their followers."], "id": "366833a1-de4c-4367-85c0-e1a35c2bd0df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his , prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 4."], "id": "50f18456-4cef-47f7-8e2b-b83b2edba3d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government maintained that the status conferred on the first applicant as a registered religious community under the 1998 Religious Communities Act complied with the requirements of Article 9; it only provided a legal status and in no way restricted the exercise or enjoyment of the right to freedom of . In conclusion, there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 9 of the Convention."], "id": "de656330-e5e0-4fcb-b4ae-d1eea116a9a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["136. The applicants argued that, in dismissing Ms M.\u2019s action seeking the limitation of D.C.\u2019s contact rights by the final judgment of 5 February 2004, the domestic courts had mainly relied on Ms M.\u2019s religious affiliation. At the same time, the first-instance court had accused Ms M. of bringing her son up in accordance with the precepts of her and the Court of Appeal had not distanced itself from the judgment of the aforementioned court, which according to the applicants had been partial and subjective. Moreover the domestic courts had failed to provide objective reasons for dismissing the medical and testimonial evidence which had proved that D.C. had sexually assaulted the second applicant. Lastly, the domestic courts had also failed to allow Ms M.\u2019s action contesting the award of D.C.\u2019s contact rights which had ended by the final judgment of 1 June 2005, in spite of the available evidence concerning the abuse that the second applicant had been subjected to."], "id": "46993a32-586a-453a-a1e9-5bf42bc9314e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his , prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 9."], "id": "a9587941-e75a-4995-9dbc-bbb039a01980", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant contested this view and maintained that if the relevant domestic legislation provided for exemptions from military or alternative civilian service, it should do so without any discrimination. During the time of his civilian service he had had to work forty hours a week, and thus had been unable to perform his functions as a deacon and preacher and had had to limit the practice of his to his spare time."], "id": "653356dd-22d0-4101-ac95-4dfd15a30a36", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government questioned the reliance on various media and other reports in substantiating the applicant's complaints and considered them immaterial to the case. Nevertheless, in respect of the media campaigns, the Government contended that they did not infringe on the applicant's right to freedom of . To the contrary, they considered them a legitimate exercise of the media's right of freedom of expression, in so far as they were expressing the reservations of the public towards members of a religious organisation allegedly proselytising among the pupils of the School with the tacit support or approval of the institution's former principal. In any event, the Government considered that the media's singling out of the applicant had not, in itself, infringed her right to freedom of religion."], "id": "8dec7901-439b-45ce-bda8-3170f54db94f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government accepted that the administrative liability imposed on the applicants for holding demonstrations constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression. However, they considered that the restrictions on the promotion of homosexuality in general and the enforcement of these restrictions against the applicants in particular had been in accordance with law and had been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of health and morals and the rights of others. In the present case, the Government claimed to have enjoyed the wide margin of appreciation generally available to the Contracting States when regulating freedom of expression in relation to matters liable to offend intimate personal convictions within the sphere of morals or, especially, ."], "id": "65310645-5b88-4fe1-9a2c-74f10207b142", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicant re-affirmed his complaint, adding that it was clear that the police had considered him \u201cstrange\u201d, uncooperative and even anti-social merely because of his . Apart from the questioning of a group of skinheads in 2001, the respondent State's authorities seemed more interested in discussing the \u201csuspicious\u201d nature of the Hare Krishna community rather than in uncovering the religious aspect of the attacks in question."], "id": "955e2f92-55cb-4eaf-b884-8f9f408f3299", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function within a religious community which was comparable to that of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 4."], "id": "78c188e2-ba10-4b29-b7b0-f98d49be837b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant complained for the same reasons of a violation of her right to respect for her private life, her right to freedom to manifest her or beliefs and her right to freedom of expression, together with discrimination in the exercise of these rights. She relied on Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention, taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14. Those first three Articles read as follows."], "id": "15c5d5f0-9a68-4073-85b8-e83b9a7ac149", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government relied on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guaranteed individuals respect for and protection of their religious and moral beliefs and the right to bring up their children in accordance with them. They claimed that authorising gay parades would breach the rights of those people whose religious and moral beliefs included a negative attitude towards homosexuality. They further noted that in the case of Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria (20 September 1994, \u00a7\u00a7 52 and 56, Series A no. 295\u2011A) the Court had recognised the great role of in people's everyday life, which should be taken into account in order to prevent religious beliefs from becoming the subject of unreasonable and insulting accusations. They concluded on that basis that the State must take into account the requirements of the major religious associations and that \u201cthe democratic State must protect society from destructive influence on its moral fundamentals, and protect the human dignity of all citizens, including believers\u201d. In the present case, the ideas of the event organisers were not neutral to the rest of society, but had actually encroached on the rights, lawful interests and human dignity of believers."], "id": "2409b373-75d8-4cdb-bd79-96656c1a10b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 4."], "id": "ba41e00e-34b6-4d31-83f0-884ce208556c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["177. The Government in reply merely submitted that the applicants\u2019 complaints were unsubstantiated. This general statement is particularly striking in view of the fact that although all the applicants explicitly complained that they had been subjected to violence because of their , the Georgian authorities took no steps whatsoever to investigate the alleged religious motive (see paragraphs 141-142 above). Furthermore, various police officers made tendentious remarks in relation to the applicants\u2019 religion throughout the proceedings. The Court has already established on several occasions that such remarks may disclose a general discriminatory attitude of the authorities (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, \u00a7\u00a7 97-100, 26 July 2007)."], "id": "d3d658ad-3eec-4d94-8eb4-f44faaf424d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant\u2019s complaint concerns the rating status of its temple in Preston. This building is considered by the members of the applicant Church to constitute its most sacred centre. It is used as a place of congregational religious worship by those who have established their devotion and been accorded a \u201crecommend\u201d (see paragraphs 6-7 above). In the domestic proceedings, the opinion of the majority of the House of Lords was that the subject-matter of complaint did not come within the ambit of Article 9 of the Convention, with the consequence that Article 14 did not apply, since the refusal of the tax exemption did not prevent Mormons from manifesting their and since the tax exemption rules were applied neutrally to all religious groups and not directed specifically at the applicant Church (see paragraph 11 above). The Court can well understand such an assessment by the national courts of the facts of the present case, although it may be that in certain circumstances issues concerning the operation of religious buildings, including expenses incurred as a result of the taxation status of such buildings, are capable of having an impact on the exercise of the right of members of religious groups to manifest religious belief (see, mutatis mutandis, Association Les T\u00e9moins de J\u00e9hovah v. France, no. 8916/05, \u00a7\u00a7 48-54, 30 June 2011). The Court does not, however, need to decide whether, in the particular circumstances, the applicant\u2019s complaint about the application to it of the tax exemption legislation falls within the ambit of Article 9, so that Article 14 applies, since for the reasons given below it has come to the conclusion that the claim of discrimination is unfounded on its merits."], "id": "32d0b829-01a1-4836-8dd2-f929bdf868b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government denied that the State had in this case deprived the applicant of his right to manifest his freely. The Chief of the Islamic Community had not stated that a believer should abstain from working during Islamic religious holidays as an expression of religion or that working during such holidays was contrary to their beliefs. Absence from work during certain Muslim holidays therefore was not a manifestation or expression of religious beliefs in the sense protected by the Convention."], "id": "bbee0096-ad22-4a14-8ed4-84fe8e9a1ae8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his , prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 9."], "id": "c223ab98-1e5c-426d-95d3-2f0a35fd2757", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government acknowledged that the Court of Appeal's judgment had condemned the results of the Jehovah's Witnesses' precepts regarding child-rearing in general terms, but asserted that the mere fact of the applicant's religious beliefs had not been the basis of this decision. According to the Government, the basis of the Court of Appeal's judgment, which had specified the damage suffered by the children, lay in the disadvantages already experienced by them, in that the medical certificate pointed to the existence of a degree of frustration due to the imposed by their mother, no medical certificate to the contrary having been submitted to invalidate the psychiatrist's opinion. In addition, the judgment noted that the applicant took her children with her when attempting to spread her religious beliefs, and that numerous witnesses had confirmed the children's wish to live with their father. Consequently, the Government considered that the Court of Appeal had ruled with reference to the particular circumstances and had justified its decision objectively and reasonably."], "id": "8838c4ce-5fc5-484b-8e8a-2b137e61ef47", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complains of discrimination under Article 14. He alleges that his rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1 have been subject to discrimination on the grounds of , political opinion or association with a national minority. He further complains that in breach of Article 13, he has not had any effective remedy before a national authority in respect of his alleged violations of his rights and freedoms."], "id": "c1961a5d-8bf7-43f8-95ee-8660787af78d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant argued that the Government\u2019s criticisms of his conduct were unsubstantiated. He had not been unjustifiably absent since he had given notification in advance of his absence. He also had not celebrated Orthodox holidays; businesses however closed on such days and he could not work. As concerned his name, this had been given to him at birth and beliefs could legitimately vary afterwards. He had never been interviewed or seen eating by any officials from the relevant authorities and it was not substantiated that his diet or knowledge of Islam was lacking. In any event it was of limited relevance and it would have been immoral and uncivilized to put him to some kind of test in this way, in particular as no one else had been required to prove their assertions of faith. He also argued that this would prevent uneducated people from joining a and allow the educated to join many."], "id": "fa900875-d967-40af-8476-3bd900700cab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicants alleged that the Moldovan authorities\u2019 refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia infringed their freedom of , since only religions recognised by the government could be practised in Moldova. They asserted in particular that their freedom to manifest their religion in community with others was frustrated by the fact that they were prohibited from gathering together for religious purposes and by the complete absence of judicial protection of the applicant Church\u2019s assets. They relied on Article 9 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "d1de0be8-8f67-4591-ad8e-335b34130bdb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant branch pointed out that it had never claimed that the requirement to bring the founding documents into compliance with the existing law interfered with its rights as such. Its rights had been violated by the arbitrary and unlawful application and interpretation of that requirement by the Moscow Justice Department and the domestic courts. The classification of The Salvation Army as a paramilitary organisation and the assumption that its members would inevitably break the law were not founded on any factual evidence and represented an impermissible judgment about the legitimacy of the practised by the applicant branch."], "id": "d0bd747a-1553-4e07-abcf-e4baa594ca69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["101. The applicant submitted that no law in the Greek legal system denied Greek citizens of Muslim faith access to the civil courts, and that only a series of Court of Cassation judgments had deemed the jurisdiction of the muftis compulsory. However, those judgments were based on non-legal considerations treating the Muslim minority as a population to which Sharia law was mandatorily and exclusively applicable. In her submission, imposing on someone, against his or her wishes, a right protecting the religious minority to which he or she belonged encompassed an element of discrimination on grounds of and did not pursue a legitimate aim."], "id": "ded1f925-dd55-4fca-aa18-0c8ca02f4137", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["141. The applicants further complained that the refusal to recognise the applicant Church was preventing it from acquiring legal personality, thus depriving it of its right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, so that any complaint relating to its rights, and in particular its property rights, could be determined. In addition, they alleged that the refusal to recognise, coupled with the authorities\u2019 stubborn persistence in holding to the view that the applicants could practise their within the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, infringed their freedom of association, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention."], "id": "855289f2-af6a-41c0-ac4d-28a87f8cdcae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government accepted that the right to freedom of included the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion through worship and observance, but considered that in the present case the refusal to recognise the applicant Church did not amount to a prohibition of its activities or those of its members. The members of the applicant Church retained their freedom of religion, both as regards their freedom of conscience and as regards the freedom to manifest their beliefs through worship and practice."], "id": "280902dc-5dcb-4631-b75e-af7fb4e54d45", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government contested that there had been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of . Since the entry into force of the 1919 Treaty of St Germain, all Austrian inhabitants had been allowed to practise publicly and privately their thought, religion and beliefs, irrespective of whether their religious society, community or church was recognised or had legal status. The right to autonomous administration of the entity\u2019s internal organisation was likewise guaranteed. Referring to a judgment of the Constitutional Court (VfSlg. 10.915/1986), the Government contended that the refusal of recognition did not impede the applicants\u2019 exercise of their right to freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention. Against this background, they contested that the first applicant had no legal personality in Austria, was legally non-existent and could not acquire assets or enter into legal relations, because these allegations concerned the first applicant\u2019s situation before it had obtained legal personality as a registered religious community on 11 July 1998. Even before the entry into force of the 1998 Religious Communities Act, the first applicant had had the possibility of setting up an association with a religious purpose under the Associations Act, as the Federation of Evangelical Municipalities in Austria (Bund Evangelikaler Gemeinden in \u00d6sterreich) had on 21 March 1992, and the Church of Scientology in Austria (Scientology Kirche \u00d6sterreich) on 20 May 1984. However, the applicants did not appear to have made any efforts to that end."], "id": "569f257d-ff2f-4a45-902a-dcef2719285c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant further argued that the ban on wearing clothing designed to conceal the face in public, which undoubtedly targeted the burqa, generated discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the Convention on grounds of sex, and ethnic origin, to the detriment of Muslim women who, like her, wore the full-face veil. In her view this was indirect discrimination between Muslim women whose beliefs required them to wear the full-face veil and other Muslim women, and also between them and Muslim men. The exception provided for by the Law of 11 October 2010, according to which the ban did not apply if the clothing was worn in the context of \u201cfestivities or artistic or traditional events\u201d was also, in her view, discriminatory, in that it created an advantage for the Christian majority: it allowed Christians to wear in public clothing that concealed their face in the context of Christian festivities or celebrations (Catholic religious processions, carnivals or rituals, such as dressing up as Santa Claus) whereas Muslim women who wished to wear the full-face veil in public remained bound by the ban even during the month of Ramadan."], "id": "aadde739-0d45-43f1-b75f-4da245d8f4d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government further argued that while celebration of a religious marriage was also one of the forms of manifestation of as it amounted to \u201cobservance\u201d within the meaning of Article 9 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the recognition of such marriages as equal to civil marriages in terms of their effects was not among the rights guaranteed by that Article. In other words, a religion was manifested through celebration of a religious marriage, and not through the official recognition of such a marriage."], "id": "1c36f069-d2e6-460d-bf62-ffdd10250ffd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant complained about the refusal to grant him a retirement pension because, in spite of the integration of protestant ministers in the general Social Security scheme, he had been unable to use his years of service as a minister to make up the minimum period of contributions required in order to qualify for a pension, whereas Catholic priests did have that option. He considered that this amounted to discrimination on grounds of , which was contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "d8a14437-ad66-41e4-b639-6e00eb0ebec1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his , prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 4."], "id": "40688bab-7553-4a38-82f9-5214dfeaee4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant submitted that the Government had failed to show why he should be required to prove that he belonged to a particular and suffer particular consequences if he failed. The requirement for unspecified evidence was an imposition on his inner conscience and made him feel of an inferior status as no others had been subject to additional conditions in order to join the Muslim religion. No other citizen had ever been required to prove their membership of a certain religion. In his case, he had been penalised for failing to prove his faith and the penalty interfered with the manifestation of his religious beliefs, namely his active involvement and celebration of the Bayram festival."], "id": "bb44ae29-c158-46fa-88ea-45946e9f94c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant community argued that if the relevant domestic legislation provided for an exemption from its provisions governing the employment of aliens it should do so without any discrimination. The fact that the applicant community had been subject to this regime if it wished to employ ministers who were not Austrian citizens in order to care for the specific needs of certain groups of its believers, whereas other religious communities which had the status of religious societies had not been subject to the regime, had constituted discrimination on account of which was prohibited by the Convention."], "id": "32049c05-2601-41dc-ad54-c989f2b98b26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, she submitted that by applying Sharia law to her husband\u2019s will instead of Greek civil law, the Court of Cassation had deprived her of three-quarters of her inheritance. Under Article 6 \u00a7 1, she complained that the Court of Cassation had refused in her case to apply the ordinary law applicable to all Greek citizens and had adjudicated the dispute on the basis of Sharia law, even though her husband\u2019s will had been drawn up under the provisions of the Greek Civil Code. Relying on Article 6 \u00a7 1 read in conjunction with Article 14, she also claimed to have suffered a difference in treatment on grounds of ."], "id": "9f0012e9-23a8-4b98-9008-a78748c188d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government noted that the applicant had not personally suffered any discrimination on grounds of . None of the judicial decisions had referred to her religion as grounds for applying Sharia law to her situation or refusing to recognise her as inheriting all the bequeathed property. The application of Sharia law to the applicant\u2019s case had been based not on her own situation, but on the specific category of property concerned. The decision not to apply Article 1724 of the Civil Code had been based on the nature of the estate, which consisted of property \u201cheld in full ownership\u201d."], "id": "0a23fd0c-8d7b-4799-a84e-164aac01f8fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "religion", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained that the fact that he was not exempt from military service while assuming a function with the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses which was comparable to those of members of recognised religious societies who were exempt from military service constituted discrimination on the ground of his , prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 9."], "id": "cc5c787e-66fc-4a84-bd4d-456d2c0f171a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant further submitted that the danger of her employer learning about her past identity was real. It was possible for the employer to t back her employment history on the basis of her NI number and this had in fact happened. She claimed that her recent failure to obtain a promotion was the result of the employer realising her status."], "id": "dfbb0f0c-df95-4e05-9b2b-6c234fbc565c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant maintained that if it were not recognised as unlawful to dismiss a member of a vulnerable group on the ground that his or her colleagues refused to work with him or her because of prejudice, this would lead to wide-scale discrimination and exclusion: persons prejudiced against others of a particular , ethnic background or sexual orientation could simply refuse to work with them and their employers would accordingly dismiss them. If the courts did not intervene, the prejudices of third parties would have the effect of debarring members of a vulnerable group from the majority of private-sector jobs and establishing a form of segregation between companies which employed persons from that group and those which did not."], "id": "03f84515-6d3f-45b2-914f-6faa8454f33b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government refuted the allegations. They submitted that the applicant had failed to substantiate them or introduce any evidence in support of his claims that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The Government further stated that the applicant had been examined by a doctor on two occasions; at the beginning and at the end of his police custody, and the forensic reports indicated no t of ill-treatment on his body."], "id": "66805042-5706-48bb-b1d4-d30170dcc7d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants submitted that they had been subjected to indirect discrimination. Firstly, there was an obvious difference in treatment between Danish\u2011born nationals and those who acquired Danish nationality later in life, when applying for family reunion, since persons who were born Danish citizens were exempt from the attachment requirement as soon as they had turned 28 years old, whereas persons who had acquired Danish citizenship at a later point in life, had to await 28 years before being exempted from the attachment requirement. That differential treatment also amounted to indirect discrimination on the basis of or ethnic origin, since the majority of Danish-born persons would be ethnically Danish, while persons acquiring Danish nationality later in life would overwhelmingly be of other ethnic origins."], "id": "6974570d-aa12-417a-b448-bf9fb6a9c5c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["110. The applicants challenged the Government's claim that the complaint should be declared inadmissible on account of a failure to exhaust the domestic remedies. They argued that an action under the Protection against Discrimination Act was not a remedy that they were required to exhaust because it was neither effective nor available. The applicants noted that the Court had repeatedly held that there is no requirement that remedies that are neither adequate nor effective should be used (see, mutatis mutandis, Sak\u0131k and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 26 November 1997, Reports 1997\u2011VII, p. 2625, \u00a7 53) and that an individual must have clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act which is an interference with his or her rights (see De Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253\u2011B, p. 43, \u00a7 34 and Bellet v. France, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333\u2011B, p. 42, \u00a7 36). In respect of the lack of availability of the remedy claimed by the Government, the applicants noted that the Protection against Discrimination Act entered into force close to four years after they had lodged their complaints with the Court. With regard to its effectiveness, they argued that an action for damages, be it based on anti-discrimination legislation or general tort law, could not remedy the substance of their complaint before the Court, which was that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the death of their relative and to prosecute the perpetrators. Moreover, an action under the Act would be directed against the investigation authorities and would require the applicants to prove discriminatory treatment by them on the basis of , of which there was no direct evidence. Thus, the applicants claimed that there was no clear link between the complaints they raised before the Court and the remedy suggested by the Government."], "id": "82a7afed-3835-4017-b085-0a95e1321fec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["143. The Government submitted that the settled case-law of the Court of Cassation pursued an aim in the public interest, that is to say the protection of the Th Muslim minority. Although the Court understands that Greece is bound by its international obligations concerning the protection of the Thrace Muslim minority, in the particular circumstances of the case, it doubts whether the impugned measure regarding the applicant\u2019s inheritance rights was suited to achieve that aim. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for the Court to adopt a firm view on this issue because in any event the impugned measure was in any event not proportionate to the aim pursued."], "id": "277b704f-f8d8-48d0-8908-ced5059e3407", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant argued that she and her deceased husband had fulfilled all the conditions set out in the Civil Code regarding the drawing up of a public will. She added that both the Rodopi Court of First Instance, in its judgment of 1 June 2010 (see paragraph 12 above), and the Th Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 28 September 2011 (see paragraph 15 above), had ruled that the impugned will was valid and that the applicant had inherited her deceased husband\u2019s property. She had not only had an expectation of becoming an heir in the future, but also a real and legitimate expectation of fully enjoying her right of ownership of the bequeathed property."], "id": "cb351324-6515-4adc-ab9f-ddc401e9dc36", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["102. The applicants alleged that the 28-year rule created in practice a difference in treatment between Danish-born nationals and those who acquired Danish nationality later in life. In addition, since the majority of Danish-born nationals would be ethnically Danish, while persons acquiring Danish nationality later in life would overwhelmingly be of different ethnic origins, that is other than Danish, the differential treatment also amounted to indirect discrimination on the basis of or ethnic origin. The applicants referred, among other things, to the view expressed by the minority of the Supreme Court (see paragraph 30 above), which had found that the 28\u2011year rule amounted to an indirect difference in treatment between Danish nationals of Danish ethnic origin and Danish nationals of other ethnic origin regarding the right to spousal reunion."], "id": "bdfa70c2-ef6a-4e5c-9fa3-e24676554178", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government emphasised that there was no obligation to treat in the same manner those who had complied with the statutory formalities and those who, without being prevented from doing so, had not complied with them. The statutory requirement that there had to be a legal marital relationship for a survivor\u2019s pension entitlement to be granted did not constitute discrimination on racial or ethnic grounds. The refusal to grant the said pension to the applicant stemmed solely from her free and voluntary decision not to observe the statutory formalities of marriage, which were not based on the fact of belonging to a particular , nor on the traditions, habits or customs of a particular ethnic group to the detriment of others. Those formalities did not therefore constitute direct or indirect discrimination against the Roma community."], "id": "9b40a675-3e3a-4eaa-91ce-9a642922ba86", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted, lastly, that the law of 2002 had considerably reinforced the prospects of securing a waiver of confidentiality. The applicant was free to make use of the provisions of the new legislation and to apply to the National Council for Access to Information about Personal Origins. The machinery established under the legislation satisfied the proportionality requirements contained in the Court's case-law, as the French State took into account the child's interest by regulating access to information about the child's origins while making it easier for the mother to waive confidentiality. Firstly, the mother was invited, as soon as she had given birth, to leave particulars of her identity in a sealed envelope together with non-identifying information, to which the child would have access if it wished. Secondly, considerable efforts were made to t the mother and to seek her consent to disclosure of her identity to the child. Professional help was also available, both to persons trying to discover their origins and to the natural parents. The Government submitted that a fair balance had therefore been struck between the competing interests."], "id": "e5be2d6c-7c3a-44ae-a954-6171b1f36dd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant argues that the denial of citizenship prevented him from spending an unlimited time in Malta, which he could have devoted to fostering a relationship with his biological father. However, the Court notes that there currently exists no family life between the applicant and his father, who has evinced no wish or intention to acknowledge his son or to build or maintain a relationship with him. The Court finds that, in these circumstances, the denial of citizenship cannot be said to have acted as an impediment to establishing family life or otherwise to have had an impact on the applicant\u2019s right to respect for family life. However, as the Court has observed above, even in the absence of family life, the denial of citizenship may raise an issue under Article 8 because of its impact on the private life of an individual, which concept is wide enough to emb aspects of a person\u2019s social identity. While the right to citizenship is not as such a Convention right and while its denial in the present case was not such as to give rise to a violation of Article 8, the Court considers that its impact on the applicant\u2019s social identity was such as to bring it within the general scope and ambit of that Article."], "id": "f3ea21f2-21d1-4041-8ac2-30362b58544d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants complained that the significantly lower pension entitlement of Gurkha soldiers who retired or served before 1 July 1997 amounted to differential treatment on the basis of nationality, and age. They complained that the difference in treatment could not be justified and, as such, represented a violation of Article 14 read together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "ac0820f0-ba93-42bf-83ec-960b2183131a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicants complain that the non-enrolment of their Romani children for the 2004-2005 school year is due to inertia and to the competent authorities\u2019 omissions. In addition, they see discrimination based on and ethnicity in the fact that their children have had to attend special preparatory classes, held in separate rooms in the main building of the primary school of Aspropyrgos, where the other children from a comparable situation are welcomed. They invoke, in this respect, Articles 2 of Protocol No. 1 and 14 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "dcc11fe9-b44e-428d-9bb1-d9afbdbbf388", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["109. The Government submitted that the applicant had not been discriminated against in the instant case. The Court of Cassation had confirmed its established case-law and pursued the aim of protecting the Muslim minority in Greece by applying the special law of succession uniformly applicable to a specific category of property belonging to Greek Muslims. In doing so it had protected the specific nature of such property and of its owners, avoiding any infringement of the principle of equality. The settled case-law of the Court of Cassation pursued an aim of overriding public interest in a complex multidimensional area entailing, in particular, respect for and protection of the Th Muslim minority, a legitimate aim which was also connected with Greece\u2019s fulfilment of its obligations under international law. It was unthinkable that that aim could be achieved in any other way, in view of the complexity of the many parameters involved, which transcended the individual case."], "id": "446f8d8a-a32e-41f6-8de2-dd3051222f49", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government submitted that the applicant could not have harboured any \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d of being recognised as inheriting all the property bequeathed in the will or, consequently, any right of ownership over her deceased husband\u2019s property. They pointed out that she had not presented any deed forming a basis for such a right, instead relying solely on her husband\u2019s will as published by the Rodopi Court of First Instance. However, such publication did not constitute official validation of the will, which had been voidable and had in fact been deprived of legal effect by judgment no. 183/2015 of the Th Court of Appeal. Nor had she received from the court the inheritance certificate provided for in Article 1956 of the Civil Code because the existence of her right of inheritance had manifestly been in dispute. The only justification which she had put forward for her right of ownership had been the disputed will. She had therefore lawfully inherited only one-quarter of the property in issue, and not the whole estate."], "id": "13f0f594-db15-4e33-903b-b517f9281a8c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant submitted that the Court of Cassation\u2019s judgment of 7 October 2013 (see paragraph 18 above) had been final inasmuch as, under Article 562 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 34 above), that court could not go back and re-examine the same grounds of appeal that she had already raised before it. Furthermore, she affirmed that she had been obliged to submit a fresh appeal on points of law in order to prepare her defence before the Turkish courts: the proceedings in Turkey had concerned the irrevocability (\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1) of judgment no. 183/2015 of the Th Court of Appeal, and the deceased\u2019s sisters had argued that the applicant had to lodge a fresh appeal with the Court of Cassation, a view shared by the Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance, which for that reason had adjourned its consideration of the case (see paragraph 31 above)."], "id": "3c9f2717-daca-4704-9078-2708338104e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["124. The applicants maintained that they had been discriminated against in that because of their or ethnic origin they had been treated less favourably than other children in a comparable situation without any objective and reasonable justification. They relied in that connection on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, which provide as follows:"], "id": "da5c2862-ea18-499f-806b-0471d7493541", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["195. The applicant alleged discrimination, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention combined with Article 2, due to her husband\u2019s origins, as only Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin regularly suffered unlawful killings. She averred that there was an administrative, discriminatory practice on grounds of in the failure to investigate fully or prosecute the unlawful acts of the security forces, contrary to Article 14. "], "id": "f629e50d-8a3e-44a4-8a12-1f18527c9fcb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["112. The applicants argued that the investigation had collected testimony and forensic evidence that clearly established that the victim was attacked, severely beaten and killed because of his . In particular, the assailants testified that the victim was picked, beaten and killed because, and only because, he was a Roma. Sufficient evidence was also collected that this was by no means an isolated event for the assailants and that they had periodically practiced racist violence of a similar nature. Thus, in spite of the abundant evidence of the attack, the beating to which the victim was subjected and his resulting death, the assailants and the person who stabbed him were never prosecuted. This failure by the Bulgarian authorities was, the applicants argued, an unambiguous violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with the procedural aspect of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention."], "id": "d47332e0-4377-4b6c-a011-e2aa9dfdcf29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "race", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to freedom of speech. He maintained that as a serviceman he had been responsible for many years for giving legal advice to the Commander of the Armed Forces on the question of statutory penalties. His opinion on the statutory penalties the army imposed on soldiers often did not correspond to that of others at the Ministry of Defence. The applicant stated that he had made many proposals with the aim of improving, inter alia, servicemen\u2019s procedural rights when the new Army Disciplinary Statute was being drafted. As his superiors and the State President had failed to take his proposals into account, the applicant had contacted the Kauno Diena daily and expressed his ideas to the press. The internal inquiry into his communication with the daily had been started the same day. Even though that inquiry had later been discontinued by the authorities\u2019 acknowledgement that the applicant had not violated military discipline, the appeal to Kauno Diena and to the State President had had direct consequences for the applicant. He was dismissed from professional military service before the expiry of his contract. Most importantly, in order to avoid accusations of interference with freedom of expression, the authorities at the Ministry of Defence chose to dismiss him not on the ground that he had appealed to the media, but formally, on the basis of Article 38 \u00a7 1 (7) of LMS, thus leaving no official t of injustice. If that provision had been applied to others in the same manner, several hundred soldiers would have been dismissed from service, however none of them except the applicant had suffered the same consequences. The example of four soldiers (R.L., V.S., J.\u0160. and M.I.) he relied on during the administrative court proceedings confirmed that there were more soldiers who should have been dismissed from the army, but that this was not done. Lastly, he also challenged as misleading the two examples provided by the Government (see paragraphs 41 and 42 above)."], "id": "84fb8696-d070-4d50-bf2d-cc2f0d496311", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["95. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "id": "667c5607-f3c0-4a14-b36a-8331d6d8da84", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of his rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a that he understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to provide him with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of his own choosing and to prepare his defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial."], "id": "29dcbe2d-7617-4406-8201-075ddbcfc8d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of his rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a that he understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to provide him with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of his own choosing and to prepare his defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "id": "cd35b985-a523-457d-85b1-6e9825f96979", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicants insisted that the letter of 13 July 2009 was genuine. The fact that it was in Russian was not unusual since that was widely used in the region. It bore a letterhead and a stamp. They provided a written statement from their representative Mr Stoyanov confirming that the letter was genuine. According to him, he had also visited Ivanivka police station on 7 November 2016 and the registrar there had confirmed to him that the 2009 letter had indeed been sent. The applicants also provided a new letter dated 21 October 2016 and signed by the deputy head of the investigation department at Ivanivka police station and confirming, in essence, that the 2009 letter was genuine."], "id": "5e8c6567-804d-450c-ae44-b1788696d52b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["117. The applicants claimed that there had been no legal basis for assigning them to a Roma-only class. They argued that there had been no clear, accessible and foreseeable procedures regarding the assignment of pupils to special classes, either upon their enrolment or at subsequent stages in their education. In their view the tests employed as a part of the enrolment procedure were not designed to assess a child\u2019s knowledge of the Croatian but as an orientation point in determining the child\u2019s psycho-physical status."], "id": "d59aee03-9ac4-4022-bd10-009bd64fa31e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["136. The Government of the Slovak Republic recognised the need to address the learning difficulties of certain pupils, such as lack of proficiency in the of instruction at schools. They found different compensatory measures adopted in that respect constructive. They referred to the margin of appreciation afforded to the States in the sphere of education and stressed that the States should not be prohibited from setting up separate classes at different types of school for children with difficulties, or from implementing special educational programmes to respond to special needs."], "id": "cf566df7-83a7-426c-8728-1cc57a565f63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government submitted that the banning measures provided for by the Law of 1881, as amended, and fleshed out by the subsequent case-law pursued a legitimate aim, namely the prevention of disorder, and were most frequently used against racist publications or publications inciting people to violence. The applicant association submitted that the provisions in question reflected discriminatory ideas based on the nationality of the authors of a publication and on ."], "id": "69e08b7f-1a91-455b-8efd-f33791ce39e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant association considered that it was the victim of a discriminatory measure in breach of Articles 14 and 10 of the Convention. In that connection, it stressed that the ban arising from the application of the decree of 6 March 1939 had indeed been discriminatory because the law itself was aimed at establishing this discrimination on grounds of nationality and . It pointed out that the law had been adopted at a time when the general attitude towards foreigners had been hostile and reflected discriminatory views based on the assumption that foreigners were particularly dangerous and subversive ideas were necessarily foreign. The law was incompatible with a modern, progressive view of the enjoyment of fundamental rights in which equality between foreigners and nationals should be the rule."], "id": "4a0656f0-e29a-4d25-8bfc-1ca33877459a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicants made several allegations that abusive and racist was used against them by law-enforcement officers, and they maintain that sufficient inferences of a racist act can be drawn from them (see paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 above). The Court notes that the only documented use of the word \u201c\u0163igani\u201d by the authorities is in the mission statement concerning the police intervention to settle the brawl (see paragraph 23 above). Apart from the remarks made in the police mission statement, the allegation of use of abusive language by the authorities remains unsubstantiated. Indeed, the Court is aware that the main reason the allegations could not be substantiated is because the investigations did not consider them at all. However, this is a matter to be examined under the procedural aspects of Article 3 read in conjunction with Article 14 (see paragraphs 107 to 109 below)."], "id": "999e3563-7bf4-493e-b008-48581aebf327", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicants added that it would be helpful for the Grand Chamber to clarify the Court\u2019s case-law by determining whether there was an objective and reasonable justification for the purposes of Article 14 for the difference in treatment in the present case and specifying the conclusions that should be drawn in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. Referring to, inter alia, the judgments in Timishev v. Russia (nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, \u00a7 56, ECHR 2005\u2011XII) and Moldovan and Others v. Romania (no. 2) (nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, \u00a7 140, 12 July 2005), they stated that where an applicant had established a difference in treatment the onus was on the respondent State to prove that it was justified. In the absence of a racially neutral explanation, it was legitimate to conclude that the difference in treatment was based on racial grounds. In the applicants\u2019 submission, neither an inadequate command of the Czech , nor poverty nor a different socio-economic status could constitute an objective and reasonable justification in their case. They denied that the disproportionately large number of Roma children in special schools could be explained by the results of intellectual capacity tests or justified by parental consent (see also paragraphs 141-42 below)."], "id": "c3ced899-3870-409f-aaa5-15d9b08933ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicants considered that they had been discriminated against based on their and ethnic (national) origin, and their association with a national minority, arguing that most of the Russian military pensioners were ethnic Russians or native speakers of Russian. They considered it inappropriate to compare Russian military pensioners with Estonian military pensioners and considered that the group they should properly be compared with was that of foreign military retirees of other countries. They argued that Russian military pensioners were the only group of persons forced to refuse a foreign pension in order to receive an Estonian pension for civil employment in Estonia."], "id": "d72a2ce3-cd26-464d-aed4-de9c5e5cc6e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government contended that the State Centre was the only authority empowered to determine the level of a candidate's knowledge of the State language. They submitted that the applicant had been able to exercise without hindrance her right to a remedy by means of an appeal to the Riga Regional Court. At the hearing on 31 August 1998 that court had made a detailed assessment of the evidence before it before holding that the measure complained of had complied with the Parliamentary Elections Act. As the Regional Court had looked into the merits of the applicant's complaints, there was no reason to consider that the remedy afforded in Latvian law was not an effective one for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "a0a3a564-8061-4a5b-b192-d9232792adad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["123. The Government firstly pointed out that the applicants had not been deprived of the right to attend school and receive education since they had all enrolled in primary school at the age of seven, like all children in Croatia, and had attended school until they reached the age of fifteen, after which schooling was no longer mandatory. The Government admitted that it was possible that the curriculum in Roma-only classes was reduced by up to 30% in relation to the regular, full curriculum. They argued that this was admissible under relevant domestic laws, and that such a possibility had not been reserved for Roma-only classes but was applied in respect of all primary school classes in Croatia, depending on the particular situation in a given class. Furthermore, the Roma-only classes were by no means \u201cspecial\u201d classes of any kind. They were ordinary classes in ordinary schools and were created only in schools where the proportion of Roma pupils was significant or where they represented a majority of pupils in a given generation, and then only in respect of those Roma pupils who also lacked adequate command of the Croatian . In Podturen Primary School the number of Roma children in the lower grades varied from 33% to 36%. In 2001 the total number of pupils had been 463, of whom 47 were Roma. There had been only one Roma-only class, with 17 pupils, while the remaining 33 Roma pupils had attended mixed classes. Since 2003 there had been no Roma-only classes in that school. In Macinec Primary School the number of Roma children in the lower grades varied from 57% to 75%. Roma-only classes were formed in the lower grades and only exceptionally in the upper grades. All classes in the two final grades were mixed. In 2001 the total number of pupils had been 445, of whom 194 were Roma. There had been six Roma-only classes, with 142 pupils, while the remaining 52 Roma pupils had attended mixed classes."], "id": "86bfc97a-19f5-4c0c-b797-7cf63f60fe5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["129. The Government submitted that the assessment of the applicants\u2019 progress had been a part of the regular procedure for the evaluation of pupils, as in all other schools in Croatia. In the lower grades, evaluation in all subjects was done by the class teacher. A final mark was given at the end of each school year on the basis of all marks given during the school year. The basic elements for determining a mark were: knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, oral and written expression, applying acquired knowledge in practice and creative use of it, development of skills, participation in classes and development of a pupil\u2019s psycho-physical abilities and capacities. In particular, elements for assessing knowledge of the Croatian included reading and writing skills, oral and written expression, vocabulary and grammar, reading of books, and homework. A mark combined a number of factors, among which the most important for pupils in the lower grades were motivation and personal development in respect of each subject. The marks were given according to the individual capacity of each child. Therefore, the good marks given to some of the applicants after they had failed a grade or repeatedly failed a grade did not necessarily mean that they had a good command of the Croatian language, but that they had made progress."], "id": "277b96f9-2148-407f-8554-275f40d6452f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant's representatives argued that the number of hours spent by them on the case was not excessive and was justified by its complexity and abundance of detail. The time was also justified by the repeated attempts to obtain access to the medical file and by the fact that all the correspondence with the Court was conducted in a foreign ."], "id": "267bfaa8-b3ef-4285-8ca8-5b217add28a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial."], "id": "6dd82724-57e7-4191-86ac-1fde37ae8ba0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial."], "id": "fcf60d0c-62a5-471c-909a-83d00ba842fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicants stressed, in particular, that the method used by the school authorities, allegedly to improve their skills, had been inadequate. In their opinion the best method of integrating children with insufficient language proficiency would have been to place them in classes together with children who spoke the language of instruction because that, coupled with additional lessons in Croatian, would have been the easiest and fastest way for the applicants to learn Croatian. The applicants argued that it was critical to ensure that children who spoke a different language at home were included in groups that could provide good role models in terms of the majority language and created the best conditions for their language needs. They maintained that various research reports and expert bodies within the Council of Europe, the European Union and the United Nations recommended an integrative approach in the field of education of Roma children."], "id": "602f7c3c-b316-4b21-8869-e4540262c235", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government further submitted that the requirement of a command of the official at the upper level did not impair the very essence of the right to stand as a candidate since anyone who wished to do so but did not have a sufficient command of Latvian could always reach the level required by improving his knowledge of the language. In that respect, the requirement was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."], "id": "c076716b-8024-4982-810a-1fcbf45dd7c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant further criticised the fact that of the twenty-one candidates in possession of a certificate attesting to knowledge of Latvian at the \u201cthird level\u201d only nine, including herself, had had to undergo this check, whereas the certificates of the other twelve candidates had been adjudged sufficient to establish their level of command of the . As there was no basis in domestic law for that distinction, the applicant submitted that it confirmed the existence of an arbitrary attitude towards her."], "id": "2130d9bc-d102-4fc0-8e49-448be71bf308", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant complained, firstly, that the national police had both verbally and physically abused her when they had stopped and questioned her. She alleged that she had been discriminated against on account of her skin colour and her gender, whereas other women with a \u201cEuropean phenotype\u201d carrying on the same activity in the same area had not been approached by police. The applicant also complained about the used by Palma de Mallorca investigating judge no. 9, who, in his decision of 10 June 2007, had referred to the \u201cshameful spectacle of prostitution on the public highway\u201d. Relying on the provisions of Article 3, the applicant alleged that the domestic courts\u2019 investigation of the events had been inadequate."], "id": "cba7e545-30e4-4c9f-adf8-23fd3e8b0975", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government submitted that the applicants had been assigned to Roma-only classes on the basis of section 2 of the Primary Education Act and the Rules on the number of pupils in regular and multi-grade classes. Under section 2 of the Primary Education Act the purpose of primary education was to ensure the continuing development of each pupil as a spiritual, physical, moral, intellectual and social being, according to his or her capabilities and affinities. In the Government\u2019s view this could only be achieved in a permanent group of pupils of approximately the same age and knowledge. The same legal basis and the same criteria had been applied in respect of all other pupils. The applicants had been submitted to the same tests as all other children enrolling primary school. The applicants had been assigned to Roma-only classes on the basis of their insufficient knowledge of the Croatian in order to address their special needs and to ensure an equal approach, which was possible only where the majority of them had the same initial knowledge of the Croatian language and psycho-physical readiness to attend primary school."], "id": "9a0aca30-63ab-4e31-92a7-47a9a58b8ee1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government has submitted an unsigned, undated document pertaining to school life and educational activity in preparatory classes according to which the students of preparatory classes had been subjected to evaluation tests which had demonstrated that 90% among them showed weaknesses in writing and reading the Greek . The Court notes, however, that the students concerned had been submitted to these tests after just having been distributed in preparatory classes, namely \u201cat the time of their registration and their schooling\u201d. Moreover, the Government gives no details as to the content of these tests and does not rely on any expert opinion to prove their adequacy (see on this point, D.H. and others v. the Czech Republic, cited above, \u00a7 200)."], "id": "10112aed-b264-42f3-ba1d-f65d0536afaa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["128. The Government submitted school records showing that all the applicants, both in Podturen and Macinec Primary Schools, had been provided with additional lessons in the Croatian . They had been able to participate in various extracurricular activities carried out in the Croatian language, some of which were particularly focused on the improvement of language skills (such as recitals and reading). Furthermore, in 2002 in Podturen Primary School and in 2003 in Macinec Primary School, Roma assistants were recruited to help children in Roma-only classes to improve their knowledge."], "id": "1d4bf16c-6712-4d13-a1db-5700147472b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["146. The applicants maintained that they had never had any reason to doubt the lawfulness of the transactions whereby they or persons from whom they had inherited had become owners in good faith. The initial idea underlying section 7 of the Restitution Law had been to sanction those who had obtained property by abusing their position of power during the communist past. However, the open-ended of section 7 and its interpretation by the courts had resulted in depriving individuals of their property for nothing more than a trivial administrative omission on the part of municipal clerks. Such a situation did not meet the Convention requirements for lawfulness as the applicable law opened the door to arbitrariness."], "id": "122f2ca0-49c5-4680-b637-42d99bbb49d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government argued that the objective pursued by the application of the Names Act was to protect a child from unsuitable names and, further, to maintain a distinctive naming practice in a small country like Finland. The Court accepts that due regard has to be given to the child's interests. The protection of the child from an unsuitable name (such as ridiculous or whimsical names) is in the public interest. As to the aim of preserving a distinctive national naming practice, the Court has acknowledged that measures intended to protect a given constitute a legitimate aim (see Mentzen (dec.), cited above). Therefore, the Court can accept that the preservation of national naming practice may be considered part and parcel of that aim and therefore in the public interest."], "id": "49e14079-0273-4df2-b21f-f0c8cc72a2ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government submitted that the applicant and Ms Sergeyeva had behaved in an aggressive and disorderly fashion at the police station, using foul and obscene gestures. Ms Sergeyeva had also destroyed a glass lampshade and damaged the wiring. This had made it necessary to tie up both the applicant and Ms Sergeyeva. This had been done and they had remained bound for ten to fifteen minutes. Some force, in particular \u201chand\u2011to-hand fighting and hand twisting\u201d, had been used to control the applicant. This was permitted by the Police Act. The applicants\u2019 allegations of ill-treatment had been disproven by the domestic investigation, in particular the statements of their two acquaintances and of the medical expert (see paragraph 19 above). Accordingly, the Government submitted that the applicants had failed to prove \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d that they had been ill-treated."], "id": "e9c2f158-3fe6-476a-9190-5467f25efeda", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant association submitted that it had sustained considerable non-pecuniary damage because, for nine years, the national authorities had regarded it and presented it to the public as an apologist for terrorism. It assessed this damage at FRF 100,000. As to the damage arising from the excessive length of the proceedings, the association assessed this at FRF 100,000. Lastly, the fact that it had suffered discrimination on grounds of its national origin and amounted to a specific grievance causing it non-pecuniary damage amounting to FRF 100,000."], "id": "dd98a1e5-d4a5-47cf-a7bf-202ed0c390ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "id": "38d198b9-ba84-46bb-923d-08774faaa03d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government pointed out that the linguistic requirements complained of did not exist before 1995 and that as a result, at the first parliamentary elections after the State recovered its independence, in 1993, a number of persons who neither spoke nor understood Latvian had become MPs. As the persons concerned had been incapable of following the debates in Parliament and its committees, its work had been seriously hampered. That was why, in enacting the new electoral legislation, Parliament had decided to require candidates to prove that they had a command of the official , in order to avoid similar practical difficulties in future. The provision complained of therefore pursued legitimate aims, namely meeting the need for electors to communicate with their elected representatives and for MPs to carry on normally the work that voters had entrusted to them."], "id": "980ec514-fad1-4159-8da6-285a14aecc8c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["118. The applicants submitted that, apart from a general grading system, there had been no other specialised periodic assessment of their progress in acquiring an adequate command of the Croatian . The grading scale was from one to five, and the lowest pass mark was two. They further argued that even when they had achieved a pass mark in the Croatian language they had not been transferred to a mixed class."], "id": "536e281f-26f2-40f8-8166-ff3520860b35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government in their observations on admissibility and merits of the case requested that the Court declare the application inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention as an abuse of the right of application on the grounds that the first applicant had concealed relevant information from the Court and had used offensive in respect of the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights."], "id": "aa73868d-2df3-4d95-947e-4b88e0147ad6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant community claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It submitted that any award should compensate the hardship suffered by its Tagalog speaking members, who had been deprived of a minister speaking their . In respect of pecuniary damage it claimed the amount of EUR 1,002.16 plus statutory interest, which corresponded to the inheritance and gift tax it had had to pay."], "id": "39a60674-f7a9-4256-9130-023d1e1cae2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant submitted that the removal of her name from the list of candidates had had detrimental consequences for her economic situation. In that connection, she maintained that the negative publicity about her after she was struck out had plunged her into a state of distress and frustration which prevented her from carrying on her commercial activities normally and caused potential business associates to avoid her. In addition, the certificate in which the State Centre had asserted that she did not have a command of Latvian at the upper level in fact meant that she was thenceforth unfit for the post of managing director, and this had led her to resign from her job. Since then, with the exception of half-time work here and there in a small private business, she had not managed to find appropriate employment. The applicant therefore asked the Court to award her 1,500 lati (LVL) for the loss she had sustained and for loss of earnings."], "id": "4c94161b-fa28-41f8-96d0-a61dda83df63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross-examination of witnesses and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "id": "000d9d00-9a4d-4f36-a93b-9da681586516", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Language", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government submitted that there was no connection between the alleged violation and the amount claimed by the applicant. They observed in particular that she had decided to resign from her post in the company of her own free will. Even if she feared that the unfavourable report of the State Centre might cause her prejudice in her professional life, she could always have asked for her linguistic competence to be re-examined, but had not done so."], "id": "e57ca882-e69c-445a-bbc4-e9f5469cdec7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national minority", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government accepted that the Frisians are a within the meaning of the Framework Convention. They submitted that no legal distinction could be derived from the fact that in the German Government\u2019s declaration upon signature of the Framework Convention (see above, paragraph 21) the Frisians were called an \u201cethnic group\u201d whereas the Danes and Sorbs were recognised as \u201cnational minorities\u201d. The use of different terms had been solely due to the Frisians\u2019 explicit request on account of the negative connotations sometimes associated with the term \u201cminority\u201d at that time. However, referring to the fewer than 100 members of the applicant party, and the lack of evidence to support the party\u2019s claim to representation, the Government disputed that the applicant party represented the Frisian people, not even the East Frisians in Lower Saxony."], "id": "106647e8-f4f7-4adc-b208-866f00f8f762", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national minority", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicants considered that they had been discriminated against based on their language and ethnic (national) origin, and their association with a , arguing that most of the Russian military pensioners were ethnic Russians or native speakers of Russian. They considered it inappropriate to compare Russian military pensioners with Estonian military pensioners and considered that the group they should properly be compared with was that of foreign military retirees of other countries. They argued that Russian military pensioners were the only group of persons forced to refuse a foreign pension in order to receive an Estonian pension for civil employment in Estonia."], "id": "6e93a60f-ce94-4402-9d92-49fda5876cca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national minority", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complains of discrimination under Article 14. He alleges that his rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1 have been subject to discrimination on the grounds of religion, political opinion or association with a . He further complains that in breach of Article 13, he has not had any effective remedy before a national authority in respect of his alleged violations of his rights and freedoms."], "id": "624f6da7-5ad9-44b7-89df-d9edb182e47c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national minority", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicants further argued that Ilinden was not directed against the sovereignty or the territorial integrity of Bulgaria, or against the unity of the nation. The fact that its articles of association spoke of continuation of the \u201cnational liberation struggle\u201d could not change this conclusion. The organisation had been founded as an educational organisation which would attain its goals exclusively through peaceful means. Opposing state genocide and terror was not illegal. On the contrary, it was a national and an international priority. Therefore an organisation whose aim was to resist the trampling of the rights of a and to seek to protect its interests could not be illegal."], "id": "c1d0bc9e-c8ce-47b7-b957-6e06fc062f87", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prohibition of discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["129. The Government denied that there existed a structural problem concerning refusal of residence permits to HIV-positive non-nationals or declaring their presence undesirable in Russia. They firstly emphasised that, to this day, the Kiyutin judgment had remained the only judgment finding a violation of a foreign national\u2019s right to respect for family life and of the . The Government relied on a selection of approximately sixty cases in which the Russian courts granted challenges by HIV-positive non-nationals against the Federal Migration Service\u2019s and Consumer Protection Authority\u2019s decisions refusing them residence permits or declaring their presence undesirable. The courts had taken into account the individual circumstances of each case, including the duration of the non\u2011national\u2019s residence, the lawfully contracted marriage, the ages of any children, the absence of housing or family links in the country of origin, and so on."], "id": "e9b59c5e-01a6-4339-8d0f-8b98426ff742", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prohibition of discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that the immunity in question, being attached to a function provided for in the Constitution, did not breach either the principle of the equality of citizens before the law or the . Its purpose was neither to create a \u201cprivileged\u201d class nor to allow parliamentarians to make arbitrary use of their privileges. On the contrary, it pursued the legitimate aim of allowing Parliament to debate any issue relevant to public life freely and openly without its members having to fear persecution or possible legal consequences."], "id": "cd156dcc-90b2-4e98-9997-96b81ca11c38", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prohibition of discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicants also submitted that the Convention prohibits States from attaching further negative effects to prior human-rights violations also where those violations have not been challenged, so the fact that they had not challenged their convictions before the Court was therefore irrelevant. Sexual autonomy and on the grounds of sexual orientation were general principles of European law, and the Government were therefore under an obligation to provide sound reasons to justify the necessity of continuing the negative consequences of their convictions under article 209 of the Criminal Code. Since they had failed to do so, there had been a breach of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "8de45a01-4265-4de7-8041-cafad7a65932", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prohibition of discrimination", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant claimed that by depriving him of the possibility of joining the farmers' scheme solely on account of his foreign nationality, despite the fact that he met the other statutory conditions, the authorities had violated the . As a result he was effectively deprived of social security cover in the event of sickness, occupational injury and invalidity. Furthermore, he could not continue making contributions towards his retirement pension, which he had paid for many years when affiliated to the general social security scheme. In this connection, the applicant had a reasonable expectation of being admitted to the farmers' scheme. That position was supported by the Ombudsman's opinion in his case."], "id": "0a9dff95-8466-441b-893f-15335aab9943", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national origin", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant argued that, following the constitutional breakdown in 1964, the Cypriot government had passed different laws upholding the human rights of citizens. However, these laws had been conceived for the Greek Cypriots, no provisions being adopted safeguarding the rights of the Turkish Cypriots. Consequently, more than a thousand Turkish Cypriots, including the applicant, who were living in the free area, had not been able to exercise their fundamental right to vote or stand as candidates in parliamentary elections since 1964. Although the Cypriot authorities had been aware of the disenfranchisement of that part of the population, they had not taken measures to deal with the situation. Furthermore, the applicant submitted that the Supreme Court had not applied the law of necessity in order to resolve his case, as it had done in many other similar instances, because he was a Turkish Cypriot. Thus, he claimed that he had been deprived of his right to vote solely on the basis of his ."], "id": "d423123a-45d5-421c-a0a3-fe14f543af34", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national origin", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicants repeated their submission before the Chamber that for Danish citizens applying for family reunion with their non-Danish spouse living abroad, the 28-year rule did not pursue a legitimate aim because, allegedly, it had been introduced to target Danish citizens of non-Danish ethnic or . The applicants thus called into question the argument that the aim had been to assist the integration of newcomers or to control immigration. They also disagreed with the argument that the aim related to the economic well-being of the country. In their view, spousal family reunion had no financial implication for the State, because the resident spouse was obliged to provide for the other spouse."], "id": "6fefd901-ec20-417f-8be9-08f19024b134", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national origin", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant association submitted that it had sustained considerable non-pecuniary damage because, for nine years, the national authorities had regarded it and presented it to the public as an apologist for terrorism. It assessed this damage at FRF 100,000. As to the damage arising from the excessive length of the proceedings, the association assessed this at FRF 100,000. Lastly, the fact that it had suffered discrimination on grounds of its and language amounted to a specific grievance causing it non-pecuniary damage amounting to FRF 100,000."], "id": "b50dca40-b4f9-4483-97cf-a8e0dad186be", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national origin", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["161. The applicant submitted that her husband was killed because he was a Kurd and, although not politically involved, he was sympathetic to the democratic demands of the Kurds. He was thus, contrary to the prohibition contained in Article 14 of the Convention, a victim of discrimination on grounds of in relation to the exercise of his right to life as protected by Article 2. The applicant also maintained that she too had been discriminated against in violation of Article 14, which reads:"], "id": "c53f6e9b-90a2-4b5f-b2db-4cd585a287a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "social origin", "echr_article": "14", "masked_sentences": ["111. The applicant further argued that he was discriminated against as regards all of the above matters on the grounds of his , birth or \u201cother status\u201d. He was discriminated against as compared to other minors (he was not placed in specialised residential institution aimed at the proper care of minors), as compared to adults (as no adult could have been detained in a penal institution in such circumstances) and as compared to other citizens (as he was detained in a penal institution without having been charged or convicted of a criminal offence)."], "id": "48c06430-305b-432f-ac57-62429b75e19e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["180. The Government averred that there was no gender discrimination in the instant case, since the violence in question was mutual. Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that there was institutionalised discrimination resulting from the criminal or family laws or from judicial and administrative practice. Nor could it be argued that the domestic law contained any formal and explicit distinction between men and women. It had not been proven that the domestic authorities had not protected the of the applicant because she was a woman."], "id": "e7ad159b-f25a-4c09-b0a7-1741d08a6e34", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant argued that, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, the positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention imposed a primary duty on the State to secure the by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person and backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. She submitted that this could also imply in certain circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (she referred to Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, \u00a7 115, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VIII, cited in Kontrov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, \u00a7 49, 31 May 2007). She concluded that in the present case the Italian State had not taken the necessary measures to protect her life and that of her son."], "id": "3325c395-85fb-40ee-8506-90aab1924913", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant complained that the State authorities were responsible for the accident of 30 November 1998 and had violated her daughter's . She also complained that the State authorities had failed to investigate the accident of 30 November 1998 effectively and to punish those responsible for it. In this respect she relied on Article 2 of the Convention which reads as follows:"], "id": "ca01c4a0-ba0e-4aa2-9fa1-cb22e6f0e4d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government relied on the information provided by the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office and argued that the investigation had not obtained any evidence that Adam Ayubov was dead, or that representatives of the federal military or security agencies had been involved in his abduction or alleged killing. They contested the oral evidence given by witnesses during interviews by the investigating authorities as unreliable, stating that witness statements had been controversial and that the investigating authorities had checked the information given by the witnesses by sending queries to law-enforcement agencies and power structures, but that information had not been confirmed. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that Adam Ayubov\u2019s secured by Article 2 of the Convention had been breached."], "id": "054b26c1-9420-4dda-bed0-148590409f5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government conceded that there had been a violation of Mr Bashir Velkhiyev\u2019s , as confirmed by the evidence in criminal case no. 04560079. At the same time they argued that the investigation conducted into his death had been effective and satisfied the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention, as demonstrated by the number of steps taken to establish who had been responsible for the crime."], "id": "302f3f82-4ec0-42ce-8fb9-680fdb9ea00a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["334. The applicants sought various amounts for non-pecuniary damage, stating that they had suffered severe emotional distress, anxiety and trauma as a result of a violation of the of their close relatives and their own right to life, together with the damage inflicted on their property and on account of the indifference demonstrated by the Russian authorities during the investigation into these events."], "id": "ea3ed275-e899-4f68-9368-69b04c426c67", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the prison authorities had failed to protect her son\u2019s by taking the necessary measures, in particular by protecting him from attacks by other prisoners, as well as from the danger he posed to himself. She submitted that the prison staff had been aware of the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s suicidal tendencies and that she had also warned them regularly about his worsening mental state. In addition, the applicant complained that no investigative measures had been taken as regards the responsibility of the prison staff for the death of her son."], "id": "82e49faf-e172-4ba1-8460-01d9d63710b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government highlighted that \u201cthe situation that existed in Chechnya at the relevant time called for exceptional measures on behalf of the State in order to regain control over the Republic and to suppress the illegal armed insurgency. These measures could presumably include employment of military aviation equipped with heavy combat weapons\u201d (see Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, \u00a7 178, 24 February 2005). However, in the case at hand there had been no proper examination of the question of the application of lethal force. They therefore accepted that there had been a breach of the applicants\u2019 and their deceased relatives\u2019 , in both its substantive and procedural aspects."], "id": "5d966ce6-616e-4ab8-b4f0-b62d90ffb667", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["161. The applicant submitted that her husband was killed because he was a Kurd and, although not politically involved, he was sympathetic to the democratic demands of the Kurds. He was thus, contrary to the prohibition contained in Article 14 of the Convention, a victim of discrimination on grounds of national origin in relation to the exercise of his as protected by Article 2. The applicant also maintained that she too had been discriminated against in violation of Article 14, which reads:"], "id": "8a3fff87-80e9-4b8a-9987-67d491ac2679", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants replied that they had not received the amounts which the police officers had been ordered to pay in damages. Moreover, the officers' penalties had been inadequate in view of the extreme gravity of their offence, which consisted of an unprovoked beating resulting in death. The investigation of this beating, after initially resulting in a conclusion on 12 May 1995 that the accused should be committed to trial, had then been halted and renewed only on 12 January 1998, after the applicants' numerous complaints to all possible bodies. The criminal proceedings had lasted almost eight years overall and, had it not been for the applicants' persistent complaints, would probably never have resulted in a trial. The State had thus not effectively enforced the laws preserving the and the prohibition of ill\u2011treatment. The sentence imposed on the police officers was not sufficiently effective and did not amount to full redress for the ill\u2011treatment and death of Mr Nikolov."], "id": "c3487d86-0525-4c08-b8b9-dc544d76309c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["116. The Government did not dispute the fact of the attack on the applicant. They submitted that between 10 December 1999 and 10 February 2000 the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny had been occupied by both federal forces and illegal armed groups and that it was therefore impossible to identify the perpetrators of the attack. The applicant's had not been breached by representatives of the State."], "id": "b9ec26ba-3d15-48f0-91e5-0804935d64d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government pointed out that Bulgarian law made provision for \u201ccompassionate use\u201d of unauthorised medicinal products. However, they emphasised that such products carried serious risks, which required them to be carefully regulated. The State was entitled to refuse permission for the use of an unauthorised medicinal product, and this did not breach the , but safeguarded it. The positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention had limits, and could not exceed what was reasonable. The applicants had been given conventional medical treatment. There was no further duty to allow them to use a product which was not authorised in any member State of the European Union or had not been subjected to a clinical trial. A State could not be obliged to make available all possible drugs, let alone products whose contents and origins were not clearly known, and which had not been authorised in developed countries with strong health care systems. The product at issue did not comply with the requirements for \u201ccompassionate use\u201d under Article 83 of Regulation (EC) no. 726/2004. If its producer met the applicable requirements, the authorities could envisage allowing its use in the future. In that sense, the applicants were not left with no hope at all."], "id": "65eda6b8-9264-4a79-aa5c-8d3a3d227ebd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government submitted that the \u201cTRNC\u201d authorities had been fully justified under paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention in taking all necessary precautions and using necessary force in order to avert the danger and protect the lives of others. An assembly of 150 persons throwing missiles at a patrol of soldiers to the point that they risked serious injury had been considered a \u201criot\u201d by the Commission in the case of Stewart v. the United Kingdom (no. 10044/82, Commission decision of 10 July 1984, Decisions and Reports (DR) 39, p. 162). In that case, the Commission had also pointed out that the authorities had no obligation to retreat when quelling a riot. In any event, as no death had occurred in the present case, there could be no question of a violation of Article 2. The positive obligations arising from this provision entailed protecting \u201cby law\u201d the , and there was no allegation that the laws of the \u201cTRNC\u201d failed to afford such protection."], "id": "304dc4f2-67c8-4fd8-82d4-0379b848888e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["316. The applicants' representatives alleged that there had been a violation of the in respect of Mr Aziev. They considered that the Georgian authorities had exposed the extradited applicants to the risks of imposition of the death penalty, extra-judicial execution and ill-treatment in Russia in breach of the requirements resulting from Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. They also alleged that, were the other applicants to be handed over to the Russian authorities, they would be exposed to the same fate. In addition, they claimed that, during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002, the applicants had been subjected to treatment that was contrary to Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "a11f617e-66d4-457b-8ea6-c45cd5d58e64", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["111. The applicants Mr and Mrs Vlase alleged that their son, Nicu\u015for Vlase, was killed at the end of the December 1989 following the use of lethal force by State agents. They criticised the relevant authorities for failing to conduct an effective, impartial and thorough investigation, capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. In that respect, they submitted that the criminal investigation concerning their allegations of an infringement of the was still pending, and complained about the Romanian authorities\u2019 lack of diligence. They also complained about the draft amnesty law in respect of acts imputed to servicemen in the Armed Forces which occurred at the time of the events of December 1989, transmitted on 18 July 2008 to the military prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, for consultation, by the Legal Directorate at the Ministry of Defence. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "75d85407-bcba-462f-a193-bf2b1d7a5b9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government acknowledged a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, stating that \u201ca violation of Shamkhan Abubakarov and Badrudi Abubakarov\u2019s guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention is confirmed by the criminal case material\u201d. They further contended that the investigation into the deaths of the applicants\u2019 husbands complied with the Convention requirement for an effective investigation."], "id": "3f5a3da0-6282-4cf6-9609-b62259d98d01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicant alleged that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the State security forces had abducted her husband, who had met his death at the hands of the State agents. She maintained that it was also established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent Government had failed to protect Talat T\u00fcrko\u011flu's , in that they had failed to conduct an independent, effective and thorough investigation into his disappearance and subsequent death in suspicious circumstances. She submits in this connection that, although an investigation was opened at her request, it has remained inadequate. In her opinion, no serious investigations were ever conducted in Turkey in respect of unknown perpetrator killings of political opponents or of the disappearance of such persons."], "id": "963fa253-fd56-4d09-85a0-3f33bfef979d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government claimed that the doctors\u2019 allegedly inadequate treatment of the applicant\u2019s daughter could not amount to a breach of the State\u2019s duty to protect the . They maintained that the applicant\u2019s daughter received treatment in various specialised hospitals and underwent various medical tests. In their opinion it would have been difficult to conclude that the quality and promptness of the medical care provided to the applicant\u2019s daughter during her stay in hospitals put her health and life in danger."], "id": "aae56376-8e2e-4689-a878-259680d971ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicant submitted that the prolonged distress and anguish caused by his son's disappearance over the past eleven years amounted to a violation of his right to respect for family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. According to the applicant, this breach was the direct result of the respondent State's failure to protect his son's , liberty and security pursuant to Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention."], "id": "80dc54a8-573d-404b-8bdb-c389d24f4ced", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicants complained of a violation of the in respect of their close relatives, Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev. The applicants submitted that the circumstances of their disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish their whereabouts indicated that Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev had been killed by representatives of the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into their relatives' disappearance. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "46514d92-baf8-42dd-9218-19199a77ae99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government relied on the information provided by the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office and argued that the Russian authorities were not responsible for the actions of the unidentified persons who had abducted Artur Bersunkayev and that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that representatives of the federal power structures had been involved in the imputed offence. They submitted to that end that members of illegal armed formations within the territory of the Chechen Republic resorted to various methods of concealing the fact of their participation in such groups and that of recruitment of new members, such as \u201cdeliberate dissemination of false information concerning their disappearances from the places of their permanent residence and implication of the federal forces in such disappearances\u201d. Moreover, the aforementioned false information was also used by \u201crepresentatives of international terrorist organisations, leaders of illegal armed groups and their emissaries abroad for the purpose of propaganda against the State agencies of Russia\u201d. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that Artur Bersunkayev\u2019s secured by Article 2 of the Convention had been breached."], "id": "93067dc9-6487-4d07-b4da-4a70cd752197", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government therefore maintained that, once it was accepted that States were free to choose other forms of liability for less serious violations of the and that a criminal penalty was not the only form of liability possible (that was the position under Italian law), the reasons why a criminal penalty was not imposed in a particular case became irrelevant for the purposes of Article 2. Furthermore, the doctor responsible for the death of the applicant's child had been held liable in civil proceedings, and could as a result also be subject to disciplinary action."], "id": "1a5da9f0-5975-43b0-886e-965fbbefb519", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicants submitted that the refusal to allow them to use the product had been in breach of their . They highlighted the similarities and differences between their case and previous cases in which the Court had dealt with complaints under Article 2 of the Convention in relation to health care. They argued that, properly framed, the issue in their case was whether the State had taken appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those under its jurisdiction. In their view it had not, because the rules governing \u201ccompassionate use\u201d were not adequate, in that they did not allow the authorities to have regard to specific circumstances. All individuals in Bulgaria who, like the applicants, had cancer which was terminal and which was no longer responding to conventional treatment, were being denied access to experimental medicinal products. In the applicants\u2019 case, this was not justified by lack of budgetary resources, because the company which had developed the product was willing to provide it free of charge. There were indications that the condition of some cancer patients had improved as a result of its use. This had given the applicants hope that it might help them as well."], "id": "7936c6d8-a7d3-43e3-9e70-1853af859352", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicants alleged that the national authorities had not protected the of the first applicant as a result of their failure to give sufficient training to the health personnel concerned and to supervise and inspect their work. In this connection, they noted that the health personnel at the K\u0131z\u0131lay had shown gross negligence by not requiring the blood donors to fill out questionnaires and by not screening their blood with sufficient care. The health personnel at the hospital, where the blood transfusion had been conducted, also failed to do the necessary tests on the blood given to the first applicant, considering that the test in question was very expensive."], "id": "29627a50-b349-4e28-86cf-d6cea1916496", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained that the existing situation infringed his under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, given his low standard of living. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention can be interpreted as conferring on an individual a right to enjoy a certain standard of living (Wasilewski v. Poland, no. 32734/96, 20.4.1999). Moreover, the applicant has not shown that he suffers such destitution as to put his life at risk (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 26 November 2002). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "5a718dd7-f46a-4b9b-825b-ccac0da095ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government acknowledged that Article 201 of the Statute of Garrison and Sentry Service, in force at the material time, had not indicated that the use of force had to be absolutely necessary. However, that legal norm had indicated that deadly force could only be used in specific cases and as a measure of last resort. The Government observed that the wording of Article 201 of the Statute had afforded the same level of protection of the as Article 2 of the Convention. They further noted that in assessing the circumstances of the case the Court should not overlook the fact that the events in question had occurred in the army, a very specific setting characterised by extreme limitations on the rights and freedoms of individuals performing military service. The specific responsibilities of servicemen to respect discipline and the regulations of the Statute of Garrison and Sentry Service, as well as the fact that military service was inherently characterised by unquestionable compliance with orders of higher-ranking officers, had justified the use of deadly force against a serviceman to prevent his escape."], "id": "b0b5c56f-54ae-40f4-b000-2a0d5d48a8fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant considered that the authorities had failed in their positive obligation to protect her son\u2019s , in breach of the State\u2019s general duty to provide the necessary medical care, since it managed and/or controlled the entirety of the health protection system. It seemed to her entirely abnormal that a newborn baby requiring emergency medical care could not be treated by the hospitals as a result of a lack of resources. She concluded therefore that the authorities were responsible for Tolga\u2019s death, in that they had not provided him with the urgent treatment required by his condition."], "id": "a6087ba3-4227-47a9-b49d-95229b632b08", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government pointed out that the Commission had considered whether it was appropriate to recognise the foetus as having the subject to certain restrictions relating to the protection of the mother\u2019s life and health (see X. v. the United Kingdom, cited above). They submitted that such a limitation would not allow recourse to abortion for therapeutic, moral or social reasons, which at the time when the text of the Convention was being negotiated had nonetheless already been authorised by the legislation of a number of countries. It would amount to penalising States that had opted for the right to abortion as an expression and application of a woman\u2019s autonomy over her own body and her right to control her maternity. The States Parties had not intended to confer on the expression \u201cright to life\u201d a meaning that extended to the foetus and was manifestly contrary to their domestic legislation."], "id": "f4dc9814-1af6-4ff9-a8d1-fb7e1562ba73", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicants also drew the Court's attention to the Ministry of the Interior's information, according to which a total of 4,938 village guards had committed offences in the past eighteen years and that 1,215 of these offences had been against the person. In the opinion of the applicants, the respondent Government had failed to prevent village guards from committing similar offences in the present case and had thus been in breach of their obligation to protect the of their two deceased relatives, as well as the life-threatening injuries caused to the two surviving applicants, Yusuf Acar and S\u00fcleyman Acar."], "id": "e9d0b0db-2959-4225-9a11-16a2e0f59f6c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicants argued that there had been a violation of the in respect of their deceased relatives. They further submitted that the investigation into the murders had been ineffective \u2013 both prior to the resumption of proceedings in 2005 and after that date. The prosecutor\u2019s office had failed to address numerous omissions noted by the district court. It had also failed to ensure the necessary level of public scrutiny by not informing the applicants of the most important developments in the proceedings."], "id": "74772624-6887-4707-ba0a-05919a195dce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["132. The applicant and two others indeed filed an indictment on 22 April 2003 against certain executives of Grme\u010d and JPL, as well as against the former Deputy Head of the Intelligence Service, for failing to take measures that had been required of them to prevent the lives of the applicant\u2019s son and others from being avoidably put at risk or to mitigate casualties. Given that the criminal trial is still under way, the issue to be assessed is not whether the judicial authorities, as the guardians of the laws laid down to protect lives, were determined to sanction those responsible, if appropriate (see \u00d6nery\u0131ld\u0131z, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 112 and 115), but whether the judicial authorities proceed with exemplary diligence and promptness. While there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating an alleged infringements of the may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Hugh Jordan, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 108 and 136-140; McCaughey, cited above, \u00a7 130; and Hemsworth, cited above, \u00a7 69)."], "id": "5bf981cf-6aa2-4549-84d5-4f02602579f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to protect the of her son in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. In particular, she argued that the hospital had been negligent in so far as it had not supervised him sufficiently, had not installed adequate security fencing to prevent him from leaving the grounds and had not provided for an adequate emergency procedure. Under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention she complained about the length of the civil proceedings she had brought against the hospital."], "id": "9e63dd6b-d610-4ef4-b371-ab99233c6b52", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["139. The applicants submitted that the administrative authorities\u2019 decision to issue a permit authorising a gold mine to use the cyanidation process and these authorities\u2019 refusal to comply with the decisions of the administrative courts constituted violations, respectively, of their and their right to an effective remedy. They relied on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention."], "id": "889f18aa-8651-44c5-bc54-cc3a1bf2e8b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["140. The Government did not dispute the fact that the applicants' relatives had died. They argued that the investigation \u201chad not obtained data to show that the killings of [the first applicant's relatives] had occurred with the knowledge or on the orders of the representatives of the federal power structures of the Russian Federation\u201d. In respect of the relatives of the other applicants, the Government stated that their deaths had occurred as a result of the violent actions of unidentified persons. Until the investigation had established the culprits, it could not be said that their had been infringed by the actions of military servicemen or other State agents."], "id": "1aac6cb0-f020-4635-8a8e-8941a1207919", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government claimed that there had been no violation of Mr Tarariyev's . His death had not been a consequence of inadequate conditions of detention or medical assistance, but the outcome of an unpredictable development of the illness he had acquired prior to his placement in custody. The investigators and domestic courts had thoroughly examined the circumstances of Mr Tarariyev's death, assessed a substantial body of evidence, commissioned a medical examination, interviewed witnesses and found no fault on the part of the medical staff or other persons. The Government further submitted that the applicant's civil claim for non-pecuniary damages had been dismissed because Mr Da. had been acquitted and because the Russian law of tort did not provide for liability without fault in such a situation."], "id": "4c0732e4-2a44-4b8d-b163-883a5010d438", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the use of force by the security forces against Murat Bekta\u015f and Erdin\u00e7 Arslan had been disproportionate and had resulted in their unlawful killing. They further maintained under the same head that the investigation and the criminal trial had been flawed and ineffective. They contended in this connection that the acquittal of Nurettin B\u00fclb\u00fcl, Fevzi Mustan and Muammer Topa\u00e7, and the deferral of the execution of the sentences imposed on Nurettin B\u00fclb\u00fcl, Haydar Erol, Ey\u00fcp Yal\u00e7\u0131nkaya and Ali Erdurucan, had undermined the deterrent role of the judicial system in preventing violations of the ."], "id": "7c935322-017f-4d02-ab89-bbe112213ddb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["114. The Government considered that the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies as regards their Article 2 complaints because they neither challenged the decision dispensing with a criminal investigation into the natural disaster, nor invoked their in their civil claims for damages. Concerning the decision dispensing with criminal proceedings, the applicants deny any knowledge that such decision has been adopted. Indeed, they were not involved in any such proceedings and it is unclear in what capacity under domestic law they would have been able to challenge the decision referred to by the Government. Unlike the first applicant, they had to prove their victim status before they could commence criminal proceedings. As to the alleged failure to invoke their right to life in the civil proceedings, the Court observes that their statement of claim was formulated in terms that embraced the substance of this guarantee. It therefore considers this part of the Government's preliminary objection also unfounded."], "id": "04e29965-971a-42c7-bd97-b15543cc1ac5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["177. The applicants complained that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention by both the Cypriot and Turkish (including the \u201cTRNC\u201d) authorities on account of their failure to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths of their relatives, Elmas, Zerrin and Eyl\u00fcl G\u00fczelyurtlu. They pointed to the failure of the respondent States to cooperate in the investigation of the murders and bring the suspects to justice. The applicants contended that where there had been a systemic failure to investigate certain killings after the perpetrators had escaped by crossing a dividing line; the substantive requirement of Article 2 had also been violated, as the domestic laws in place had not protected the ."], "id": "6b9bfd9a-9c10-45b3-ae92-7155a94467cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["161. The applicants disagreed. Reiterating their factual account (see paragraphs 10 and 12-15 above), they submitted that their complaints concerning the improper handling of their relatives\u2019 remains were closely related to the complaints concerning the breach of their . The applicants had participated in criminal proceedings concerning the investigation of the circumstances of their relatives\u2019 deaths. It would have been onerous to impose on them in their situation an obligation to institute any further proceedings. In any event, they did not believe that there was any effective hope for them to obtain redress in this situation of ill-treatment, which was continuous, as fragments of their relatives\u2019 bodies, including the head of Mrs Mykhayliv, had never been located or restored to them."], "id": "ac1e713d-37c7-499c-8ad0-cfa8295c78f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant maintained that her daughter had been killed by the agents of the State who had carried out a security operation at her home. She referred to her own statements describing the operation. She insisted that the armed police officers had stormed her house without a warning and fired shots in the rooms, as a result of which her daughter had been killed. The documents from the domestic investigation were inconclusive and did not rule out her version of the events. She further maintained that the positive obligation to protect the had been violated, since the special operation had been planned and executed without proper consideration for the safety of the inhabitants of the house. Finally, the applicant insisted that no proper investigation into the death had taken place, since the only proceedings instituted by the district prosecutor's office had been aimed at solving the crimes allegedly committed by S.Ya. and R.Yu."], "id": "20c17e72-33f8-4d90-a281-58fc013924c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants claimed that Article 2 of the Convention covered not only incidents which resulted in the death of the victim, but also cases where the victim suffered life-threatening, serious injury. Bearing in mind that the first applicant's disease was not curable, the State was responsible for violation of the of the first applicant. They thus claimed that Article 2 of the Convention applied in the present case."], "id": "33256289-e4e4-41ce-961a-e659266cf634", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["103. The Government stated that, taking into account the applicants\u2019 submissions and witness statements on the circumstances surrounding the incident of 12 September 1999, \u201cit should be acknowledged\u201d that the use of lethal force resulting in the death of five residents of Kogi (Runnoye) \u2013 Borambike Esmukhambetova, Elmurat Esmukhambetov, Eldar Esmukhambetov, Melikhan Abdurakhmanova and Bota Kartakayeva \u2013 had constituted an infringement of Article 2 of the Convention in so far as that Article secured the of the relevant applicants\u2019 deceased relatives. They further submitted that, having acknowledged that infringement, the national authorities had paid compensation in that respect to the first three applicants in the amount of 60,000 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately EUR 1,500) to the first applicant and RUB 20,000 (approximately EUR 500) to each of the second and third applicants."], "id": "699a69bc-bfc1-409c-a301-ff764df5a84e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government argued that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that representatives of the Russian federal forces had been involved in the abduction of Abu Khasuyev. They argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that Abu Khasuyev\u2019s , guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, had been breached by representatives of the Russian power structures. The Government further claimed that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant\u2019s son met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators."], "id": "5fb3b626-2ec2-45e9-866d-2b3980711f4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant maintained that her husband must be presumed dead since he had not been heard from since his disappearance. She pointed out that the Court had already dealt with a significant number of cases of disappearances in south-east and eastern Turkey and had found violations of Article 2. Referring to the Court's case law, she stated that the Government had failed to protect the of her husband and that the investigation conducted into the circumstances surrounding his disappearance had been inadequate."], "id": "c2013edd-567b-4f9b-b60e-ea457c760b5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government relied on the information provided by the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office and contended that the investigation had not obtained any evidence to the effect that Isa Zaurbekov was dead, or that representatives of the federal power structures had been involved in his abduction or alleged killing. They expressed doubts that any reliance could be placed on the eyewitness statement by Ms M.-M., submitted by the applicants (see paragraph 13 above), given that this statement contradicted the information given by Ms M.-M. to the investigating authorities during her interview (see paragraph 45 above). The Government insisted that until the circumstances of Isa Zaurbekov\u2019s abduction, and the identity of the persons involved, had been established, there were no grounds to claim that his secured by Article 2 of the Convention had been breached by the State."], "id": "b56249e5-b87f-4caa-9e29-2b66e7fdbd63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government contended that the complaint concerning the alleged violation of the guaranteed by Article 2 should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They considered that the applicants should have challenged the respective decisions to dispense with a criminal investigation into the catastrophe. In the first applicant's case, this was the decision taken by the Prosecutor's Office of the Elbrus District of 3 August 2000, which specifically concerned her husband's death and stated that it did not call for a criminal investigation. As regards the other applicants, the Government referred to the general ruling of the same Prosecutor's Office, allegedly taken on the same date, that no criminal investigation into the natural disaster of 8-25 July 2000 was needed. Moreover, the applicants did not rely on the violation of the right to life in the civil proceedings for damages."], "id": "78cc39ad-39e2-47fa-8de8-57c17d06a30a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained of a violation of the in respect of her son, Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov. She submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish his whereabouts indicated that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov had been killed by representatives of the federal forces. The applicant also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into her son\u2019s disappearance. She relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "f2252655-640c-4408-8f82-2c004ebbebc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government maintained that the authorities had complied with their positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to secure the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s and that they could not be held responsible for his death, which had been a tragic incident. They referred to legal regulations which had been put in place in order to ensure the safety of patients in sobering-up centres. The manner and circumstances in which means of physical coercion could be applied to patients were also specified by domestic law. The employees of the Tychy Sobering-Up Centre had received relevant training, the centre was properly equipped and there was a continuous presence of a doctor. No evidence of intentional killing had so far been disclosed. Since the criminal proceedings against four employees were still pending before the domestic courts it would be premature to assess the conduct of the employees of the centre during the events in question."], "id": "d03df952-94bf-4838-acbc-a45f39e7a81a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["10. The applicant complained that the existing situation infringed his under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, given his low standard of living. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention can be interpreted as conferring on an individual a right to enjoy any given standard of living (Wasilewski v. Poland, no. 32734/96, 20 April 1999). Moreover, the applicant has not shown that he suffers such destitution as to put his life at risk (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 26 November 2002). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "49a3aa64-f792-4654-8eb9-91dbc0e7b082", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government contended that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence that Mr Rustam Kagirov was dead or that any State agents had been involved in his disappearance. They denied the allegation of the failure to protect the as the domestic authorities had no information of a known risk to the life of Mr Rustam Kagirov and that he had not been in the hands of State agents during or after the abduction. The Government claimed that the investigation into the abduction met the Convention requirement of effectiveness. They stressed that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he had been granted victim status in the criminal case and therefore could have appealed the investigators\u2019 decisions in domestic courts."], "id": "9169dddb-a364-4b3c-a7ac-cf930db02972", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["156. The Government reiterated that the Chamber judgment had been insufficiently reasoned and that it had departed from the Court\u2019s existing line of case-law in an area of fundamental importance, thereby creating legal uncertainty for the State. They argued that in finding a violation of the under the substantive limb of Article 2, in the absence of medical negligence, of any established causal link with the patient\u2019s death, or of any failure to provide treatment by refusing to admit or attend to the patient, but simply on the basis of a possible lack of coordination between hospital services that had no consequences for the value protected by the rule, the Chamber had acted as a fourth instance and had expanded the Court\u2019s area of competence to include the assessment in abstracto of the functioning of domestic health-care services. This should not be its role."], "id": "75ef7f20-2456-4924-8aab-5e460c2e9740", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant complained that his wife, Sariye Y\u0131lmaz, was killed by artillery shells fired by the security forces. He alleged that no effective investigation had been carried out into her death. He also claimed that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to protect her . He invoked Article 2 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "4195f4c4-ab25-4096-8746-ff205e1c04f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["79. The applicant alleged that the failure by the authorities to comply with their obligation to protect her life and that of her son, who was killed by her husband, had resulted in a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. She submitted in that regard that the Italian authorities had failed to protect her son\u2019s and that they had been negligent before the repeated violence, threats and injuries which she herself had endured."], "id": "aa8577bf-6253-471b-a2f0-900f90e01b9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant in the instant case neither challenges the sufficiency of the regulatory framework in question, nor alleges that the State authorities failed in their obligation to monitor compliance with it or were in any other way responsible for the accident. She rather complains of their failure to establish, by way of an effective criminal investigation, the circumstances of her husband\u2019s death, including the responsibility of those who had knowingly infringed the terms of the relevant regulations and had thus disregarded her husband\u2019s ."], "id": "2c183c07-30e7-492e-8d30-129194de153d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained that the existing situation infringed his under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, given his low standard of living. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention can be interpreted as conferring on an individual a right to enjoy any given standard of living (Wasilewski v. Poland, no. 32734/96, 20.4.1999). Moreover, the applicant has not shown that he suffers such destitution as to put his life at risk (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 26 November 2002). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "6a7ace9e-f4be-467c-bf11-0b10119298c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government submit that there was no failure in any positive obligation imposed by Article 2 to protect the of Christopher Edwards. The information available to the prison authorities in the period leading up to his death, when viewed objectively and without the benefit of hindsight, demonstrated that there was no real or immediate risk about which the prison authorities knew or ought to have known. Regard had to be paid to the medical evidence available and the consideration that the authorities had to act in a way which respected the other rights and freedoms of individuals. "], "id": "7431ccb1-9a52-4711-b69f-349f05e88ad7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["197. The applicants reiterated that the Russian Government had not substantiated their allegations of security concerns and had not explained why a document concerning an atrocity committed by the previous totalitarian regime needed to be classified. The decision to classify it also contradicted the Russian State Secrets Act, section 7 of which precluded the classification of information on human rights violations. The Katyn massacre was a violation of the on a massive scale perpetrated on the orders of the highest authorities of the USSR."], "id": "696af8b8-9030-4b85-a849-64f7fd41bb1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government submitted, in particular, that the domestic authorities had acknowledged the breach of the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s since the circumstances of the latter\u2019s death had been fully clarified in the course of the thorough, objective and comprehensive investigation. As a result, H.G. had been convicted by domestic courts and received an adequate punishment. Furthermore, the members of the command staff of the military unit, who were found to have been responsible for the tragic incident, had been subjected to disciplinary sanctions by the Minister of Defence. Lastly, the Government considered that the applicant had been provided with appropriate redress in that he had received AMD 2,250,000 from the Ministry of Defence following his son\u2019s death. According to the Government\u2019s submission this amount, apart from representing compensation for funeral expenses and a lump sum insurance benefit payment, was also aimed at compensating non-pecuniary damage suffered by the family as a result of Gegham Sergoyan\u2019s death."], "id": "8ad08a5a-df62-4035-8cfe-e71457e1718f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicants alleged that the State authorities had fallen short of their obligation to protect their son\u2019s . In particular, the proceedings concerning identification of those responsible for his death were unreasonably delayed and marked by numerous deliberate omissions. Foremost, the investigative authorities took no reasonable measures to pursue promptly and diligently the leads given to them by the applicants, including the leads to V.R. and A.S., who were eventually committed to stand trial as potential perpetrators some ten years after Vitaliy Kholodkov\u2019s death."], "id": "c0a06013-ef14-40fc-9fda-872f20810e86", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant submitted that her son, Hubert Mojsiejew, had been killed in the sobering-up centre and that his protected by Article 2 of the Convention had therefore been violated. The legal regulations in force had proved to be ineffective and theoretical as they had not afforded effective protection of Hubert Mojsiejew\u2019s life. It was beyond doubt that Mr Mojsiejew had died at the hands of employees of the sobering-up centre, who had abused their power by using an immobilisation technique or otherwise causing his death. Therefore, the employees of the sobering-up centre should have been prosecuted for murder and not unintentional homicide."], "id": "419967ac-baaa-4968-b48b-f6fa18310b63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant alleged that Mr Rustam Kagirov had been abducted by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of him for several years. Referring to the case of Turluyeva, cited above, he further claimed that the policemen at the roadblock failed to take measures to protect his brother\u2019s . He also argued that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy, as required by the Court\u2019s case-law on Article 2 of the Convention."], "id": "be090c48-f001-4009-b776-752dc383de1d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government admitted that the applicant\u2019s brother\u2019s had been breached. They contended, however, that this complaint should be struck out of the Court\u2019s list of cases because, by convicting the perpetrator and awarding damages to the victim\u2019s relatives, the authorities had \u201cresolved the matter\u201d within the meaning of Article 37 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Convention."], "id": "3e96cd69-2952-4bd5-8717-07563dc73ec1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicant complained of a violation of the in respect of her son, Artur Bersunkayev. She submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which his whereabouts could not be established indicated that Artur Bersunkayev had been killed by the federal forces. The applicant also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into her son\u2019s disappearance. She referred to Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "9e80dcb5-9892-4f61-8c37-cb4b5026acf3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicant complained that the existing situation infringed his under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, given his low standard of living. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention can be interpreted as conferring on an individual a right to enjoy any given standard of living (Wasilewski v. Poland, no. 32734/96, 20.4.1999). Moreover, the applicant has not shown that he suffers such destitution as to put his life at risk (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 26 November 2002). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "8bdebdb1-8da5-422f-b172-b9567c76f10c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained that the existing situation infringed his under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, given his low standard of living. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention can be interpreted as conferring on an individual a right to enjoy any given standard of living (Wasilewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32734/96, 20 April 1999). Moreover, the applicant has not shown that he suffers such destitution as to put his life at risk (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 26 November 2002). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "eec936a1-4966-4940-b610-db45c40bec93", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["104. The applicants complained, firstly, about the national authorities\u2019 decision to issue a permit to operate a gold mine using the cyanidation process. Furthermore, the existence of a risk to their and to respect for their private and family life had been established by judicial decisions. In that regard, they referred to the judgment delivered on 1 June 2001 by the \u0130zmir Administrative Court, which held, in particular, that \u201cthe risk connected with the accumulation of heavy elements or cyanide could persist for twenty to fifty years and [was] likely to infringe the right of the area\u2019s inhabitants to a healthy environment\u201d (see paragraph 48 above)."], "id": "30225ac7-2658-4875-b5f1-fe05c5e51b9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government also noted that the events under examination had occurred in 2000, when violent confrontation had taken place between the federal forces and the rebel fighters and numerous murders had been committed by members of illegal armed groups, using firearms and military vehicles. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that the of the applicant\u2019s husband secured by Article 2 of the Convention had been breached by the State."], "id": "b6e88440-f49b-427d-9749-6dc9a85f5c69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant claimed that there was sufficient evidence to prove that his brother was killed by agents of the State and that the State had failed to protect his brother's and to carry out an investigation to find the perpetrators. The applicant made extensive references to the Susurluk Report which concluded that his brother had been killed by agents of the State. According to the applicant, the Susuruluk Report and the statements of Mr Hanefi Avc\u0131, former head of the intelligence service of Istanbul Police Headquarters, made it clear that the killing had taken place with the full knowledge of the Turkish authorities."], "id": "57f97ee1-0abd-4028-85f6-d75461fa1386", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["155. The applicants alleged that the way in which the operation had been planned, controlled and executed constituted a violation of their own and the right to life of their relatives. In their opinion, this violation was intentional, because the authorities should have known of the massive civilian presence on that road on 29 October 1999 and because the aircraft flew for a relatively long time at low altitude above the convoy before firing at it."], "id": "b071dc8c-96be-4e90-8db0-4d0acfc17bba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that his brother Mr Rustam Kagirov had been abducted and deprived of his life by State agents and that the domestic authorities failed to take measures to safeguard Mr Rustam Kagirov\u2019s . He further alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Article 2 reads as follows:"], "id": "4f6a0719-ec80-4347-b549-0256b06fd0bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicants complained that the State authorities had failed in their positive obligation to protect the of the first applicant as a result of his infection with the HIV virus by blood supplied by the K\u0131z\u0131lay, and that no effective investigation had been conducted into their criminal complaints. They invoked Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "3d700fb0-0a80-400d-a9e3-a4eeb98de64e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["131. The Government submitted that the State had complied with its obligation to secure the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s by having in place laws which allow combating and punishing offences against a person. Furthermore, the authorities had conducted an effective investigation: criminal proceedings had been instituted and a number of investigative measures had been ordered and taken, such as an examination of the body by the investigator, a post-mortem examination by a forensic medical expert, numerous other forensic medical examinations, as well as numerous interviews and confrontations. After a thorough and careful investigation three persons had been prosecuted and convicted under the relevant Articles of the Criminal Code, including officer V.G. and two military unit doctors. It had been established that the injury sustained by the applicant\u2019s son had been accidentally inflicted by officer V.G. during an argument on 21 July 2002. This conclusion was confirmed by the medical experts. There had also been a thorough investigation into the possible involvement of officer K.Z., but no proof of his guilt had been found. The Government lastly insisted that the applicant\u2019s son had an enlarged spleen as a result of malaria, which was one of the factors that led to his death, and contested the applicant\u2019s arguments that the malaria diagnosis had been falsified."], "id": "411a967f-9729-406c-975d-5f41c590258f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government acknowledged that the applicant's son had been abducted near Grozny central market on 26 November 2000 and had later been found dead, but insisted that there were no grounds for holding the State liable for the alleged violation of his . In that connection they relied on the reply of the Prosecutor General's Office to the effect that the investigation had obtained no evidence that Aslanbek Kukayev had been abducted by representatives of the federal forces; they also relied on information provided by the Chechen Department of the FSB stating that there had been no special operation in the vicinity of Grozny central market on 26 or 27 November 2000. On the other hand, the Government relied on witness statements by four persons, including Mr Dzh., all of whom, in the Government's words, \u201cwere apprehended by the federal forces on 26 November 2000 during a special operation and were later released\u201d. Later the Government explained that they had only mentioned the special operation in so far as it had been referred to by those witnesses during questioning. The Government also asserted that members of illegal armed formations within the territory of the Chechen Republic had on numerous occasions used forged police officers' identity cards to enter the dwellings of local residents, seize them and kill them, and that officers of the law-enforcement bodies had often become the target of rebel fighters."], "id": "792cdf0d-c9cb-496c-b8c7-0e8451394ffe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government submitted that on 29 April 2001 federal forces had conducted a special operation in Alkhan-Kala aimed at the detention of members of illegal armed gangs. On that date, during the daytime, a group of unidentified armed persons had gone to 63 Zheleznodorozhnaya Street and taken away Mr Sultan Isayev, Mr Sherip Magomadov and Mr Kh. They had also apprehended seven other residents of the village. However, the investigation into those events was still pending and, until the circumstances of Mr Sultan Isayev's disappearance had been established by the investigating authorities, there were no grounds for claiming that his had been breached by State agents."], "id": "fb75479c-d1c2-4f9d-a217-9bfd247116d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant submitted that the authorities, having been aware of H.G.\u2019s negative characteristics, had failed to undertake the necessary measures to protect his son\u2019s . In particular, despite the fact that H.G. had been reprimanded several times and found not fully fit for service, he had been allowed to continue service and to carry a weapon, with which he had intentionally killed Gegham Sergoyan."], "id": "238b1df3-e867-44b9-a225-2477c57c8678", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants alleged that their relatives\u2019 was violated in that they were deliberately killed by village guards. The applicants, \u0130brahim Akan and Re\u015fit Acar further complained that their right to life was violated as the village guards attempted to kill them. The applicants in addition claimed that the national authorities failed to comply with their procedural obligations to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the killings and attempted killings. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention which provides:"], "id": "43539a6d-28d7-44d8-b2ff-129dfa675c42", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants alleged that their relative had been deliberately killed by a police officer in breach of Article 2 of the Convention. They complained that the suspension of pronouncement of the judgment in respect of the police officer was not compatible with the obligation to protect the by law within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention. Relying on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants also complained that there had been serious shortcomings in the investigation into the shooting and in the trial of the police officer."], "id": "7b8181c8-dc40-4b0e-ac67-4deb2695042f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government submitted that representatives of the federal forces had not violated the of Mr Vakhazhi Albekov, Mr Khasayn Minkailov and Mr Nokha Uspanov. Mr Vakhazhi Albekov had been blown up on land occupied by the military unit and which had previously been \u201cabandoned by members of illegal armed formations\u201d. Mr Khasayn Minkailov and Mr Nokha Uspanov had been blown up while they were searching for Mr Albekov in the forest, where explosive devices had also been planted by members of illegal armed gangs. In the Government\u2019s view, the fact that there had been instances where servicemen themselves had been blown up on mines showed that they had not known where the mines had been laid, which was further supported by statements from the servicemen questioned."], "id": "837d8f3b-ce0b-44da-a2ce-4b777a73d180", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant complained about her father\u2019s death following his arrest by the police and his deprivation of liberty in Argenteuil police station. She argued that the necessary measures for the protection of his had not been taken. She further argued that the investigation into the facts had not been effective. She relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "df112669-91ba-442b-b73b-27fdffb98525", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["199. The applicant submitted that the existing domestic legal framework in itself failed to ensure proper protection of civilian lives. She made reference to the only disclosed legal act on which the conclusions of the military experts based their report, namely, the Army Field Manual. The Court agrees with the applicant that the Government's failure to invoke the provisions of any domestic legislation governing the use of force by the army or security forces in situations such as the present one, whilst not in itself sufficient to decide on a violation of the State's positive obligation to protect the , is, in the circumstances of the present case, also directly relevant to the Court's considerations with regard to the proportionality of the response to the attack (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned McCann judgment, \u00a7 156)."], "id": "010f9ccd-3c5b-42a9-ac4d-d148a604cc18", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicant submitted that her husband had been murdered by State agents because of his journalistic activity. She also argued that the State had failed to protect her husband\u2019s because the State knew or ought to have known about a risk to his life. Her husband had been regularly threatened and targeted by numerous legal proceedings, and before his murder he had written in Monitor about a risk to his life."], "id": "a1c4283f-cdfe-4a6d-ae05-493cac2ea115", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicants maintained that the respondent State had failed to protect the of their child. In their view, by letting a seven year- old child go alone in a heavy snow storm, the school authorities had failed in their duties. The applicants further complained about the alleged ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies, as in the present case there had been no effective remedy capable of holding accountable those responsible for the death of their son, Atalay Kemalo\u011flu."], "id": "7247abe7-2e28-406a-b409-b37f4e40aad1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained about the test for prosecution in cases of putative self-defence. Under English law, a prosecution will be brought only if a conviction is \u201cmore likely than not\u201d (see paragraphs 164 and 265 of the judgment). The majority refer in the reasoning to an interesting comparative-law report on this issue (see paragraphs 176 and 269 of the judgment). We note in this connection that the analysis of comparative-law data leads to the conclusion that the test applied under English law for prosecution is clearly more stringent than in other States Parties to the Convention. Such a stringent test may prevent the prosecution and conviction of a person who has committed an offence if the prospects of success are not correctly assessed by the prosecutor. There is a serious risk that borderline cases will escape independent judicial assessment. As a result, certain acts involving excessive use of force by the police may be covered by a de facto immunity from prosecution. In our view, for the sake of efficient protection of the , if there are serious doubts concerning the legitimacy of lethal force used by the police in actual or putative self-defence, the final decision on the question of criminal liability should be left to the courts."], "id": "0248c9c3-86d3-4dff-b908-d5c1ae705f06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative had been killed unlawfully by the soldiers. They submitted that the fact that his hunting rifle was still fully loaded at the time of the killing, coupled with the absence of any bullets or bullet cases which might have been discharged from the soldiers\u2019 weapons, had shown that no armed clash had taken place at all. The applicants added that a policy of impunity prevailed in Turkey in respect of breaches of the by law enforcement officials. Everything in this incident indicated that their relative Murat Tekdal had been an innocent civilian. However, in the documents drawn up by members of the security forces attempts had been made to portray Murat Tekdal as a member of an outlawed organisation so that members of the security forces would not be prosecuted and punished."], "id": "9b9915f8-bde3-4ce7-b908-d07ac96bae22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["219. The applicants submitted that there was a duty on States to cooperate with investigations held outside their jurisdiction or areas under their control. This arose from the primary obligation States had under Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. When jurisdictions overlapped or were concurrent, Member States were under an obligation to cooperate in order to secure the of persons within their jurisdictions. A finding that there was no such obligation would result in a \u201cvacuum\u201d of protection within the \u201clegal space of the Convention\u201d of the right to life (relying, mutatis mutandis, on Cyprus v. Turkey, cited above, \u00a7 78)."], "id": "ea56544c-379d-40ae-92ee-a2ca8e96583f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant pointed out that, as the Court had held, States had \u201ca primary duty ... to secure the by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions\u201d (see K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, \u00a7 62, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, \u00a7 85, ECHR 2000-III). In her submission, the new line of case-law adopted by the Court in Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy ([GC], no. 32967/96, \u00a7 51, ECHR 2002-I), to the effect that where the right to life had been infringed unintentionally the judicial system did not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy, could not be followed in the instant case, because a civil remedy did not \u201csatisfy the requirement of expressing public disapproval of a serious offence, such as the taking of life\u201d (see the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Rozakis joined by Judges Bonello and Str\u00e1\u017enick\u00e1 in the above-mentioned case). That would amount to debasing the right to life protected by Article 2. The applicant therefore considered that creating the offence of involuntary termination of pregnancy would fill the vacuum created by the Court of Cassation and would compensate for the State\u2019s failure to fulfil its duty to protect the human being at the earliest stages of its development (see paragraph 32 above)."], "id": "5d0b874f-dd91-4d55-9c6e-366df1c175a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government submitted that the police officers involved in the organisation and conduct of the training had been disciplined or criminally prosecuted, in compliance with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention to ensure, where lives have been lost in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, an adequate response so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are repressed and punished (see \u00d6nery\u0131ld\u0131z v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, \u00a7 91, ECHR 2004\u2011XII)."], "id": "91c81838-510e-42df-b347-d8ed5db3240b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["114. The Government further submitted that the authorities had carried out a comprehensive investigation into the alleged ill-treatment and death of Mr Dimitrov. The Ministry of Internal Affairs had conducted an internal inquiry. In addition, criminal proceedings had been opened into the incident, and the authorities and the courts had taken a number of steps, including ordering several medical expert reports and interviewing the five officers and many other witnesses, with a view to elucidating the facts. Those proceedings had been fully adequate, had been conducted with due regard to the , and had encompassed not only the actions of the officers but also the planning and control of the operation. The Sofia Military Court had referred the case back for additional investigation three times. The criminal case against the five police officers had been heard twice by the Sofia Military Court, three times by the Military Court of Appeal \u2013 the third entailing the gathering of additional evidence \u2013 and twice by the Supreme Court of Cassation. The final disposition of the case had been based on a comprehensive assessment of the facts."], "id": "c580bd11-60fa-42c3-8248-1137acc52aad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicants complained of a violation of the in respect of their close relative, Isa Zaurbekov. They submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish his whereabouts indicated that Isa Zaurbekov had been killed by the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into their relative\u2019s disappearance. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "16b0b1fb-a767-4875-8561-3234f0656fc3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["103. The applicant submitted that the failure of the authorities to take reasonable steps to investigate or to protect his son whose forced disappearance had been reported to them, disclosed a failure on the part of the Government to comply with their positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to take positive steps to protect the ."], "id": "1f1d31a7-c8dc-4ab6-be1e-06caadefc911", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["143. The applicant alleged that State servicemen had killed her son. The Court reiterates that Article 2, which safeguards the and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, from which no derogation is permitted. In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, \u00a7\u00a7 146-147, Series A no. 324)."], "id": "861800ca-356f-425c-bd4e-8365628fbd7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["132. The applicant alleged that his brother, who had been arrested on 12 September 1994, had disappeared while in custody and had in all probability been killed by the security forces. He submitted that the respondent State had to be declared responsible for failing to protect his brother\u2019s , in breach of Article 2 of the Convention, which reads:"], "id": "7d146f30-5acc-46ca-af0a-df0768a17bbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted on the merits of the complaint that following the death of the applicant\u2019s son on the night of 13 April 2001, the Garrison Prosecutor\u2019s Office had initiated a criminal investigation the very next day. The applicant\u2019s son\u2019s body had been subjected to a post-mortem, which disclosed multiple ante mortem injuries. Taking into account the results of that examination, the investigating authority had examined whether the applicant\u2019s son had possibly been driven to commit suicide or whether he was murdered and his death made to look like suicide. The applicant\u2019s son\u2019s fellow recruits had been subjected to polygraph testing and two independent psychological autopsies had been carried out in respect of the applicant\u2019s son. On the basis of that evidence and other material, the investigating authority had established that, being in a state of acute emotional stress which had led to depression, the applicant\u2019s son had died from suicide by hanging. Therefore the domestic authorities cannot be held responsible for the violation alleged, namely the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s ."], "id": "d8bcc653-bd53-46cf-a1e2-bf7acc3e83da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["162. The applicant alleged that her and the right to life of her son and other relatives was violated by the actions of the military. She also submitted that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into the attack and to bring those responsible to justice. She relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "169e5a48-a5f4-41dd-bd44-601dd9aba54a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government objected that the applicant had failed to exhaust the effective domestic remedies available to her, as she had not brought an action against the police officers and/or the State seeking damages for her son\u2019s death. In this connection, the Government claimed that an action for damages had already been established to constitute an effective remedy by the Court, citing the case of Butolen v. Slovenia (no. 41356/08, 26 April 2012). Secondly, they submitted that the applicant could have continued the criminal prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor, adding that private prosecutions by injured parties could, as had been established by the Constitutional Court, effectively ensure protection of the ."], "id": "9db3f658-8fd5-46aa-af94-9bf39ef37e06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["160. The Government originally maintained that the only element linking the murder of Mr Gongadze to State authorities was the audio tapes made by Mr Melnychenko. They contended that there was no evidence \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d that the State was responsible for a violation of the of the applicant's husband. Later, however, they informed the Court about the arrest of several police officers who had confessed to having participated in the surveillance, kidnap and murder of Mr Gongadze."], "id": "deca6dc0-306c-4fe7-b334-c115dcd1449e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants maintained that there was a causal link between the prison authorities\u2019 negligent behaviour and their son\u2019s death, and that the authorities had failed to take the necessary steps to protect the of their son, notwithstanding the fact that he was known to be at risk of killing himself. They submitted that, as an absolute minimum, their son could have been seen by a specialist. Furthermore, the prison authorities could have kept him under constant watch at least on that particular day on which he had injured himself - just hours before his death."], "id": "7d25e868-8b07-4264-83c5-7f32987763a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["143. The applicant alleged a breach of her husband\u2019s . She claimed that her husband had been the victim of a hospital-acquired infection and that the medical personnel had been careless and negligent in their diagnoses and treatment and in discharging her husband from hospital. In particular, she complained of delays in providing him with treatment and of the administration of medication in excessive doses. She did not, however, call into question her husband\u2019s discharge from hospital authorised by Dr J.V. on 3 February 1998, that decision having been taken with her assent and that of her husband. She further complained that the authorities to which she had applied had failed to elucidate the precise cause of the sudden deterioration in the health of her husband, who had previously been perfectly fit. She also complained about the length of the domestic proceedings and the fact that she had not been informed of the exact cause of her husband\u2019s death."], "id": "a8668546-b33e-409d-83ab-4aaa97249717", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicants complained of a violation of the in respect of their relative, Vakhid Musikhanov. They submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which his whereabouts could not be established indicated that Vakhid Musikhanov had been killed by the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into the matter. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "0b7ccd50-97f9-4083-9261-ade9e52d7ed1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to life", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant maintained that the State was responsible for Cemal U\u00e7ar\u2019s death in prison since they could not provide a plausible explanation for it. According to the applicant, his son was either killed by the State authorities or by the inmates of the prison ward where he had been incarcerated. He maintained in this connection that his son should not have been placed in the same ward as the other persons who had been accused of membership of the Hizbullah. The applicant further submitted that, if his son had indeed committed suicide, then the authorities should be considered liable for his death since they had failed to safeguard his son\u2019s ."], "id": "1bf8ef51-a2b5-4925-9662-2a35b9d3ac43", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["130. The applicant submitted that the authorities had failed to protect his son\u2019s life while he had been under their care as a soldier performing compulsory military service. He had sustained a fatal injury to his spleen involving old and new bruises which proved that he had been ill-treated by the military officers at different periods of time. The authorities, however, had failed to carry out an into these circumstances. In fact, they did everything not to disclose the true reasons. In order to shield the perpetrators, they put forward a false account of his son\u2019s fatal injury, namely that it had been sustained as a result of an accidental light blow, and utilised the entire investigative machinery, including the medical expertise, to make that account look plausible, despite having numerous pieces of disproving evidence. The diagnosis of malaria, which had allegedly contributed to his son\u2019s death, had similarly been faked. The applicant lastly submitted that the effectiveness of the investigation was to be judged not by the quantity of the investigative measures taken but by the quality of such measures."], "id": "4b2758cc-1cf0-4fcf-ab82-e66e5f275df7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["97. The applicants next alleged that their relatives had been ill-treated after having been detained, which constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. They referred to the medical certificate of death issued on 8 October 2001 in respect of Umar Musayev, confirming that there had been multiple stab wounds and bruises on the latter's head and chest. They further submitted that the authorities had failed to conduct an in this respect, in violation of their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "243c7f56-f867-4233-adc7-28d97578661a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["247. The applicants submitted that if the protection of the right to life was to be meaningful in practice, then an and the initiation of legal proceedings to determine whether or not a deprivation of life was lawful \u2013 followed by the imposition of punishment where it was deemed to have been unlawful \u2013 was essential. In this connection they argued that the investigation and the criminal proceedings in the present case, far from being effective, had been so defective as to amount to a perversion of justice."], "id": "4f3773d2-2ff3-4397-a9ca-3b11de584c2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant submitted that despite all his efforts, the criminal investigation had not been commenced until 17 November 2000, more than a year after the killing of his relatives. Since then it had been going on without producing any tangible result. The applicant stated that the steps taken during the investigation had clearly been deficient. He pointed out that even though the death certificates issued in respect of his relatives on 24 November 1999 indicated the cause of death of each of them as \u201cmultiple shrapnel wounds\u201d, no autopsy had been performed, an assertion which was not disputed by the Government. The inspection of the scene of the incident had been superficial; the investigators had not taken photographs or collected fragments of shells. Moreover, despite the conclusion of the expert examination of 9 August 2000 that the fragments found by the applicant were those of large-calibre artillery shells, there was no evidence that the authorities had adequately investigated the possible involvement of military personnel into the killing of the applicant\u2019s family members. It does not appear that there were any servicemen among the eighteen witnesses questioned by the investigators. Relying on the above considerations, the applicant argued that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of his relatives\u2019 deaths."], "id": "909c433c-8ef7-437d-8491-3f125a57257c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["131. The Government submitted that the State had complied with its obligation to secure the applicant\u2019s son\u2019s right to life by having in place laws which allow combating and punishing offences against a person. Furthermore, the authorities had conducted an : criminal proceedings had been instituted and a number of investigative measures had been ordered and taken, such as an examination of the body by the investigator, a post-mortem examination by a forensic medical expert, numerous other forensic medical examinations, as well as numerous interviews and confrontations. After a thorough and careful investigation three persons had been prosecuted and convicted under the relevant Articles of the Criminal Code, including officer V.G. and two military unit doctors. It had been established that the injury sustained by the applicant\u2019s son had been accidentally inflicted by officer V.G. during an argument on 21 July 2002. This conclusion was confirmed by the medical experts. There had also been a thorough investigation into the possible involvement of officer K.Z., but no proof of his guilt had been found. The Government lastly insisted that the applicant\u2019s son had an enlarged spleen as a result of malaria, which was one of the factors that led to his death, and contested the applicant\u2019s arguments that the malaria diagnosis had been falsified."], "id": "8e15865f-68b5-4308-9bcc-6c6395ba918a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicants contended that Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment by the abductors and that no had been conducted in this connection. The applicants further contended that their relative had been detained in violation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention. They also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, there were no available domestic remedies against the violations alleged, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant:"], "id": "bb5648f8-37aa-49cf-aee7-a86628791958", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["215. The applicants submitted that Turkey\u2019s continued unwillingness to abide by its obligations was in breach of Article 46; this affected hundreds of Greek Cypriot families and threatened the effectiveness of the Convention system; they urged the Court to direct the respondent Government to conform with their legal obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention towards the applicants by conducting a prompt and into the fate and whereabouts of the missing men, publicising the results, immediately and unconditionally releasing and repatriating any still in Turkish custody and returning the remains of those who were proved to be dead. In default of such steps, as incentive, the respondent Government should pay each applicant 24 Cypriot pounds (CYP) per day, such rate doubling for every twelve-month period that elapsed."], "id": "b8536cc7-08b3-44ea-bd1e-65c2ee997c1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["128. The Government contended that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the detainees had been held under State control or that the missing persons were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had produced only limited ones, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary measures were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an ."], "id": "3cc96f5e-4ddb-4e60-8362-4138013b0176", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicant submitted that his son had worked as a plumber and, as the eldest of ten children, had contributed significantly to his family\u2019s upkeep. He claimed 12,300 euros (EUR) on behalf of the beneficiaries of the estate of Mehmet \u015eah \u015eeker, and on behalf of himself, for loss of earnings over five years and five months. He further claimed EUR 12,300 on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an . The applicant also requested that, in the case of a finding of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, these figures be increased by 50%."], "id": "9bf5baab-9665-435b-a2af-e11e263eb581", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["101. The applicant argued that the authorities had failed to conduct an into her husband\u2019s murder. She contended that the investigation had not met the requirements of effectiveness and adequacy, as required by the Court\u2019s case-law on Article 2. She pointed out that it had been ongoing for almost five years without any explanations for its delay and that it had been suspended and resumed on several occasions yet had failed to produce any tangible results. The applicant alleged that the investigation into her husband\u2019s murder should have been conducted by the unit military prosecutor\u2019s office but it was being conducted by the inter-district prosecutor\u2019s office, which did not have jurisdiction to investigate crimes committed by military servicemen; that the reopening of the criminal proceedings on 23 November 2004 had been just play-acting on the part of the investigators in view of the examination of the criminal case by the District Court on 24 November 2004; that the investigation had failed to establish the source of information for the newspaper article and the radio announcement about the killing of the two alleged rebel fighters as that source could only have been the military servicemen who had committed the murder of the applicant\u2019s husband; that the applicant had not had effective access to the investigation, thus precluding her from effectively appealing against the actions of the investigating authorities; and that there had been an administrative practice of non-investigation of crimes committed by federal forces in Chechnya."], "id": "fe0fa150-ca15-4b27-afdc-80b28218ac66", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government denied the factual basis of the applicant\u2019s allegation that his son had been killed while in prison. They further submitted that the investigation carried out by the security directorate and the public prosecutor\u2019s office in Diyarbak\u0131r into his death had revealed that Cemal U\u00e7ar had committed suicide. They maintained that the authorities had not been and could not have been aware of the psychological problems of Cemal U\u00e7ar, especially because he had committed suicide only fifteen days after he was placed in Diyarbak\u0131r E\u2011type prison. The Government finally submitted that the domestic authorities fulfilled their obligation to conduct an into the death of Cemal U\u00e7ar."], "id": "add0e8e4-80ac-434d-8b90-b0bb2ac824a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the first applicant\u2019s life had been put at risk and that he had been ill-treated by police officers, who had beaten him with truncheons, had punched and kicked in the face, head, stomach and back. They further complained under this Article that there had been no into his allegations. Relying on Article 13, they complained that there had been no effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. Lastly, they complained under Article 6 that they had been denied the right of access to court due to the failure of the public prosecutor to reject the criminal complaint by means of a formal decision. The Court considers that this last complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, as it concerns a particular aspect of the right to an effective remedy under this provision. It further considers that the applicants\u2019 complaint concerning the risk to the first applicant\u2019s life should be examined under Article 2 of the Convention. Articles 2 (the applicability of which the Court will examine, see below), 3 and 13 of the Convention read as follows:"], "id": "c85f69c9-b404-4d13-8981-89d0d1a48f72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government acknowledged a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, stating that \u201ca violation of Shamkhan Abubakarov and Badrudi Abubakarov\u2019s right to life guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention is confirmed by the criminal case material\u201d. They further contended that the investigation into the deaths of the applicants\u2019 husbands complied with the Convention requirement for an ."], "id": "9998e8ad-1923-4bb2-a604-f2aa2a04af9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government contended that the domestic investigation had not obtained evidence proving that the applicant\u2019s sons were dead or that they had been held or killed under State control. At the same time, in their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application the Government stated that the applicant\u2019s sons could have been detained by State representatives (see paragraph 33 above). The Government further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there were any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to carry out an ."], "id": "13782a73-1451-45d0-96be-9fbf49a35525", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant submitted that she had used all existing remedies in order to obtain the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for her husband\u2019s death. It was only because of her determination that the prosecutor had finally indicted the civil servant responsible for the maintenance of municipal trees and shrubs. She had also attempted to bring a civil action for compensation, but it had never been examined. Moreover, she had lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings \u2013 but it had not led to the acceleration of the proceedings. In sum, the authorities had been trying to conceal the truth and had failed to conduct a thorough and into her husband\u2019s death. Thus, the existing remedies had proved to be ineffective."], "id": "25eb4871-e9eb-42c8-8d01-a1598ebc6e73", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicants complained that the Slovak authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct an into the racial overtones of the crime committed against them. They furthermore challenged the lack of reasoning in the sentencing judgment, which had rendered it impossible to demonstrate any accountability for the racist motive for the crime. They relied on Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "0be404d3-338c-4f13-b95d-69b4c66fc7a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicant further relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that her husband had most likely been tortured during his detention and that no had been carried out on that account. The applicant also claimed that as a result of her husband\u2019s disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate those events properly, she had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "id": "2e962921-5605-4163-af9e-052a2e305039", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government submitted that the police officers had acted on receipt of information that there were terrorists in the flat in question and that the operation had been planned in order to minimise the use of lethal force. They noted that the police had used firearms acting in self-defence and in accordance with the requirements of the Law and Regulation on Duties and Powers of the Police. In their view, the death of Ta\u015fk\u0131n Usta resulted from a use of force which was no more than absolutely necessary. It was also established by the domestic courts that the police officers had started firing only after the deceased had opened fire and in order to protect themselves. Furthermore, the authorities had carried out an adequate and into the impugned events."], "id": "dd914c36-b35d-4447-af3a-1eef07aaf47e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["141. The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of their relatives\u2019 deaths. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for almost three years and during that period it had been suspended on at least five occasions. The applicants argued that a number of investigative measures had not been taken, or had been taken after considerable delay. Throughout the investigation the first two applicants had requested that the status of victim of a crime be granted to them, but had received no replies to their requests. The authorities had never kept the applicants abreast of developments in the investigations or informed them as to what investigative measures had been taken and repeatedly denied them access to the criminal investigation file. Moreover, a copy of the decision of 24 April 2003 by which the criminal proceedings in connection with the death of the applicants\u2019 relatives had been discontinued had never been served on them."], "id": "d9be60e0-321d-48a8-81f3-f4502dca925a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["213. The applicant contended that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention by both the Russian and Cypriot authorities on account of the failure of the Cypriot authorities to take steps to protect the life of his daughter and the failure of the authorities of both States to conduct an into her death. Article 2 provides, inter alia, that:"], "id": "96fbdfae-330d-4178-a887-66994428dc03", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant argued that the authorities had failed to conduct an into the circumstances of his father\u2019s death. He contended that the authorities had been informed of the killings immediately and that the officers of the law-enforcement bodies had been present at the scene from the very beginning on 17 September 2000, which had given rise to an ipso facto obligation to carry out an effective investigation (the applicant referred to Salman v. Turkey, cited above, \u00a7 104). Despite that, they had failed to question the witnesses and victims of the crimes, to collect and secure important evidence or to carry out an autopsy or a forensic report on the bodies. The authorities had failed to inform the victim\u2019s family members of the proceedings. The fact that the investigation had been going on for such a long time without producing any known results and that it had been reopened just a few weeks after the communication of the present complaint to the Russian authorities served, in the applicant\u2019s view, as further proof of its ineffectiveness."], "id": "1d0a0e2b-4b28-47f0-a423-89846a139d3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government further argued that there were inconsistencies in the applicants' and the witnesses' accounts of the events regarding the time of the abduction, the number of the abductors and their vehicles and the colour of the vehicles and that their statements contradicted the statements by M.B. that the abduction had taken place at about 4.20 p.m. and that the second vehicle was violet in colour. They challenged as untrustworthy the applicants' submissions regarding their alleged contacts with the FSB officials and the information so obtained because the applicants had failed to provide any details about their interlocutors, such as their names or ranks in the FSB or any evidence that they existed at all. In any event, the Government considered that State officials would not have behaved the way described by the applicants. They particularly stressed that the third applicant had concealed the information on those alleged meetings from the investigation. The third applicant informed the investigation only about the call he had allegedly received in December 2004, being silent on the events which had preceded it. By withholding that information, the third applicant had intentionally hindered the of the case. As regards L.T., he had been interviewed by the investigator and had submitted that on 18 December 2003 he had been at his place of service in Kostroma and that he had not known anything about the abduction of Bashir Mutsolgov. L.T.'s statements during his interview had not raised any doubts as to their truthfulness and thus there had been no need for their verification."], "id": "b2c9bd30-5701-4504-8e0b-6a0051e17f0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicants alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an into the circumstances of Nura Luluyeva's abduction and death, in violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2. They argued that the investigation fell short of the standards of the European Convention and of the national legislation. They pointed to the delay in opening the investigation, its repeated and unfounded suspensions and its duration for over six years without significant progress. They emphasised that the second applicant, who had alerted the authorities on the day of his wife's detention, was formally questioned as a witness and granted victim status as late as in December 2000, that is, six months after the incident. On the basis of documents from the investigation file submitted by the Government, they questioned the relevance and effectiveness of the measures taken to investigate the case; they also complained that the authorities had failed to verify all possible investigative versions, and in particular the one implicating State servicemen."], "id": "acd9a9be-791d-43cd-aefa-9eac8891deb9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicants further relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that the first applicant had been tortured after his abduction, but that no had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that, as a result of Valid Dzhabrailov's death and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "id": "697d4955-83a4-47d8-9423-5fbd2d8961df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government considered this complaint to be inadmissible and argued that the gendarmes and a public prosecutor had acted promptly and secured the evidence. A post-mortem examination of the body had been carried out by expert doctors and the office of the Governor had asked to be informed as to whether anyone had seen Mr Ep\u00f6zdemir in the town on the day he was killed. Thus, each national authority had fulfilled its obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of the killing."], "id": "462399b3-d2d0-4848-8755-1e3a952de6d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicants complained that no had been conducted by the national authorities into the killing of their relatives. In that connection they referred to the document drawn up by the Ovac\u0131k prosecutor on 18 June 2005, in which it was stated that that prosecutor had not gone to the area where their relatives had been killed because of security concerns. The applicants pointed out that that document clearly disproved the Government\u2019s submissions according to which \u201cimmediately after the armed clash had ended the prosecutor had gone to the incident area, conducted an on-site inspection, prepared an incident report and opened an investigation\u201d (see paragraph 17 above and paragraph 103 below). The applicants questioned the validity of the prosecutor\u2019s concerns for his security in connection with a visit to an area where the operation had ended and which was under the control of the soldiers."], "id": "312f1978-526b-4596-a8df-316452fda57e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["150. The applicants also claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of Muslim Nenkayev\u2019s disappearance. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for more than six years without any tangible results so far, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed. The authorities had failed to promptly update the applicants on any progress made in the investigation."], "id": "9fbaadb5-a2a4-4f06-a552-c98014dca3b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that, as a result of their relative's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured psychological distress in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The second applicant also complained under this Convention provision that she had been subjected to ill-treatment by the servicemen who had abducted Isa Aytamirov and that the authorities had not carried out an of the alleged ill-treatment. Article 3 reads:"], "id": "3bb83673-1d3e-459f-9849-4e00061bb3ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["217. The Government contended that none of the domestic investigations had obtained evidence proving that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held or killed under State control. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there were any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to carry out an ."], "id": "92ee03cb-53ed-43c8-bbd3-981d88b7a37a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government contended that the complaint should be rejected as unsubstantiated, as the investigation into the disappearance had not obtained any evidence that State agents had killed Mr Aslan Dudayev, that Mr Ali Dudayev had been abducted by them or that he was dead. They further noted that all the necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an into the killing and the abduction."], "id": "c93cd9e0-d9ec-42b1-86fd-4bee1578b96f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["96. The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of their relatives\u2019 deaths. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for more than six years and during that period it had been repeatedly suspended. The authorities had not kept the applicants abreast of developments in the investigation or informed them as to what investigative measures had been taken and had repeatedly denied them access to the criminal investigation file."], "id": "61c44bd8-3dca-4ac0-906d-54bfa5bbf807", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["110. The applicants challenged the Government's claim that the complaint should be declared inadmissible on account of a failure to exhaust the domestic remedies. They argued that an action under the Protection against Discrimination Act was not a remedy that they were required to exhaust because it was neither effective nor available. The applicants noted that the Court had repeatedly held that there is no requirement that remedies that are neither adequate nor effective should be used (see, mutatis mutandis, Sak\u0131k and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 26 November 1997, Reports 1997\u2011VII, p. 2625, \u00a7 53) and that an individual must have clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act which is an interference with his or her rights (see De Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253\u2011B, p. 43, \u00a7 34 and Bellet v. France, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333\u2011B, p. 42, \u00a7 36). In respect of the lack of availability of the remedy claimed by the Government, the applicants noted that the Protection against Discrimination Act entered into force close to four years after they had lodged their complaints with the Court. With regard to its effectiveness, they argued that an action for damages, be it based on anti-discrimination legislation or general tort law, could not remedy the substance of their complaint before the Court, which was that the authorities had failed to conduct an into the death of their relative and to prosecute the perpetrators. Moreover, an action under the Act would be directed against the investigation authorities and would require the applicants to prove discriminatory treatment by them on the basis of race, of which there was no direct evidence. Thus, the applicants claimed that there was no clear link between the complaints they raised before the Court and the remedy suggested by the Government."], "id": "6a8da96f-2926-464c-bf1a-8ee96b61057c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective. As regards the Government's argument concerning the second applicant's victim status, they stated that it was the authorities' obligation to conduct an , without leaving the initiative to the next of kin of the missing person. In any event, that remedy could be hardly considered effective, given that the applicants had not been provided with the basic information concerning the investigation. They also stressed that under the decision of 26 March 2008 the second applicant would only have access to her own interview records and the decisions to institute, suspend and reopen the investigation. However, while the content of those procedural acts was known to the applicants, they were unaware of any other steps taken by the investigation, or of their results."], "id": "c0b2d611-d2f4-4d8e-b5c3-c8b9eb0b7dbb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that his brother Mr Rustam Kagirov had been abducted and deprived of his life by State agents and that the domestic authorities failed to take measures to safeguard Mr Rustam Kagirov\u2019s right to life. He further alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an into the matter. Article 2 reads as follows:"], "id": "66f6b79a-b897-4389-aa68-e6cc7c66c9ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government submitted that the police had used firearms acting in self-defence and in accordance with the requirements of the Law and Regulations on the duties and powers of the police. In their view, the death of Ay\u015fe G\u00fclen Uzunhasano\u011flu had resulted from a use of force which had been no more than absolutely necessary. They stressed that the domestic courts had established that the police officers had only fired their guns in order to protect themselves after the deceased had opened fire. The Government contended that the authorities had carried out an adequate and into these events."], "id": "d61862fa-a520-4d1b-8beb-5879e6e81279", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicant submitted that the abduction and torture of his son by State agents or person acting with their support, knowledge or acquiescence, and the suffering which he endured on account of his son\u2019s disappearance between 5 October and 2 November 1999, was in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. He further maintained that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and into the abduction and torture of his son. The applicant finally contended under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 5 of the Convention that Cemal U\u00e7ar had been kept in police custody for nine days without being brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and that there was no remedy in domestic law to obtain compensation for his son\u2019s unlawful detention."], "id": "1d9fc4a3-d541-4aa8-bb65-6ee2b01b4235", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicants complained that Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov had been killed in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. It was alleged that they had died as a result of the failure of domestic law and practice to regulate in a Convention-compatible manner the use of firearms by State agents. In effect, State agents had been authorised in the instant case to use lethal force in circumstances where this was not absolutely necessary. This fact alone violated Article 2. The applicants also complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an into the deaths."], "id": "8d8e63bd-eac3-4f00-911b-4bf257be5129", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["140. The applicant argued that she had provided sufficient evidence to prove that her husband, Mehmet \u015een, had been abducted, tortured and killed by security forces. She requested the Court to find that the death of her husband and the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out an were in violation of Articles 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention."], "id": "1dabf0aa-a448-45e1-b418-b2ef5cd6900b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicants contested that objection. They stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that their complaints to that effect had been futile. Seeking judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities would be pointless in their case since that remedy could not bring about an . With reference to the Court\u2019s practice, they argued that they were not obliged to apply to civil courts in order to exhaust domestic remedies."], "id": "2bdbadb2-37a0-4d06-945b-8c0623975f1e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant argued that the investigation had been pending for a long time without producing any tangible results. That remedy had proved to be ineffective and her complaints, as well as any other potential remedies, had proved futile. She further argued that she had complied with the six-month rule and there had been no excessive or unexplained delays in the submission of her application to the Court. In particular, she submitted that after the initiation of the criminal investigation she had had no reason to doubt its effectiveness. She pointed out that the armed conflict in the region had led her to believe that delays in the investigation were inevitable. Moreover, owing to her poor command of Russian, her lack of legal knowledge and funds to hire a lawyer, and in the absence of information concerning the Convention standards for an , she had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the pending criminal proceedings. As soon as she had been able to obtain legal advice from the pro bono lawyer, she had realised that the investigation was ineffective and had applied to the Court."], "id": "7cfcf93d-5956-4543-9409-4db9a7d71a25", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["103. The Government submitted that the domestic authorities had conducted a thorough and into the circumstances of the applicant\u2019s death. The district prosecutor heard six doctors who had been involved in the applicant\u2019s treatment. The prosecution\u2019s case file included the post-mortem examination and the applicant\u2019s medical file and had been analysed by the experts. The Government considered that the prosecutor\u2019s decisions had been considerably influenced by the expert opinion, which had found no negligence in the applicant\u2019s treatment. That expert opinion was exhaustive and answered all questions put by the prosecutor. The Government maintained that it had rightly served as a basis for discontinuation of the investigation concerning the applicant\u2019s death."], "id": "9f62ebf4-382e-4bc2-9eb2-b3d92faf4173", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicants complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of their close relative, Isa Zaurbekov. They submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish his whereabouts indicated that Isa Zaurbekov had been killed by the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no had been conducted into their relative\u2019s disappearance. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "470aa2d8-9c58-4799-8f9d-3a599d99c484", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicants Sonia Biga, Augustin Biga, Carol Ciorcan, Sorin Ciorcan, Costel Ciorcan, Edith Csiki (Biga) and Ildiko Kalanyos (Biga), namely the sons and daughters of the deceased Susana Ciorcan, complained that the State agents had used excessive force against their mother, which had put her life in danger, and that the national authorities had failed to subsequently conduct an adequate and . They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "f9e028b1-e900-4253-81f6-0afdcb42cd5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["131. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, claiming that Ibragim Tsurov had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen and that there was no into the ill-treatment. They further complained under this heading that as a result of their relative\u2019s disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "id": "ba619081-3cf4-42e5-aec0-af9014c16ff8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an into the circumstances of the life-threatening attack on her, in violation of the procedural obligation under Article 2. She argued that the investigation had fallen short of the standards established by the Convention and national legislation. She argued that the investigation had not been prompt because of the delay in opening it and in taking important steps. A number of investigative actions had never been taken, such as securing the relevant evidence and questioning the servicemen who could have been involved. The applicant noted, in particular, the authorities' failure to investigate the events in the Staropromyslovskiy district in January 2000 in their entirety, even though there had been clearly a pattern to the killings and the information about them had already been available in January and February 2000. She referred to other investigation files, such as that produced by the Government in the case of Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, which was opened in 2000 and which had contained information about the applicant's case and other similar incidents."], "id": "2699cf21-954a-4286-9826-c35d4e3fec58", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["132. The applicant claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her son. She further claimed that the State\u2019s failure to conduct an into her son\u2019s death and the Government\u2019s refusal to submit a copy of the entire investigation file to the Court had caused her emotional suffering and distress, which required compensation in the above amount."], "id": "57d5302e-4d2c-4306-8afe-d64104feb3c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government further objected that the applicant's complaints were inadmissible as they were lodged on 15 June 2001. In particular, the applicant had found out about the alleged violation of her rights in August 2000, when she had complained for the first time to the General Prosecutor's Office of the lack of an into her son's death. However, she should have lodged this complaint within six months from the moment at which she had found out about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the case."], "id": "de3bf5c7-9b35-45f6-807d-7aef397336e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government contended that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the detainee had been held under State control or that he was dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there were any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary measures were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an ."], "id": "7a6c4d07-1676-4181-9bd1-44cdf4ac216b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["174. The applicant disagreed. She contended that the mere number of investigative measures could not be the decisive factor. The conviction of two law enforcement officers for negligence in the investigation clearly demonstrated its ineffectiveness. Moreover, after some progress in the investigation in 2003, the proceedings had again been impeded after the dismissal of Mr Piskun from the position of Prosecutor General. These facts, according to the applicant, showed that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to conduct an into her husband's murder."], "id": "1ecbdd41-28d7-4b02-bcce-006e7858ee1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicants alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an into the circumstances of Shamil Akhmadov's detention and death, in violation of their procedural obligations under Article 2. They argued that the investigation fell short of the standards of the European Convention and of the national legislation. They pointed to the passage of considerable time \u2013 more than five years \u2013 without the investigation producing any known results. Relying on the Government's submissions they argued that the investigators had failed to take the necessary steps immediately after the detention occurred, and then again after the discovery of the body. A number of investigative actions had occurred only after the communication of the complaint to the Russian Government, and other important steps were never taken, such as the questioning of other witnesses of the detention, the identification and questioning of those in charge of the military operation and the ordering of a forensic examination. The authorities had systematically failed to inform the applicants of the proceedings and the applicants had been given no information about important procedural steps. Their own attempts to intensify the investigation had resulted in them being subjected to intimidation and violence."], "id": "8d31f35d-5ce9-4043-9676-954841bdd874", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant argued that, in case the Court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his brother had been killed in police custody, this had to be considered established on the balance of probabilities, which, he suggested, was the appropriate test in cases of deaths in custody. The duties and resources of the authorities were such that they alone, and not the family of his brother, were in a position to obtain evidence of the cause of his death. The family was reliant upon the authorities to carry out an . However, the investigation had been utterly inadequate and therefore, as a result of the failings of the responsible authorities, the family were not in a position to produce further evidence."], "id": "ff123432-62db-4a1c-86e0-9819e397e594", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["117. The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of Saydi Malsagov\u2019s disappearance. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for six years without any tangible results, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed. The main investigative steps had been taken after the communication of the present application to the Government, which, according to the applicants, once again proved the overall ineffectiveness of the investigation. The first applicant had not been granted victim status until two months after the opening of the investigation; she had not been promptly informed of all developments in the case."], "id": "14d97e46-de2e-4a0e-864c-1367fd33ec50", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government also rejected the applicants\u2019 complaints and argued that an had been carried out by the authorities. The prosecutor had arrived at the incident scene early in the morning following the incident and had inspected the area. The requisite forensic examinations had been carried out by the relevant independent authorities. At the end of the investigation a decision had been taken by the military prosecutor not to bring criminal charges against the soldiers. That decision, which was based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and was properly reasoned, was capable of establishing that the force used by the soldiers had been justified."], "id": "1642d06b-1cf8-4204-9657-470e9846df40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants complained that it was very likely that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment and that no had been conducted in this connection. They also submitted that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relative\u2019s disappearance and on account of the State\u2019s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The applicants referred to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "b6180c35-b703-437e-a5c2-3ef36d95b821", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["125. The applicant claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of her husband's disappearance. She argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for over six years but had not achieved any tangible results so far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. Furthermore, the investigating authorities had failed to inform the applicant of the decisions to adjourn and reopen the investigation, or of its progress. Throughout the investigation the applicant had requested to be granted crime victim status, but had received no replies to those requests. In support of her argument regarding the inefficiency of the investigation, the applicant also referred to the Government's refusal to submit a copy of the file of the criminal case concerning her husband's disappearance. In her observations submitted after the Court's decision as to the admissibility of the application the applicant contended that she still had not been granted the victim status."], "id": "0e49d643-cbdd-4bf8-a412-5ab8f767b085", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government contended that the domestic investigations had revealed no evidence that the detainees were held under State control or that they were dead. They further averred that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had produced only limited ones, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary measures were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an ."], "id": "e15f26ca-304b-48e3-bd13-0a6375800094", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant alleged that he had been forced to drink drugged tea and was deliberately thrown out the window by the police officers. As a result of this incident, he was seriously wounded and had to stay in the hospital for three months. The applicant further maintained that the domestic authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct an into his allegations."], "id": "fc9e5082-1631-49b3-99fb-c549bb28a749", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government argued that the killing of the applicant's husband had occurred in 1991, during the Homeland War in Croatia, probably at the hands of members of the occupying forces and on territory outside the control of the Croatian authorities. Croatia had regained control over that territory in January 1998 and until that time it had been very difficult to conduct an ."], "id": "eccf6a99-86c6-4546-abe2-985f1fe26e21", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government also claimed that an had been conducted by the authorities. It had not been possible to inform the family promptly because the authorities had been unable to contact them. The second applicant had been contacted on 3 January 2005 and called to the hospital to identify the body of his son. Afterwards the applicants had been in a position to take an active part in the investigation."], "id": "d64616c9-adb8-46b2-a3df-95fb62c1adbb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government submitted that the applicants' complaints were inadmissible for failure to observe the six-month rule within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They pointed to the applicants' allegations that the authorities failed to conduct an into the alleged killing. In this connection, the Government claimed that, even if the applicants are correct in this allegation, which they contest, they should have been aware of this situation much earlier and should not have waited for ten years to lodge their application with the Court (see Bayram and Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002\u2011III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002). The Government also reiterated the Court's case-law that if no remedies are available or if they are judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00, 10 January 2002). They thus asserted that the application has been lodged out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "c68447b9-b9bb-47e7-aac8-a907c4882b7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant submitted that he had exhausted the domestic remedies available to him and that he had lodged the complaint with the Court within the time-limit set by Article 35 \u00a7 1. He made reference to the Court\u2019s case-law in this regard, with particular emphasis on the Court\u2019s approach to applying the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. The applicant submitted that he had officially asked the judicial police officer in charge of investigating his brother\u2019s death to carry out an investigation with a view to clarifying the circumstances of his brother\u2019s death. This had constituted a formal request to bring charges under Article 59 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In addition, the mere fact that his brother had died, had given rise ipso facto to an obligation on the part of the authorities under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an ."], "id": "ad20df1f-4ae2-485c-b7af-c6ba1e17dbb8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["363. The Government contended that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held under State control or that they were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there were any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an ."], "id": "e37845da-3f60-4812-8bea-35129ec2cf24", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["79. The applicant further maintained that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an into the circumstances of her daughter\u2019s death. She submitted that the initial investigation had lasted from 7 June to 7 August 2003. During these two months the investigator had questioned her and granted her victim status in the proceedings and had sent out a number of requests, following which the investigation had been suspended. There had been no investigative activity between August 2003 and December 2006. The cooperation between the investigative and other State authorities had been insufficient. In particular, none of the requests addressed by the investigator to the military prosecutor, the central archives of the Ministry of Defence, the temporary district police, the commander of the UGA or the district military commandant with a view to establishing whether the mortar batteries used on 7 June 2003 belonged to the military units and divisions deployed in the Vedenskiy District had led to results capable of shedding light on the events in question. The applicant further pointed out that it had taken the District Prosecutor\u2019s Office nine months to comply with the court\u2019s decision of 14 April 2008 instructing it to resume the investigation. The decisions suspending the investigation had contained very scarce information as to the evidence collected. The applicant had had a feeling that the investigation process had been a mere formality with a predictable outcome, since over a span of several years the investigating authority had failed to carry out all the possible investigative measures that could have been taken in the absence of the accused. Not all eyewitnesses had been identified and questioned. The official who had given the order to use mortars without a precise calculation of the target area or cordons being formed around that area beforehand had also not been identified. As a result, many issues remained unascertained. Lastly, the applicant had been completely denied access to the case file until 2010. In view of the foregoing, the applicant concluded that the domestic authorities had not complied with their procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention."], "id": "811abd74-b71b-435f-826c-2ee9a560b1eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["111. The applicant further relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that he and his son had been beaten by servicemen and that no had been carried out on that account. He alleged furthermore that his son had been subjected to ill-treatment after his apprehension as well. The applicant also claimed that as a result of his son\u2019s disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate those events properly, he had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "id": "c87aad83-f7e8-4be5-ad3a-752266d3f66c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["127. The applicant made no claims in respect of pecuniary damage. As for non-pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed 80 000 euros (EUR) under this head for the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her husband. She further stated that State agents had slandered her husband by providing the mass-media with information about his alleged involvement in a serious crime he had not committed. She further claimed that the State\u2019s failure to conduct an into her husband\u2019s murder and the failure of the State to submit a copy of the investigation file to the Court had caused her emotional suffering and distress, which required compensation in the above amount."], "id": "3118b3e4-ab02-49b1-817e-1dda5321d099", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant further alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an adequate and into the death of Cemal U\u00e7ar in Diyarbak\u0131r E-type prison. In particular, the autopsy carried out on the body of Cemal U\u00e7ar was far from adequate. In this connection, the applicant maintained that the Court had found other autopsies and medical examinations conducted by the medical expert in question to be inadequate in its judgments of \u0130kincisoy v. Turkey (no. 26144/95, \u00a7 79, 27 July 2004), Elci and Others v. Turkey (nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, \u00a7 642, 13 November 2003), and Ki\u015fmir v. Turkey (no. 27306/95, \u00a7 85, 31 May 2005). Furthermore, no photographs of the body were taken and there was no impartial observer present, independent of the authorities, during the autopsy. The applicant also maintained that the public prosecutor who had conducted the investigation had not given appropriate consideration to alternative causes of death. The investigation was too brief and limited in scope."], "id": "c3d065f7-2fa8-44b7-994a-81650a46ed30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants alleged that their relatives\u2019 right to life was violated in that they were deliberately killed by village guards. The applicants, \u0130brahim Akan and Re\u015fit Acar further complained that their right to life was violated as the village guards attempted to kill them. The applicants in addition claimed that the national authorities failed to comply with their procedural obligations to carry out an adequate and into the killings and attempted killings. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention which provides:"], "id": "1b48ca60-a85a-4fa3-8075-f5824ee27863", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicants stated that State agents had abducted and killed their relative Mr Ibragim Kushtov and that the authorities had failed to investigate the matter effectively. They referred, in particular, to the life\u2011threating nature of the incident in the light of its circumstances and the overall situation in the region at the material time. Referring to the Court\u2019s case\u2011law, they submitted that the in of disappearances perpetrated in Ingushetia at the material time represented a systemic problem (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 217-19)."], "id": "11d515d8-7dce-40a9-a83b-e13541e6ffce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government submit that the proper approach is for the Court to examine the full range of remedies which were available. The applicants had a combination of mechanisms by which the responsibility of any public authority for the death of their son could be established, in particular the independent inquiry, which provided a thorough and into the circumstances surrounding his death. The applicants could have brought a claim for negligence against the prison or other authorities on behalf of his estate. The applicants also had a remedy available for any loss of dependency. They argue that the fact that a person could not bring a case because of legal advice that it was not economic did not mean that an effective remedy was not available or that the Contracting State had failed to comply with its obligation under Article 13. Nor, in their view, was there any right to a particular form of remedy or any particular amount of compensation. Article 13 left a certain discretion to the Contracting States as to how they complied with its requirements. "], "id": "483ee3af-6ee1-4316-9112-8af1cbcb411f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["148. The Government contended that the complaints should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. They also submitted that no evidence had been obtained in the domestic investigations to suggest that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held under State control, or were dead. They pointed out that the mere fact that the investigative measures taken had not produced any specific results, or had yielded only limited results, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an ."], "id": "509ad5a3-dbce-4274-8a0f-6d697a018b94", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant submitted that the authorities had failed to conduct an into his daughter\u2019s death. He argued, in particular, that the investigating authority had neither included nor addressed the evidentiary material submitted by him in the case file. Furthermore, the investigator decided that it was not necessary to institute criminal proceedings \u2212 despite the fact that the emergency doctor and the nurse had given contradictory statements \u2212 notwithstanding the evidence that the doctor had falsified documents. Also, the ambulance doctor and the nurse had not been questioned by the courts. In conclusion, the applicant maintained that the State had failed to put in place an effective judicial system, capable of holding accountable those responsible for his daughter\u2019s death."], "id": "2a162c0e-a221-484f-bb8b-4465ea0c30d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant argued that no had taken place following her complaint and that she had had no remedies in respect of the prosecutor\u2019s decision to adjourn the proceedings. The applicant stated that she had been in a vulnerable position after her injury. She alleged that she had not had genuine access to the file, in spite of the victim status accorded to her. She also stated that, following the adoption by the State Duma of the Decree of 7 June 2003, declaring an amnesty for persons responsible for certain crimes committed during the anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya, she had had no right to challenge its application to anyone found responsible for committing a crime against her. She also referred to a general problem of non-investigation of crimes allegedly committed by State agents in Chechnya."], "id": "7a04d613-ab0f-4930-ad2a-4e012ecc42db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["177. The applicants complained that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention by both the Cypriot and Turkish (including the \u201cTRNC\u201d) authorities on account of their failure to conduct an into the deaths of their relatives, Elmas, Zerrin and Eyl\u00fcl G\u00fczelyurtlu. They pointed to the failure of the respondent States to cooperate in the investigation of the murders and bring the suspects to justice. The applicants contended that where there had been a systemic failure to investigate certain killings after the perpetrators had escaped by crossing a dividing line; the substantive requirement of Article 2 had also been violated, as the domestic laws in place had not protected the right to life."], "id": "a1a51ffb-4d1c-4412-9a75-a90afbd6c3dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["167. The applicants emphasised the Government's failure to present the Court with a copy of the investigation file, which they considered to be a direct attempt to hamper the latter's efforts to establish the facts of the case and the truth surrounding the events leading up to Mr Bekirski's death. They further considered that that had created a presumption in their favour because the Government, by not presenting the said file, had failed to effectively refute the facts and evidence attesting to the violations claimed. In any event, the fact that the said investigation file had not been presented should have been sufficient to prove that there had been a procedural violation of Article 2 and 3 of the Convention because it attests to the fact that the authorities had failed to demonstrate to the Court that they had conducted an into the allegations of ill-treatment and abuse which had led to Mr Bekirski's untimely death."], "id": "9ec86f14-537d-4f79-877f-899fb8c9ed8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of their relative\u2019s disappearance. They argued that it had been ongoing since 8 November 2000 but had not brought any tangible results so far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. Furthermore, the investigating authorities had failed to inform the applicants about the decisions concerning the adjournment and reopening of the investigation or its progress. In this latter respect the applicants stressed that the Russian authorities had not informed them of the developments in the investigation even after the present case had been declared partly admissible. The applicants\u2019 numerous requests to the authorities throughout the investigation had remained unanswered or only produced standard replies. The applicants had not been granted access to the case file. In support of their argument regarding the inefficiency of the investigation, the applicants also referred to the Government\u2019s refusal to submit a copy of the file in the criminal case concerning their relative\u2019s disappearance."], "id": "f5b75d14-0c75-4d42-83c5-a5150f163941", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants argued that they had complied with the six-month rule and there had been no excessive and unexplained delays in the submission of their application to the Court. In particular, they submitted that after the initiation of the criminal investigation they had had no reason to doubt its effectiveness. They pointed out that the armed conflict in the region had led them to believe that delays in the investigation were inevitable. Moreover, owing to their lack of legal knowledge and funds to hire a lawyer, and in the absence of information concerning the Convention standards for an , they had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the pending criminal proceedings. Referring to Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, the applicants further argued that the six-month rule did not apply to \u201ccontinuing situations\u201d such as cases of enforced disappearances."], "id": "20aedadb-f825-4aa9-a3df-9d53aebc3198", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["114. The applicant referred to Article 3 of the Convention, claiming that her son had been beaten when being apprehended and that she had serious grounds to believe that he had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment in detention. She further complained that no had been conducted into the matter. Under this heading the applicant also submitted that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with her son\u2019s disappearance and on account of the State\u2019s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The respective Article reads as follows:"], "id": "e89486b3-fff9-4594-8c9e-90b2bed9447f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicants contended that the fact that the investigation into the circumstances of their relative\u2019s disappearance was still pending cast doubt upon its effectiveness rather than indicating that their complaints were premature. They further stressed that they had on numerous occasions complained to law-enforcement bodies, including various prosecutors, about the events of 11 February 2003. In this connection the applicants referred to the Court\u2019s established case-law, stating that the authorities were under an obligation to carry out an of their own motion once the matter had been brought to their attention. The applicants also claimed that an administrative practice consisting in the authorities\u2019 continuing failure to conduct adequate investigations into offences committed by representatives of the federal forces in Chechnya rendered any potentially effective remedies inadequate and illusory in their case. In this connection the applicants relied on applications submitted to the Court by other individuals claiming to be victims of similar violations, and on documents by human rights NGOs and the Council of Europe."], "id": "f5f15a9d-5d99-48cd-bdac-dc9671b46c5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government contended that a thorough and had been carried out in the present case, in accordance with the procedural requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. More than 200 witnesses had been heard, a number of expert reports made (including an autopsy, a post-mortem psychiatric report and a report on the samples of various substances gathered from the scene of the event). Three hypotheses had been verified: that of a suicide, that of a provoked suicide and that of murder, but only the first version was consistent with the various types of evidence gathered. As to the obligation to keep the applicant informed, this was not required by law since, in the absence of a crime, she had not been recognised as a victim's representative. Despite the absence of a legal obligation, the prosecutors had kept the applicant informed (see paragraph 8 above), thus complying with their obligations under Article 2 of the Convention."], "id": "6d42eb75-caaa-4976-8e4d-dd73c65f3d94", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant complained that the ill-treatment her husband was probably subjected to while he was unlawfully held in detention and her anguish at the uncertainty about his fate, coupled with the authorities' indifference to her persistent efforts to request information and an constituted a breach of her rights and those of her husband under Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "9fe66d68-84c6-4caa-bd29-f38a6cc677fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicants maintained their submissions. They stressed, in particular, that they feared for their lives. In their observations of 7 April 2008 on the admissibility and merits of the case they also complained for the first time that Idris Gakiyev had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen prior to his death and that there had been no into the ill-treatment."], "id": "e7ad08eb-dbd6-4027-afba-f1bfb02040b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["117. The applicants further referred to two factors which corroborated the argument regarding the Court\u2019s competence to adjudicate on Russia\u2019s compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 2. Firstly, the Council of Europe and the Convention had come into being as democratic political and legal alternatives to the violations of human dignity committed on a massive scale by two totalitarian regimes, namely Nazism and Stalinism. The Katyn massacre had been carried out by a totalitarian regime whose aims and values radically contradicted those of the Convention. If the Convention was to be protected in a real and effective manner, the current Contracting Parties had to conduct effective investigations into totalitarian crimes. Secondly, an into the Katyn massacre was a prerequisite for the \u201crehabilitation\u201d of the murdered persons as victims of political repression and to increase public awareness of totalitarian crimes."], "id": "f5a5b9c6-5457-4a43-8265-815edfea058a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["183. The applicant complained that his son had been tortured before his death. He also asserted that the failure to enter Ferhat in any custody record had violated his right to security of person and that the violation was aggravated by the incommunicado detention. He further alleged that the authorities had failed to carry out an independent, thorough and into his complaints. He relied on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention."], "id": "ac683990-ef69-4284-8fc0-5de6555eec10", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government argued that the domestic authorities had conducted an into the fatal accident. The investigation had started without delay, with the inspection of the crime scene performed immediately after the accident had occurred. The investigation had been conducted by the prosecutor's office, which was independent from the police. The prosecutor had commissioned six expert opinions, which had been made by independent experts. He had also questioned twenty witnesses. Although the investigation had been discontinued on several occasions, it had subsequently been resumed, which, in the Government's opinion, showed that the domestic authorities had been intent on correcting possible shortcomings in the investigation and bringing those responsible to justice. Indeed, Mr T. had been charged and committed for trial. The fact that he had eventually been acquitted had not made the investigation and the judicial proceedings ineffective. The trial court had carefully examined all the circumstances, had heard both prosecution and defence witnesses and had examined evidence submitted by all parties, including the applicant. The Court had no reason to question the findings made by the domestic courts."], "id": "bc2a8522-366e-4601-b26e-7e906398d463", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained in essence of the lack of an into her son's death. She noted that she had been presented with a corpse in an advanced state of decomposition which she was not sure to have identified as her son. Moreover, the photos of the corpse suggested that the victim had received a blow to the head and revealed two strangulation marks, suggesting that he had been hanged from the tree after being asphyxiated. She had expressed her doubts to the authorities and asked for an exhumation in order to verify that information, but this had been refused."], "id": "d795943b-70ec-4844-8a1e-dc33c3cf1d0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["313. The Government contended, on the one hand, that Article 2 of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants\u2019 complaints concerning the disappearance of their relatives and that their complaints under this head must be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. To this end they referred to the case of Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, \u00a7\u00a7 101\u201109, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011III). On the other hand, they submitted that the complaints should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. Further, the Government submitted that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held under State control, or that they were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures employed had not produced any specific results, or had yielded only limited results, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an ."], "id": "d9df9618-6643-4a00-9891-a8ff4b1742cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant alleged that the circumstances surrounding the abduction and disappearance of Mehmet \u015eah \u015eeker gave rise to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. He further contended that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and into the circumstances of his son\u2019s disappearance. Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "31354959-6373-440c-a802-d0824e6369f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["188. The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of the disappearance of the applicants\u2019 family members. In particular, it had been pending for several years without any tangible results so far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. They further noted that those applicants who had not been granted victim status in the proceedings had not even had a formal opportunity to have access to the information concerning the investigation. The applicants argued that their right to be informed of the progress of the investigation had been violated, in particular, by the State\u2019s refusal to submit the investigation file to the Court. They further submitted that they had no information about the investigating measures that had been taken by the authorities, in particular, whether all witnesses to the unlawful detention of their relatives, including servicemen, had been identified and questioned."], "id": "89546919-3c52-4d6e-98a7-484bbf57e677", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["114. The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an into her son\u2019s death. She claimed, in particular, that she had been excluded from the investigation at its initial stage as a result of the investigator\u2019s refusal to grant her victim status, and that, even after the decision granting her victim status had been taken, her requests to be informed of the progress of the investigation had been refused. The applicant referred to Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the Convention in connection with her complaints. The Court shall examine the complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "d0f10062-787b-4996-a4a7-f6e1e76cd9ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["112. The applicant contested that objection. He stated that the criminal investigation had proved to be ineffective and that complaints to that effect had been futile. With reference to the Court's case-law, he argued that he was not obliged to apply to civil courts in order to exhaust domestic remedies. The applicant also argued that he had complied with the six\u2011month time-limit as provided for in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, since he had become aware of the ineffectiveness of the domestic investigation in May 2005, when the cassation court in Ingushetia had refused to consider his appeal against the decision of the trial court in relation to his civil claim for damages (see paragraphs 105-106 above). The applicant considered that those civil proceedings had a direct bearing on the of his brother's murder."], "id": "f16db66f-2f8c-4700-9692-7613ffd5e3f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicant sought an award for non-pecuniary damage for the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her elderly mother and her brother, the failure to carry out an into the killings and the indifference shown by the authorities towards her grief. She also stressed that she had suffered immense frustration and helplessness as a result of her inability to obtain any information about the investigation into her family members' deaths. She left the amount to be determined by the Court."], "id": "daa444ce-8ad5-45a9-b442-52ae77c0755a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government listed a number of investigative steps that had been taken to solve the deaths of the applicant\u2019s family members. For instance, they claimed that the applicant and three other individuals had been questioned as witnesses (see paragraph 28 above), the scene of the incident had been inspected twice (see paragraphs 26 and 29 above), different expert examinations had been carried out (see paragraph 30 above) and the dead bodies had been exhumed (see paragraph 32 above). However, in the absence of detailed information on those steps, the Court cannot reach the conclusion that the measures taken were prompt and sufficient for an to have been carried out."], "id": "0231d956-d2eb-4cd7-b766-32d6116d6797", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicants dispute that a remedy could still be regarded as effective where it would not be economic to bring the claim. Article 13 should be interpreted so as to make its guarantee practical and effective and genuine practical obstacles to bringing a claim undermined the effectiveness of the procedure. The Human Rights Act 1998 was of no assistance either, since it only covered events which took place after the Act came into force on 2 October 2000. While the Wright case (see paragraph 43 above) indicated that the courts could apply the Act even though the death had occurred before that date, where the circumstances were still the subject of active and ongoing controversy, this was not so in the present case. Damages would only have been available for the failure to provide an after that date and not in relation to the death itself. Finally, the Health and Safety Executive investigation, which was still ongoing, was a mere administrative procedure which could not be an effective remedy for the purpose of Article 13."], "id": "5dacdfce-b5e0-42f6-a975-4e8ecd5046c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["112. The Government attributed the delay in commencing the investigation to the applicants, arguing that the first applicant had made a complaint to the authorities only on 14 February 2003. The Court is not in a position to establish whether the applicants visited any law enforcement authorities on 3 February 2003 in the absence of any material evidence for that or to the contrary, but it does not deem it necessary to go into such details for the following reason. The Government provided no explanation whatsoever for the fact that the district prosecutor\u2019s office had opened the investigation in case no. 42050 more than a month after 14 February 2003. The Court reiterates in this respect that the mere knowledge of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances on the part of the authorities gives rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an into the circumstances surrounding the incident (see, mutatis mutandis, Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, \u00a7 82, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011IV; and Ya\u015fa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, \u00a7 100, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VI). Accordingly, the Court finds that the investigating authorities should be held responsible for the delay in commencing the investigation between 14 February and 17 March 2003. In the Court\u2019s view this delay was in itself liable to affect the investigation of the kidnapping in life-threatening circumstances, where crucial action has to be taken in a timely fashion."], "id": "6373146b-b1fa-4e69-a30f-df356c1f08be", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an into the circumstances of Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev's detention and disappearance, in violation of their procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention. She argued that the investigation had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. She contended that the investigation had not been prompt because of the delay in opening it and in taking important steps. Referring to the Government's submissions, she argued that it appeared that certain important steps had never been taken, such as reviewing custody records and operational plans, identifying and questioning those responsible for the arrest of Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev, and examining the alleged place of detention. The authorities had systematically failed to inform her of the proceedings and she had no information about important procedural steps. The Government's failure to disclose in full the materials of the investigation to her or to the Court served, in her view, as further proof of the ineffectiveness of the investigation."], "id": "1741efc0-a320-4366-96f9-05a8450a552c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicant referred to her submissions concerning the procedural aspects of Article 2 of the Convention, claiming that in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate Article 13 required a thorough and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective access for the complainant to the investigatory procedure. She disputed that judicial review was an effective remedy in respect of the DPP's decision not to prosecute, as the cases showed that he has a wide discretion and the courts would only overturn aberrant, inexplicable or irrational decisions."], "id": "9cc3ecd6-2e13-4ff6-aa4a-e81801bc2e01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of her son, Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov. She submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish his whereabouts indicated that Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov had been killed by representatives of the federal forces. The applicant also complained that no had been conducted into her son\u2019s disappearance. She relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "9a030f44-e5b5-42cd-9266-b63abfd37a6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government stated that the State authorities had complied with their positive obligations under Article 2 as they had put in place a legal framework governing the transportation of dangerous goods, the effectiveness of which the applicant had not challenged, and they had also carried out an into the accident in a prompt manner. The Government emphasised in that connection that the obligation to conduct an effective investigation was not an obligation as to results but as to means, and that, in any event, the civil proceedings in respect of the applicant\u2019s claims were still ongoing."], "id": "1addb5ac-2117-4f6d-ac30-a7cd182be771", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicants complained that they and their deceased relatives had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and that there had been no of their complaints, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They further cited Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants further alleged that the violations they had suffered as a result of the brutal incident at issue had been predominately due to their Romani ethnicity. They therefore considered that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with the above Articles and with Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb."], "id": "895dcac6-9290-4391-9ec5-de592392f8d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government submitted that the legal remedies at the domestic level had afforded appropriate redress for the applicants' complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. They further asserted that the national authorities had conducted an into the applicants' complaints. In their opinion, both the civil and administrative courts had taken a protective approach towards the applicants when establishing their victim status and granting them redress for their grievances. The courts had awarded the applicants sufficient compensation and these judgments had been executed by the authorities. They added that, following the impugned incident, the K\u0131z\u0131lay had decided to give the first applicant a scholarship in order to support his education."], "id": "5f237d88-5b08-4831-bb60-15779ba2fa08", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government accepted the argument that the applicant\u2019s son had not taken part in the demonstrations in question and had found himself by chance between the demonstrators and the security forces. They further admitted that Tar\u0131k Ataykaya had been struck by a cartridge fired from a weapon used by the security forces during their intervention against the demonstrators. They argued, however, that the in the present case had been compliant with the law, namely section 16 of Law no. 2559 and section 6 appended to that law, and that the fatal incident had been unforeseeable."], "id": "95836044-6e7c-4ad8-bd7f-eae507605fcc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["207. The Government argued that the formulation of the law of self-defence in England and Wales struck an appropriate balance between permitting the to prevent lethal attacks on the public and ensuring that any individuals who may be exposed to a real and immediate risk to life by any operational measures were protected. In doing so, it recognised that it was not for the courts, with the benefit of detached reflection, to substitute their own opinion for that of a police officer required to act in the heat of the moment."], "id": "12b4402a-a9bf-4d15-b3c2-0abc45636b78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["136. The Government did not dispute that the applicants\u2019 injuries had been sufficiently serious as to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. However, in the Government\u2019s view, the responsibility of the State could not be engaged in the current case since the domestic investigation had concluded that the had been justified and that the State agents had acted in self-defence."], "id": "dbb9c304-95d4-4b5e-92ae-997403a9cbe5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government submitted that the police had used firearms as a means of last resort to arrest Mr Todorov with a view to enforcing his custodial sentence, and had never had the intention of killing him. Their actions had been proportionate, because Mr Todorov had been convicted of a number of serious offences, had been armed and dangerous, and had fired at the police first. The authorities had tried to resolve the situation by peaceful means, calling in psychologists and relatives of Mr Todorov and persistently trying to negotiate with him. However, Mr Todorov had fired at the police, putting their lives at serious risk. The rocket propelled grenades had been fired at the lower storey of the house to avoid hitting Mr Todorov; the aim had been solely to make an opening in the wall of the house for the assault party, not to harm Mr Todorov. Given that he had been armed and dangerous, the police could not allow him to escape and possibly harm others. It had therefore been imperative to attack the house. The next morning the police had entered the house without using firearms. The entire operation, and in particular the participation of the special anti\u2011terrorist squad, had been fully in line with the relevant rules on the , and had been based on the written orders of the Minister of Internal Affairs."], "id": "790d218c-9a2d-477d-b2f0-3b2e977e101a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant argued that the force used by the gendarmerie officers against him had been unlawful. He maintained that the excessive nature of the , as a result of which he had become disabled, showed that the security forces had in fact intended to kill him. He further contended that the security forces had not warned him and his brother to stop and that he had not attempted to escape, as the members of the security forces had alleged. According to the applicant, the security forces had actually seen him and his brother carrying torches, and not weapons, before firing but had fired anyway, since they had thought that he and his brother were terrorists."], "id": "042208c9-0d5a-4165-9268-7e621fa57c41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants submitted that Mr Mihaylov\u2019s killing was the result of a clear ab . As the domestic courts observed on a number of occasions, the forensic evidence indicated that Mr Mihaylov was shot from behind, in a position that gave the policeman full control over him. The relevance and significance of these findings was not altered by the fact that, in its final judgment, the Military Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor\u2019s decree exonerating the policeman. The Court of Appeal\u2019s ruling lacked any analysis of its own concerning the necessity of the killing; it merely reproduced the partial reasoning of the prosecutor\u2019s office which had been declared inadequate and false a number of times previously by more critical and independent-thinking judges of the same court and of the lower court. Moreover, the Military Court of Appeal, in upholding the prosecutor\u2019s decision to exonerate the police officer, applied a legal test which was not in compliance with Article 2 of the Convention. Domestic law during the period in question did not require a test of absolute necessity to justify recourse to lethal force by the police. The Court had been critical of this same legal framework in a number of judgments, for example Karandja v. Bulgaria, no. 69180/01, 7 October 2010 and the national authorities had themselves recognised that the law was in need of reform and had taken steps to amend it (see paragraph 41 above). The fact that the domestic courts on a number of occasions, even applying the more lenient national law standard as it then applied, found that the killing was unjustified made it all the more clearer that the use of force was in breach of the more rigorous requirements of Article 2."], "id": "7ff0f963-1271-4dc2-b217-233e7408bb8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["202. The applicants disagreed with the Government. Firstly, they maintained that the entire operation had not been conducted in a way that minimised the risk to Mr Shchiborshch\u2019s life. The operation had been neither well-planned nor controlled. Whereas under the applicable law, involuntary hospitalisation had to be carried out by psychiatric emergency services personnel, with police officers providing assistance if necessary, in this case the police acted on their own. Furthermore, the special police unit stormed the kitchen without any grounds for applying such drastic force and still in the absence of psychiatric assistance, which was on its way. Moreover, given that it was not the first time that Mr Shchiborshch had had to be subjected to involuntary hospitalisation, the police could have foreseen his reaction and planned the operation in such a way as to make it less traumatic for him, which had not been done. Secondly, the was disproportionate. Even though Mr Shchiborshch was armed with a knife, he was only trying to hide in the flat and did not try to attack anyone. Furthermore, being of slender build and exhausted by his condition, he could hardly have posed any real danger to police officers wearing bullet-proof vests, helmets and Kevlar gloves and equipped with shields. The applicants further pointed out that neither the regular police nor the special police had been trained to deal with mentally unstable persons and thus had not been able to act appropriately in the situation, especially in the absence of any qualified medical personnel. The applicants also argued that the use of rubber truncheons by the police had been unlawful. At the same time the police failed to even consider using other special tools, such as electroshock or tear gas, which might have minimised the damage caused to Mr Shchiborshch. In particular, no evidence was submitted to show that they had actually checked the possibility of using tear gas. Overall, in the applicants\u2019 view, the State was responsible for their son\u2019s death."], "id": "759bcb47-365f-4630-9fcc-9510c550d328", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government conceded that Beslan Arapkhanov had been deprived of his life by State agents. They argued, however, that the use of lethal force against him had been proportionate and justified. Beslan Arapkhanov kept an assault rifle at home, as well as a considerable number of cartridges and several grenades. None of the applicants were eye\u2011witnesses to the actual shooting. Beslan Arapkhanov opened fire at the servicemen attempting to arrest him. The FSB servicemen acted in a rapidly changing situation to stop the unlawful actions of Beslan Arapkhanov armed with a gun and to protect their own lives. In so doing, they acted in accordance with domestic law. The domestic authorities were carrying out an investigation to establish whether the was necessary and proportionate."], "id": "8c3f0bec-c9e8-4a83-ac67-e3c0d33d54e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["201. The Government contested that allegation. Relying on Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (9 October 1997, \u00a7 171, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VI), they argued that the by the police was compatible with Article 2 of the Convention, which allowed the use of force which could lead to the unintentional deprivation of life. It was likewise in accordance with section 14 of the Law on Police, which authorised the police to use force and special tools in particular situations. As it had been established that at the time of the events Mr Shchiborshch had posed a danger to himself and others, and had resisted the lawful demands of the police, the use of force had been justified. Furthermore, it had also been established that a number of his injuries, including those leading to his death, had been self-inflicted either intentionally or negligently through actions resulting from his mental state."], "id": "5c173a12-7cf6-48d7-99dc-353b511e6baa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["116. The applicants submitted that Mr Dimitrov had been killed intentionally, and had died as a result of a which had not been absolutely necessary and in the course of a police operation which had not been planned with a view to minimising any risk to his life. They pointed out that he had died in the presence of no one but five police officers and in the course of a police operation involving violence on the part of all three groups of officers entrusted with carrying it out. The way in which the operation had unfolded showed that the police were not seeking to gather evidence against Mr Dimitrov but to inflict retribution on him. For instance, the group dispatched to his family\u2019s hotel had stopped the search for narcotic drugs after learning that Mr Dimitrov had died. The applicants contended that the authorities had not given a plausible explanation of how Mr Dimitrov had lost his life. The ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation that his death had been accidental did not correspond to the findings of the lower courts or the evidence in the case. The use of force against Mr Dimitrov had not at all been necessary. He had not been convicted, had on all previous occasions cooperated with the police, was unarmed and not physically prepared for resistance, and was not doing anything illegal at the time when he encountered the five officers. He did not put up any resistance \u2013 a fact established by all courts which had dealt with the case \u2013 and was alone against five experienced, well-armed and trained officers. His arrest should have been carried out without any force. The violence unleashed against him \u2013 especially after he was handcuffed \u2013 had therefore contravened the requirements of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act 1997 and the terms of any briefing or order given to the officers. Indeed, the Sofia Military Court and the Military Court of Appeal had both, on four consecutive occasions, found that the officers had intentionally murdered him; their findings differed only in respect of the medical cause of death. Even if it were to be accepted that the death had occurred in the manner impermissibly established the Supreme Court of Cassation, it still engaged the respondent State\u2019s responsibility under Article 2 of the Convention."], "id": "340b2b2c-eab7-46c8-91d5-0653de535676", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government of Cyprus observed that Turkey's version of the facts was contradicted by the UN Secretary-General's report, based on the direct witnessing of Stelios Kalli Panayi's murder by UNFICYP officers, who had been able to see the incident clearly. They endorsed the applicants' version of the facts in substance and argued that Turkey had made false submissions in order to avoid responsibility for a distressing murder committed in cold blood. Seeking to prevent someone from entering an area could not be regarded as a purpose recognised by Article 2 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In any event, the had not been proportionate to the purported aim: the victim had not posed a direct armed threat to the Turkish soldiers and the area was constantly patrolled by UNFICYP. The ambulance and the UN personnel who came to help Stelios Kalli Panayi did not find any weapon on him and Turkey had failed to produce the rifle which he had allegedly been holding. Moreover, there had been no legitimate purpose in preventing UNFICYP from entering the area. The UN personnel had not posed any threat to the Turkish troops and the explanations given by Turkey on this point were wholly false and unconvincing."], "id": "03c167f8-e0b9-4b57-a0dd-47585b199488", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant further maintained that the State agents had deliberately and unlawfully prevented timely medical aid from being given to her and her husband, despite the serious injuries they had suffered. Due to the Government\u2019s failure to provide the entire criminal investigation file to the Court, the burden of proof shifted from the applicant to the State to demonstrate that its agents were not responsible for the death of the applicant\u2019s relative and her own injuries (see \u00d6zalp and Others v. Turkey, no. 32457/96. 8 April 2004, \u00a7 35). The deprivation of the life of her husband was arbitrary as it did not result from \u201cthe which is no more than absolutely necessary\u201d according to Article 2 of the Convention."], "id": "6046c8f8-a33d-4b0d-afb6-bcf75f72576f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicants argued that the force used by the soldiers against their two relatives had not been absolutely necessary and that the excessive nature of the showed that the soldiers had in fact intended to kill them. Indeed, the conclusion reached by the three experts appointed by the military prosecutor, i.e. that \u201cthe soldiers had carried out their duty satisfactorily\u201d, was another indication of the existence of an intention to kill their relatives in violation of Article 2 of the Convention."], "id": "92ba319c-b55f-497b-9fcd-fd2396c0b035", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained that Police Officer Apostolidis had used a weapon during the course of his arrest. He also complained, under the same provision, that the investigative and prosecuting authorities had failed to launch a prompt, comprehensive and effective official investigation into the legitimacy of the by Police Officer Apostolidis. He argued that there had been a breach of Article 2 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "457e22a5-bbd9-4fe1-b151-9ff78585d335", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["284. The Government relied on the findings of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. That court had found that Moravia Ramsahai had threatened Officer Brons with a lethal weapon \u2013 a cocked pistol with a round chambered \u2013 and had thus himself created the situation in which the , even lethal force if need be, became no less than an absolute necessity."], "id": "2007ea71-febe-48d2-96ff-406eb276d7a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant submitted that Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention imposed a positive duty on States to protect human life. In particular, national law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by agents of the State. The State must also give appropriate training and instructions to its agents who may carry weapons and use force. However, at the time of the event, the necessary regulatory framework was lacking. The law regulating the use of weapons by Greek police officers was enacted in 1943. It was commonly agreed that it was anachronistic and incomplete and did not afford general protection to society against unlawful and excessive by the police. Therefore, the Greek State had not taken all the preventive measures that Article 2 demanded for the protection of human life."], "id": "f8402057-127f-4c97-a71f-e9cbf5be5128", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government argued that the against B\u00fclent Karata\u015f and the tenth applicant had been lawful under the relevant domestic legislation. They submitted to that end that the soldiers who had wanted to stop the two men had fired a warning shot in the air but had then come under fire themselves. They had therefore had to respond in order to protect their lives. In any event, it was clear from the locations of the two men\u2019s injuries that the soldiers had not opened fire on them with the intention to kill; B\u00fclent Karata\u015f had died as a result of the loss of blood sustained whilst hiding. That indicated that the soldiers had used their weapons in circumstances in which it had been absolutely necessary to do so. After the incident the military personnel had taken all necessary precautions in the area in accordance with the applicable international standards expected of security officials who use firearms. They had administered first aid to the two injured men and had had them taken to hospital in a helicopter."], "id": "af732993-6a5e-45a1-a938-821d2db6f797", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government acknowledged that Article 201 of the Statute of Garrison and Sentry Service, in force at the material time, had not indicated that the had to be absolutely necessary. However, that legal norm had indicated that deadly force could only be used in specific cases and as a measure of last resort. The Government observed that the wording of Article 201 of the Statute had afforded the same level of protection of the right to life as Article 2 of the Convention. They further noted that in assessing the circumstances of the case the Court should not overlook the fact that the events in question had occurred in the army, a very specific setting characterised by extreme limitations on the rights and freedoms of individuals performing military service. The specific responsibilities of servicemen to respect discipline and the regulations of the Statute of Garrison and Sentry Service, as well as the fact that military service was inherently characterised by unquestionable compliance with orders of higher-ranking officers, had justified the use of deadly force against a serviceman to prevent his escape."], "id": "b6427220-33fd-4895-bffb-9c4a720d3e04", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government submitted that the police officers had acted on receipt of information that there were terrorists in the flat in question and that the operation had been planned in order to minimise the use of lethal force. They noted that the police had used firearms acting in self-defence and in accordance with the requirements of the Law and Regulation on Duties and Powers of the Police. In their view, the death of Ta\u015fk\u0131n Usta resulted from a which was no more than absolutely necessary. It was also established by the domestic courts that the police officers had started firing only after the deceased had opened fire and in order to protect themselves. Furthermore, the authorities had carried out an adequate and effective investigation into the impugned events."], "id": "f5824fc3-0a0b-4fe8-a5af-f0ec894fc913", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the by the security forces against Murat Bekta\u015f and Erdin\u00e7 Arslan had been disproportionate and had resulted in their unlawful killing. They further maintained under the same head that the investigation and the criminal trial had been flawed and ineffective. They contended in this connection that the acquittal of Nurettin B\u00fclb\u00fcl, Fevzi Mustan and Muammer Topa\u00e7, and the deferral of the execution of the sentences imposed on Nurettin B\u00fclb\u00fcl, Haydar Erol, Ey\u00fcp Yal\u00e7\u0131nkaya and Ali Erdurucan, had undermined the deterrent role of the judicial system in preventing violations of the right to life."], "id": "ab36fa83-535a-4d7f-b5c3-c1b36b12b5df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government also referred to McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (cited above), in which the Court had found a violation based, inter alia, on the fact that the authorities had not taken into account that the information gathered might have been erroneous; nor had they had an alternative plan of action if the intelligence had proved to be false. In the present case, there existed pre-approved plans of action for the operation, regulations on the use of firearms, an established chain of command and a clear operational structure. All the actions had been authorised by senior officers. No rank-and-file police officers had acted on their own, nor had any unnecessary force been used despite J.'s continuous actions and threats aimed at those present at the scene. Over a period of two nights and two days, the by the police had been limited to three shots aimed at J., all of which had been fired during the last hour of the siege. One shot had been aimed at J.'s foot and the other two shots had been fired in the final moments of the siege when he had been leaving the building with two long-barrelled guns in his hands. In addition, the police had thrown several canisters of tear gas into the house before J. had set it on fire."], "id": "dc2eaf42-0e76-4b5c-91bb-6f64a3f20a64", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the applicant\u2019s brother had died of acute coronary insufficiency and ischemic decease exacerbated by alcohol withdrawal syndrome, whereas Article 2 of the Convention covered only the deprivation of life by . Accordingly, the applicant\u2019s complaint should be dismissed as incompatible with the relevant Convention provisions. As regards the ensuing investigation, the Government considered that the national authorities had promptly investigated the circumstances of Mr Timin\u2019s death. The investigators had questioned the staff of the temporary detention centre and medical practitioners, and had commissioned forensic evidence. The authorities had examined the circumstances of the case thoroughly and had established the cause of Mr Timin\u2019s death, which excluded any criminal liability on the part of the staff of the temporary detention centre or medical practitioners."], "id": "17c9e44f-26c8-495a-a907-2a8872201b37", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government denied that there was any inconsistency in the witness statements prepared during the investigation. In particular, they emphasised that Chief Sergeant S and the other witnesses had given consistent evidence that Mr Mihaylov had put up armed resistance through the use of a knife. It was also indisputable that the gun was taken out as a result of the fight between the two men but was not prepared in advance. The three security guard witnesses confirmed during their initial interrogation that after the fight and the gunshot, when Mr Mihaylov fell to the ground, a knife fell out of Chief Sergeant S\u2019s hand. This witness evidence was confirmed by the forensic evidence. In particular, the medical examination of Chief Sergeant S found that he had sustained grazes consistent with an attack by a blunt instrument. The evidence supported the view that there had been an assault involving the and a weapon against the police officer."], "id": "0cee3e2f-d7e5-41db-9674-226d9c794fe6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government argued that when the applicant\u2019s son had pointed his pistol towards the police officers, the police chief, D.\u00d6., had shouted and warned him to \u201cstop, police, surrender!\u201d. However, the applicant\u2019s son had pointed his pistol towards the police officers again and fired two rounds. Then D.\u00d6. had fired a single shot and injured the applicant\u2019s son. In the opinion of the Government, the security forces resorting to the in the instant case had become absolutely necessary and the degree of force had been proportionate to the aim pursued. Thus, the conditions \u201cto protect someone against illegal violence or to ensure that a person is apprehended in line with the procedures specified in Article 2 \u00a7 2 (a) and (b) of the Convention\u201d had been met in the present case."], "id": "62508945-3f3d-4d8e-ba16-e8eb62253405", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant maintained her complaint. She denied the Government\u2019s allegations that her son had belonged to an illegal armed group. She submitted that her son had been abducted and killed by State agents. In her opinion, at the time of his death he had been in the State\u2019s custody and it had been impossible for him to offer active armed resistance to the federal forces. Furthermore, the fact that only one bullet shell had been found at the crime scene refuted the Government\u2019s allegation of an exchange of gunfire between her son and the State agents. Nor did the photographs of Batyr Albakov\u2019s body taken by her family confirm the Government\u2019s allegations as regards the injuries sustained by her son or the time of his death. The applicant also rejected the Government\u2019s argument that the against her son had been lawful. She noted that they had not put forward any argument capable of justifying the use of lethal force against the deceased. Lastly, she argued that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of her son\u2019s death. In particular, she pointed out the following deficiencies and omissions on the part of the authorities: the investigation into her son\u2019s abduction had been delayed; the investigator had failed to take any measures in order to establish Batyr Albakov\u2019s whereabouts, to identify the alleged perpetrators or the vehicles used by them; and the authorities had done nothing to establish whether the use of lethal force employed by law-enforcement agents against the deceased had been justified or to question the witnesses to the shooting. The applicant had not been afforded any procedural status and had been excluded from the investigation. As a result, she had been unable to obtain access to certain materials until after her present application had been communicated to the Government for observations."], "id": "e8ebed9b-bae0-4d2a-be1f-a91c6cdb2f2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government submitted that the police had used firearms acting in self-defence and in accordance with the requirements of the Law and Regulations on the duties and powers of the police. In their view, the death of Ay\u015fe G\u00fclen Uzunhasano\u011flu had resulted from a which had been no more than absolutely necessary. They stressed that the domestic courts had established that the police officers had only fired their guns in order to protect themselves after the deceased had opened fire. The Government contended that the authorities had carried out an adequate and effective investigation into these events."], "id": "c45a1e0c-991f-4245-924e-4c69aba4676e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant explained that her grounds for complaining of the against her father were solely connected with the immobilisation technique, known as a \u201cdouble-seated embrace\u201d, to which he had been subjected while in the police vehicle during his transfer to the police station. She took the view that it had not been \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d to use this technique; the police officers in the vehicle could have arrested him and called for back-up, which would have been adapted to the offence in question \u2013 resistance and rebellion \u2013 and would have put an end to the risk, especially as the police station was nearby. Referring to the judgment in Ta\u00efs v. France (no. 39922/03, 1 June 2006), she observed that the Government had not provided any means of establishing that the use of this technique was proportionate in the light of the circumstances (her father\u2019s age, the offence for which he had been arrested, his level of aggressiveness, the fact that he was already handcuffed). She pointed out that the burden of proof was on the authorities, who were required to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation. She observed, moreover, that the use of this technique had given rise to much controversy. She referred in this connection to the report entitled \u201corder and force, investigation into the use of force by law-enforcement officers in France\u201d published on 14 March 2016 by the ACAT (see paragraph 47 above), according to which that technique was capable of causing postural asphyxia and had been responsible for several deaths. The practice had thus been banned in France in the context of deportations. She further referred to a note from the National Police Inspectorate of 8 October 2008 (IGPN/BAD/SA/08-1577-D), which stated that any compression had to be for the shortest time possible and released as soon as the individual was constrained by the appropriate regulatory means, and that any face-down immobilisation had to be kept to a minimum, especially if the person was already handcuffed."], "id": "19135402-a231-43cd-bdb3-4200a3a53eeb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["200. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the police had been responsible for the death of their son. In particular, although they were called in precisely to deal with a mentally disturbed person, they had not been trained for such a situation, nor were they accompanied by a specialist, such as a psychiatrist; and their excessive and unjustified led to Mr Shchiborshch\u2019s death. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "5a294569-c598-4dca-b4e3-c776dd0280f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["167. The applicant also referred to the third party submissions made in the cases of Isayeva v. Russia, Yusupova v. Russia and Bazayeva v. Russia (nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00), in which Rights International, a USA-based NGO, summarised for the Court the relevant rules of international humanitarian law governing the during attacks on mixed combatant/civilian targets during a non-international armed conflict."], "id": "398f6c81-df79-48e1-9813-1d37e412fe31", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicant. Without referring to a particular provision of Article 2 \u00a7 2, they argued that the attack and its consequences resulted from a that had been absolutely necessary for the protection of the population of Katyr\u2011Yurt and that of neighbouring villages, as well as members of the security forces, in the face of unlawful violence. They referred to the conclusions of the criminal investigation that the use of lethal force had been prompted by the active resistance of the illegal armed groups, whose actions had posed a real threat to the life and health of servicemen and civilians, as well as to the general interests of society and the State. This threat could not have been eliminated by other means and the actions of the operation\u2019s command corps had been proportionate to the resistance put up by the fighters."], "id": "daeaacf3-33b8-447d-a7c6-dd71a6fab746", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant submitted that his serious injuries were the result of the unnecessary and disproportionate by the police officers involved in the incident. He also complained about the failure of investigating and prosecuting authorities to proceed with a prompt, comprehensive and effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible."], "id": "737ee832-2fb0-4bfd-b413-135d6db33e19", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government maintained that the various expert reports and second opinions had stated that there had been no causal link between M.B.\u2019s death and the force used, had ruled out mechanical asphyxia and concluded that there had been heart failure. Lastly, the Government submitted that the police officers had complied with the positive obligation to protect M.B.\u2019s life and adjusted their intervention to his behaviour by requesting, less than five minutes after they had arrived on the scene, the assistance of the emergency services (fire brigade and emergency medical service), while informing them that M.B. was in a highly agitated state. The officers, after unsuccessfully attempting to reason with M.B., and faced with his highly agitated state and his mental disorder, had attempted to restrain him by using techniques they had been taught and had followed the recommendations issued by the National Police Inspectorate in a note of 8 October 2008 on the legal rules and professional ethics governing the ."], "id": "c1631fb5-c5f8-474e-b0fd-9512ca1d8465", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Government claimed that the force use on 30 August 1996 by the duty officers had been only enough to stop Mr Bekirski from escaping and to subdue his aggressive behaviour. Once they had succeeded and had handcuffed him, the duty officers had immediately stopped applying such force. Thus, they had acted in complete accordance with Article 12a of the Criminal Code of 1968 which permitted the in such situations."], "id": "b66cb37c-724d-4b73-bb8c-4560f45fa66b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["92. The Government contended that the had been absolutely necessary within the meaning of Article 2 \u00a7 2 (a) of the Convention. They emphasised that the use of force had been justified, on account of the aggressiveness of the crowd. The State agents had no intention of killing anyone as they had only used defensive weapons, such as paralysing sprays and grenades, bats, and hunting weapons with rubber bullets. They argued that the context of the operation should also be taken into account when analysing the State agents\u2019 acts, namely that two people had been accused of beating up a police officer and had to be summoned for investigation. Even so, the State agents had discharged their duties whilst minimising to the greatest extent possible the risk to life, by using verbal warnings and firing warning shots in the air before shooting at the crowd. They also pointed out that special forces officers had also been seriously wounded in the incident."], "id": "0cc424a5-8daa-4a0b-bee3-cefee6a7045a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["193. The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicants concerning the deaths and injuries sustained as a result of the counterterrorist operation in Katyr-Yurt between 4 and 7 February 2000. They argued, without referring to a particular provision of Article 2 \u00a7 2, that the attack and its consequences resulted from the which was absolutely necessary for the protection of the population of Katyr-Yurt and that of neighbouring villages from unlawful violence. They referred to the conclusions of the criminal investigation that the use of lethal force had been motivated by the active resistance of the illegal armed groups, whose actions had posed a real threat to the life and health of servicemen and civilians, as well as to the general interests of society and the State. This threat could not have been eliminated by other means and the actions of the operation's command corps had been proportionate to the resistance put up by the fighters."], "id": "d80999e2-8b9d-4385-9675-3adc07e85edf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant maintained that the had not been absolutely necessary. The operation had been aimed at arresting J. and taking him to hospital but he had been shot dead intentionally, or executed as Dr T. had put it when examined as a witness during the criminal proceedings. Shooting someone at six metres' range with nine millimetre lead shots could not be justified on any grounds, as there had been no indication that J. posed a threat to anyone. Senior Constables A. and L. had been safe inside the armoured vehicle. Neither had any evidence been produced during the court proceedings to the effect that anyone else at the scene had been in danger. J., already injured, had been in the process of crawling out of the house when he had been shot in the head. At that time he had not posed a danger to anyone and had not been about to exit the cordoned area. The barrels of his shotguns had been pointing inwards. The guns had not even been cocked. J. had been making his way out of a burning house, blinded by the sudden change from intense light to darkness. His mobility had been reduced as a result of the injuries to his leg and hand. The shooting had been in violation of the principle of proportionality."], "id": "cbe89a8e-aec2-4106-a654-decf274b634b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government submitted that the by the police officers had been absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate. They argued that the intervention by the police officers had been justified by the need to protect the physical integrity of everyone present at the scene in view of the dangerous behaviour of M.B., who suffered from psychological disorders. They submitted that the police officers had attempted to restore calm and had requested M.B. to leave the pharmacy, but he had vehemently refused to do so and had then become extremely agitated."], "id": "501f60b8-c749-4a0c-9cf9-1737345a5ffd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicants further complained that the authorities had not investigated effectively the circumstances in which Mr Dimitrov was ill-treated and lost his life. They alleged that the investigation had not applied a standard comparable to that required under the Convention. They also drew attention to attempts to stifle the investigation and influence the ensuing judicial proceedings, as well as to a number of omissions in the initial gathering of evidence and in the conduct of the investigation and of the judicial proceedings. They also pointed out that no attempts had been made to investigate higher-ups, or to verify whether the operation for Mr Dimitrov\u2019s arrest had been adequately planned or whether the officers who took part in it had been adequately briefed. Lastly, they alleged that in acquitting the officers the Supreme Court of Cassation had disregarded facts established by the lower courts, had not thoroughly examined whether the officers had complied with the rules governing the and auxiliary means by the police, had paid no heed to the ill-treatment to which the officers had subjected Mr Dimitrov \u2013 with the result that that ill-treatment remained completely unpunished \u2013, and had not sought to clarify whether there had been alternative ways to arrest Mr Dimitrov."], "id": "706d26a0-8c1f-4176-ab4b-840dc69414ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government submitted that the force used had been \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d. The police officers had initially had no intention of using firearms but had been forced to do so by the exigencies of the situation. The police officers had had to take a speedy decision as there had been a real and immediate threat to police officer H.Gev.\u2019s life, and also taking into account the unpredictability of Seyran Ayvazyan\u2019s behaviour because of his mental illness. The police officers, having assessed all the risks, had considered the to be reasonable and necessary to eliminate any danger posed by him. Even though Seyran Ayvazyan\u2019s knives had been homemade, four persons had sustained injuries of medium severity. The police actions had therefore been in compliance with the domestic law, namely the Police Act. Moreover, the circumstances of this case had been similar to those of Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (9 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VI), in which a great deal of fire power had similarly been used but no violation had been found."], "id": "052fb2a1-db47-4ebd-a8fb-764b334d879c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["155. The Government pointed out that an investigation into the fourth applicant\u2019s brother\u2019s death was commenced by the Special Investigation Branch on 29 August 2003, five days after the shooting on 14 August. The Special Investigation Branch recovered fragments of bullets, empty bullet cases and the vehicle, and took digital photographs of the scene. They interviewed the doctors who treated the deceased and took statements. Nine military witnesses involved in the incident were interviewed and had statements taken and four further witnesses were interviewed but had no evidence to offer. The investigation was discontinued on 17 September 2003 after the Brigade Commander expressed the view that the shooting fell within the rules of engagement and was lawful. However, the decision to discontinue was taken by a Special Investigation Branch senior investigating officer, who was independent of the military chain of command. The investigation was reopened on 7 June 2004 and completed on 3 December 2004, despite the difficult security conditions in Iraq at that time. The case was then referred to the Army Prosecuting Authority, which decided not to bring criminal charges as there was no realistic prospect of proving that the soldier who shot the fourth applicant\u2019s brother had not been acting in self\u2011defence. The Attorney General was notified and he decided not to exercise his jurisdiction to order a prosecution. In the Government\u2019s submission, the investigation was effective, in that it identified the person responsible for the death and established that the laws governing the had been followed. The investigation was reasonably prompt, in particular when regard was had to the extreme difficulty of investigating in the extraterritorial context. If the halting of the initial investigation gave rise to any lack of independence, this was cured by the subsequent investigation and the involvement of the Army Prosecuting Authority and the Attorney General (see G\u00fcl v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, \u00a7\u00a7 92-95, 14 December 2000; see also McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, \u00a7\u00a7 157 and 162-64, Series A no. 324)."], "id": "18b5930b-25d1-4bdb-ae12-cce8d57d3bdf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant insisted that her deceased relatives had been civilians, who had posed no danger to servicemen. She further submitted that her relatives had been driving from Gekhi to Roshni-Chu early in the evening, when it had still been light out; that the left side of the lorry cab had contained numerous bullet holes, which demonstrated that the gunfire had been intense and that it had been opened to kill the driver and the passengers; that after the shooting Petimat Aydamirova and her minor son Ibragim Suleymanov had been alive and screamed for help but had been killed by the servicemen; that the holes in the ground and the remains of the brain tissue had clearly indicated that a final shot had been fired into the applicant's relatives' heads; that the servicemen had attempted to eliminate the evidence and get rid of the corpses; and that the fact that the domestic authorities had opened a criminal investigation into the events demonstrated the unlawfulness of the actions of the military. She contended therefore that the by State agents which had led to the loss of her relatives' lives had been clearly disproportionate in the circumstances of the case and could not be regarded as justified under Article 2 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The applicant stressed that the Government had not submitted any convincing arguments or documentary evidence to the contrary."], "id": "9a0dc7af-99c1-415a-a157-3c1663575a81", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant claimed that his wife had been killed by an artillery shell fired by the security forces. The shell was fired either intentionally in order to kill the villagers or recklessly and with disregard for life. In any event, the used by the security forces was more than absolutely necessary. The firing of artillery shells into a village at 3 a.m. amounted to an indiscriminate attack on civilians which could not be justified in the circumstances."], "id": "3844c719-f2ce-44e2-b78a-af919f80b59b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["170. The Government argued that the attack and its consequences were legitimate under Article 2 \u00a7 2 (a), i.e. they had resulted from the absolutely necessary in the circumstances for protection of a person from unlawful violence. The use of lethal force was necessary and proportionate to suppress the active resistance of the illegal armed groups, whose actions were a real threat to the life and health of the servicemen and civilians, as well as to the general interests of society and the state. This threat could not have been eliminated by other means and the actions by the operation's command corps had been proportionate. The combat weapons were specifically directed against previously-designated targets."], "id": "bf2dec3f-24fc-4faa-b27c-ff69287b30f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant submitted that the killing had not been based on any plan and had been in flagrant violation of the instructions on the . In fact, the decision to shoot had been taken by the individual police officers of the Special Task Force without weighing up the alternatives. They had subsequently explained that the shooting had been an act of self-defence. It was clear from the audio tape that seven seconds had passed from the moment that J. appeared in the doorway until the firing of the fatal shots. Further, the recording also revealed that when the commander of the Special Task Force, Superintendent H., had ordered that J. be shot immediately in the legs, Senior Constables A. and L. had just fired their shotguns, hitting J. in the head with 9 x 9 millimetre lead shots. The order to shoot him in the legs had been valid only in the event of his trying to break through the cordon situated fifteen metres from the house. The visibility from the armoured vehicle had been completely clear."], "id": "056e3b82-a25e-4adf-8233-393c026f4cc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["245. The applicant explained that he had waited until 18 June 2001 before lodging a criminal complaint with regard to his experiences during the night of 13 to 14 June 1990 on account of the scale of the repression conducted by the authorities at that time, of which he among more than a thousand others had been a victim. He considered that the investigation in issue here did not concern ordinary incidents of unlawful by State agents, but rather mass violations of human rights, orchestrated by the highest State authorities."], "id": "feffe334-b747-430e-a5ce-12a91c90212f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government did not accept the applicants' claim that their relatives had been killed by an excessive or unjustified . They submitted that Seyit K\u00fclek\u00e7i and Do\u011fan Altun had been armed terrorists. The Government contended that the deceased had taken part in an armed clash with the security forces and that, therefore, the use of force had been unavoidable and absolutely necessary. The Government further maintained that, following receipt of the applicants' petition to the public prosecutor, an investigation had been initiated and criminal proceedings opened under Article 178 of the Criminal Code."], "id": "0d14f5e2-9777-4a70-bf7c-923fb3ea7979", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained that the force used by the gendarmerie officers against their daughter had not been absolutely necessary and that the excessive nature of the showed that the officers had in fact intended to kill her. They further added that the investigation into the killing of their daughter had neither been impartial nor adequate for the purposes of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention."], "id": "73fe32b2-9673-4743-9daa-b819a1865a1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicants submitted first that no real attempt had been made to capture their relatives alive. In this connection, they contended that the police officers had known the identity of the victims when they arrived at the caf\u00e9 and that there was a premeditated plan to kill them rather than to effect their lawful arrest. They further maintained that there were several indications of this aim, such as the facts that the police officers had been wearing bullet-proof vests and that the bullets followed a downward trajectory within the victims' bodies. They further contended that the security forces' claim that there had been an armed clash was unsubstantiated as neither of the police officers had been injured. The applicants maintained that their relatives had been killed as a result of which was not absolutely necessary."], "id": "ed30d613-b5d5-48ab-99cb-9ea8ceb373a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["117. The applicants went on to argue that the police operation against Mr Dimitrov had not been adequately planned. There was no evidence that the officers who took part in that operation had been properly briefed. Contrary to what appeared to be suggested by the written plan of the operation, it had in fact had been planned with the expectation that Mr Dimitrov would put up resistance. There were other discrepancies as well, such as the failure of the investigator to join the five officers and carry out any investigative steps, although the plan envisaged the gathering of evidence of Mr Dimitrov\u2019s alleged criminal activities. In fact, none of the three groups of officers who took part in the operation tried to gather such evidence, contrary to the written plan. The instructions in the plan on the had also been flagrantly disregarded, with the result that an unarmed person who had not put up any resistance had lost his life. Another discrepancy was the lack of any suggestion in the written plan that Mr Dimitrov might be aggressive or armed. Contrary to the expectations of the police officers, as described by the Government, there was no evidence that Mr Dimitrov was engaging in drug trafficking or pimping at the time of his arrest, or that he was armed, dangerous or under the influence of cocaine. Having reviewed the evidence, the domestic courts had found that Mr Dimitrov had not had on him any narcotic drugs."], "id": "69fabcd5-f7a5-48fd-ad13-2d7c9fd64c13", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government submitted, in reply, that the death of the applicants' relatives resulted from a which was no more than absolutely necessary. They maintained that it was established by the domestic courts that the police officers had started firing only after the deceased had opened fire and in order to protect themselves. They contended that, as was stated in the Istanbul Assize Court's judgment of 7 February 2002, the deaths had resulted from self-defence and in accordance with Article 16 of Law no. 2559 on the duties and legal powers of police."], "id": "61247d7b-b662-4c35-8fe7-611750d42579", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["199. The applicant submitted that the existing domestic legal framework in itself failed to ensure proper protection of civilian lives. She made reference to the only disclosed legal act on which the conclusions of the military experts based their report, namely, the Army Field Manual. The Court agrees with the applicant that the Government's failure to invoke the provisions of any domestic legislation governing the by the army or security forces in situations such as the present one, whilst not in itself sufficient to decide on a violation of the State's positive obligation to protect the right to life, is, in the circumstances of the present case, also directly relevant to the Court's considerations with regard to the proportionality of the response to the attack (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned McCann judgment, \u00a7 156)."], "id": "8d5e294a-e019-482f-a593-0b59d6aaa8e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["218. The applicant claimed that the authorities\u2019 real intent had nothing to do with those legitimate aims. They alleged in their observations that the main goal of the authorities had been to kill the terrorists, and not to save the hostages. The Court has taken note of the phrase in the prosecutor\u2019s decision stating that the was intended to prevent \u201cthe erosion of the prestige of Russia on the international arena\u201d. However, in itself this is insufficient to uphold the allegations of bad faith. Everything suggests that one of the authorities\u2019 main concerns was to preserve the lives of the hostages. The Court will base its further analysis on the assumption that in this case the authorities were pursuing simultaneously all three legitimate aims specified in Article 2 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, and that the \u201cdefence of any person from unlawful violence\u201d was the predominant one, as provided by section 2 of the Russian Suppression of Terrorism Act."], "id": "c69f6c95-0118-4773-9362-e77deb3bdce1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government referred to the legal rules under which the police officers had acted. However, they did not explain how the rules concerning the were implemented in practice and what controls were in place to ensure that they were respected. It appears that the system in place did not give law\u2011enforcement officials clear guidelines and criteria governing the use of force when carrying out arrests of dangerous suspects in peacetime. Thus, it was almost unavoidable that the authorities responsible for the planning of the operation to effect the arrest of the suspects enjoyed an excessively wide autonomy of action and took unconsidered initiatives."], "id": "81206a4f-1408-422a-bb5b-3816c8d59f25", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicant submitted that her husband was intentionally killed. The vehicle driver deliberately struck, at speed, the hoarding behind which Dermot McShane was standing in order to cause serious injury or death to those using it as a shield. Alternatively, she submitted that the death of her husband was the result of an unnecessary and disproportionate by the security forces. It was obvious that there must have been persons sheltering behind the hoarding and the action of using an armoured vehicle to demolish it was disproportionate. Other courses of action were open to the security forces, including the withdrawal or the slow advance of a line of vehicles. Further, it appears that there was a breakdown in command structure, in that it was an RUC officer who instructed the driver of the APC, who was alone, to take action, while the military commander was preparing another vehicle for action. The use of the APC without an observer, where the driver had limited vision, could not be regarded as proper practice."], "id": "7b2734ea-d547-4fdf-bad9-4b34841df96f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government argued that the by the soldiers had been justified under paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention and lawful under the national legislation because the soldiers had thought that they had encountered members of a terrorist organisation and had returned fire to apprehend the terrorists and to protect themselves from the fire opened by the terrorists."], "id": "cca532ab-cec7-4941-99d0-6f12d5333857", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicants complained, under Article 2 of the Convention, that the employed by the security forces against \u0130smet Erdo\u011fan and Elmas Yal\u00e7\u0131n was disproportionate and resulted in their unlawful killing. They further complained, under the same head, that the investigation and the subsequent criminal proceedings brought against the four police officers were fundamentally flawed and, as a result, were not capable of being effective, in violation of the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention. They further complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the proceedings in question were not concluded within a reasonable time."], "id": "6729684d-bd62-404c-8363-9b46b40e8b7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government further submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention and his subsequent placement in a disciplinary cell had been lawful, having complied with the provisions of national law laying down responsibility for disciplinary offences committed by servicemen. The by Mr L. had been absolutely necessary to prevent the escape of the applicant\u2019s son, who had been lawfully detained. Thus, Mr Putintsev\u2019s loss of life could not be regarded as having been in contravention of the Convention, being covered by the exception in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 2 to Article 2 of the Convention. The Government insisted that, having decided to abscond and having refused to comply with the order to stop, Mr Putintsev had himself placed his life in imminent danger. He had been warned and he had fully understood the consequences of his actions. The deadly force had been used for a lawful purpose and had been a measure of last resort. The Russian Federation could not therefore be held responsible for Mr Putintsev\u2019s death."], "id": "6a6cb122-89e2-4df6-a3fe-33d7d34997ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained about the test for prosecution in cases of putative self-defence. Under English law, a prosecution will be brought only if a conviction is \u201cmore likely than not\u201d (see paragraphs 164 and 265 of the judgment). The majority refer in the reasoning to an interesting comparative-law report on this issue (see paragraphs 176 and 269 of the judgment). We note in this connection that the analysis of comparative-law data leads to the conclusion that the test applied under English law for prosecution is clearly more stringent than in other States Parties to the Convention. Such a stringent test may prevent the prosecution and conviction of a person who has committed an offence if the prospects of success are not correctly assessed by the prosecutor. There is a serious risk that borderline cases will escape independent judicial assessment. As a result, certain acts involving excessive by the police may be covered by a de facto immunity from prosecution. In our view, for the sake of efficient protection of the right to life, if there are serious doubts concerning the legitimacy of lethal force used by the police in actual or putative self-defence, the final decision on the question of criminal liability should be left to the courts."], "id": "f31552d1-c246-4d95-b911-7930ed4f011b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant further submitted that four different types of combat weapons had been used during the arrest, in spite of the fact that Seyran Ayvazyan had been armed only with homemade knives. The grenade had been found only after the incident and could not justify the , as Seyran Ayvazyan had never threatened to use it. The police officers had not been sufficiently trained to use such special means as helmets and protective shields in order to be able to arrest him without using combat weapons and threatening his life. They had possessed none of this equipment and had had to use a small table as a protective shield. Furthermore, the police had known that he was suffering from a paranoid type of schizophrenia and had been hospitalised on numerous occasions. Therefore, they should have invited a psychiatrist to neutralise him with special measures. The argument that they \u201cinvited a doctor but he did not come\u201d could not justify the \u201cabsolute necessity\u201d of depriving him of his life. The number of shots fired at Seyran Ayvazyan could not be considered as self-defence either. In sum, the deprivation of life had not been \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 2."], "id": "7e676b68-951d-4ad6-b641-b42ef371dfc1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that it had been absolutely necessary for the gendarmes to resort to against the applicant, because he had attempted to escape from the gendarmes at a checkpoint. They further considered that the force used had been proportionate, because the gendarmes, who were equipped with heavy machine guns and hand grenades, had only used their firearms. They further pointed out that the gendarme officers had been trained in human rights and that there had been no flaw in the conduct of the operation."], "id": "dfcd0470-bc2e-47ff-8cf8-15c673b22387", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government pointed out that J. had been shown to pose a serious threat to those present at the scene. He had previously been involved in a siege situation and in other violent crimes. He was known to have acted violently towards the police and even towards members of his own family, having shot at his own brother previously, and was also known to have had mental health problems. In addition, the circumstances at the scene were extremely difficult due to the weather and other conditions. The applicable law was in conformity with Article 2 of the Convention. The police could interfere with a person's constitutional rights only if it was permitted by law. In the present case, as noted by the domestic courts, the police officers in question had had justifiable reasons for believing that J. had made an illegal threat and committed an assault and possibly a robbery. In addition, J. had been proven to be dangerous to the public at large and especially to those present at the scene. This entitled the police to apprehend him and take him into custody. The Government made reference to Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (judgment of 9 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VI, p. 2107, \u00a7 192) and McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 58, \u00a7 200), in which the Court had stated that the may be justified where it is based on an honest belief which is perceived, for good reasons, to be valid at the time but which subsequently turns out to be mistaken. In the present case the situation during the operation fulfilled the requirements of Article 2 \u00a7 2 (a) and (b). The police officers had been trying to effect a lawful arrest while protecting themselves, the other persons at the scene and the residents of the island. As concluded during the pre-trial investigation and the consideration of the charges and also during the proceedings before the domestic courts, had J. been allowed to escape armed, the lives of even more people would have been in danger. Therefore, the perception of the situation and the actions taken in the present case had not been proved to be mistaken."], "id": "314dc1be-52a4-4f86-a74d-ad6fcd382b11", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government maintained that the original investigation lasted from 4 October to 30 December 2000, i.e. about three months. During that period evidence was heard from 75 witnesses and a substantial number of expert reports were submitted. They stated that, in view of the final outcome of the proceedings, there was no obligation on the State to investigate any or other actions."], "id": "58eb5e87-b83a-4def-b25e-5b74df6c9504", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants alleged that the killing of their son had been the result of deliberate acts by members of the Turkish armed forces. The circumstances of the case strongly suggested that the persons who shot Stelios Kalli Panayi had intended to kill him. Moreover, even assuming that this had not been the case, the had not been \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention. In this connection the applicants emphasised the following:"], "id": "eb8d38ab-fd5a-4d45-bbbf-07ae9f405d58", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicants insisted that their deceased relatives had been civilians, had not used firearms or any unlawful violence and posed no danger either to the civilian population or to servicemen. The applicants strongly denied that any weapons could have been hidden in the boot of the \u201cNiva\u201d car, and argued that, even assuming they were, their relatives could not have threatened the servicemen, as the weapons allegedly found in the boot would have been covered with a large amount of vegetables collected in the field. The applicants further denied that the authorities had ever given any explanations as to how civilians were expected to behave within the area of the counter-terrorist operation. They contended therefore that the by the State which had led to the loss of their relatives\u2019 lives had been clearly disproportionate in the circumstances of the case and could not be regarded as justified under Article 2 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The applicants stressed in this respect that the Government had not submitted any convincing arguments or documentary evidence to the contrary."], "id": "eea6c40f-4385-4be5-b440-6926242631e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicants thus contended that the by the State which had led to the deprivation of their relatives\u2019 lives had been clearly disproportionate and could not be regarded as justified under Article 2 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They also claimed that the special operation carried out on 6 August 2000 had not been properly planned and controlled by the authorities so as to minimise, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to lethal force (see McCann v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, \u00a7 194)."], "id": "7cbddc10-cc54-433b-82a4-cb2555e20fec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant submitted that his son\u2019s death was the result of the unnecessary and disproportionate by the police officer involved in the incident. Relying on previous case-law (Makaratzis v. Greece, Celniku v. Greece, and Karagiannopoulos v. Greece) he complained that the legislation on the use of weapons by agents of the State was obsolete and inadequate. The applicant also complained about the failure of investigating and prosecuting authorities to proceed with a prompt, independent, comprehensive and effective official investigation into his son\u2019s death."], "id": "a4321f8d-937d-4b7f-8fa7-7633d5b4b2f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["87. The Government emphasised that the measures taken during the operation had been the result of a careful weighing-up of the situation and the various options for ending the siege as peacefully as possible without causing unnecessary harm to anyone. Several alternative actions, such as a house search and the use of a dog for the arrest, had been abandoned for appropriate and thoroughly considered reasons. The had been proportionate and absolutely necessary taking into account J.'s actions, the fact that he had tried to leave the house with loaded guns pointing towards those present at the scene, giving no grounds for believing that he would surrender, and the other relevant facts."], "id": "ae2fd18e-18cc-4e64-a57c-9928ab6d1cb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government pointed out that France had an up-to-date legal basis and code of professional ethics regarding intervention techniques, their safety and regulating the : the note of 8 October 2008 issued by the National Police Inspectorate, and recently updated in a note of 4 November 2015 setting out the principles governing the use of force or coercion to restrain a person in a highly agitated state; the Code of Professional Ethics of 16 March 1986; and the Practical Guide to Professional Ethics revised in 2001."], "id": "cbc51d92-3b16-4248-8d11-73f796ec1a93", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicants also contested the domestic authorities\u2019 conclusions as to the danger posed by the actions of RM. They expressed their doubts as to whether the car driven by RM had indeed hit officer RZ. They alleged that such a conclusion had not been corroborated by any evidence. RZ had suffered only very slight injuries: a slightly swollen left calf and several scratches on the fingers of his left hand and his left elbow. The applicants referred in this connection to the evidence in the criminal proceedings against the driver (which has not been submitted to the Court). The applicants argued that those injuries could have been inflicted at any moment during the chase \u2013 for example, by manoeuvring the police vehicle or trying to take out the gun. By contrast, had RZ been hit by the car, thrown onto the bonnet and then the ground, as he had submitted during the inquiry against SG, he would have suffered much more serious injuries. Moreover, the Ford Escort bore no signs of such an impact. The applicants concluded that the version of hitting the policeman had been fabricated simply to make the appear more appropriate to the circumstances."], "id": "086678f8-0796-4a79-bb0a-414f122f58e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["193. The applicant contended that as the investigating authorities were applying a lower standard than that required by the Court, they were prevented from considering whether the by Charlie 2 and Charlie 12 was or was not justified in the circumstances within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention. In other words, the extent to which the domestic authorities were able to submit the actions of State agents to careful scrutiny was undermined, with the consequence that the State\u2019s investigation was unable to secure accountability through a prosecution for a violation of Article 2 (see, for example, Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 63106/00, \u00a7 52, 10 June 2010)."], "id": "0443d755-4113-4040-9cde-ebf45460c48e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicants thus concluded that their son had not committed suicide but had died as a result of force used by the police. In this respect, they argued that that force had been disproportionate. They contended that the police operation of 6 June 1999 had lacked adequate planning and that no clear instructions had been issued as to when the was permitted."], "id": "a24c9ed5-5369-4979-aca6-7178f623433d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicants alleged that the circumstances in which the late Petros Kakoulli had met his death suggested that those who had shot him had intended to kill him. In their opinion, the acts which had caused the death of Petros Kakoulli went far beyond anything which might have been justified under Article 2 \u00a7 2 (a), if indeed any at all could have been \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d in those circumstances."], "id": "cdaa279e-7521-45c0-a5ac-e224c923d08a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["202. The applicants observed that the relevant provisions on the by law-enforcement personnel were Article 53 of the CC and Article 24 of the Public Safety Code (see paragraphs 143 and 146 above). Those provisions, enacted in 1930 and 1931, during the Fascist era, were not compatible with more recent international standards or with liberal legal principles. They were symptomatic of the authoritarianism that had prevailed at that time. In particular, the concepts of \u201cnecessity\u201d legitimising the use of weapons and \u201cuse of force\u201d were not equivalent to the principles developed by Strasbourg case-law, which was based on \u201cabsolute necessity\u201d."], "id": "d006a035-9c60-4ff1-b632-ff85ae6af9a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["236. The Government thus insisted that in the circumstances the by the federal forces was no more than absolutely necessary in order to eliminate danger to the local population emanating from the illegal armed groups and that it was impossible to eliminate that danger by any other means. In particular, the use of ground troops would have led to unacceptable losses on the part of the federal armed forces. In the Government\u2019s submission, the actions of the relevant military personnel had fully complied with the Suppression of Terrorism Act, and the investigating authorities had reached a well-founded conclusion that those actions had been justified in the circumstances."], "id": "a8b57bdc-1fcd-4a1d-ad0d-e03dee91b95b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicant submitted that the police's subsequent diverging explanations showed that there had been a lack of proper planning and direction of the police forces. The police operation had been limited to the siege, the use of gas and the demonstration of the police's superiority in terms of equipment and numbers. Apart from the instructions regarding the , there had been no other plans to apprehend J. The negotiator could hardly be called a professional and J.'s brother and police officer S.K., who were familiar to J., had been denied the chance to speak to him when they arrived at the scene. The police had failed to search the house and to use the police dog. The closing of the telephone lines could hardly be characterised as giving J. a night's rest. Public order and safety had not been jeopardised because all the residents of the island and other people on the island apart from the authorities had been evacuated. Using gas, breaking windows and bringing in armoured vehicles cannot be characterised as a peaceful means of trying to apprehend a psychologically disturbed person and hospitalising him. The police had no other plans to rescue J. from the burning house."], "id": "75b0da21-0b48-4d79-91bb-ab87e3dc408d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["3. The applicant in the present case alleged that the extreme brutality with which the victim had been treated was partly due to his Roma origin. The Chamber indeed found a violation of Articles 2 (in both aspects, substantive and procedural) and 3. As to the latter, the Court concluded that the victim had been subjected to torture. The circumstances in which the young and healthy 27-year-old man died at the hands of State authorities, as established by the Court (see paragraphs 111-125), are particularly grave. In the circumstances of the Nachova case, the Grand Chamber noted at least two reasons for the obligation to investigate possible racist motives to arise: the alleged racist language and the highly disproportionate . It is true that in the case at hand there is no information about any racist language used by the police officers. It is, however, so obvious that the force used and the absolute lack of investigation into an evidently suspicious death were absolutely disproportionate to the circumstances of the case involving a young Roma man who had allegedly committed a robbery."], "id": "91309d6d-65fe-4030-9073-bdd140146bb5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government did not accept the applicant's claims under Article 2 of the Convention that her husband was deprived of his life intentionally or by any excessive or unjustified . Indeed, in this case, there was no question of force being used against the applicant's husband. The events which led to his death were simply a tragic accident. It could not have been the intention of the framers of the Convention that Article 2 would come into play wherever there happened to be an accident which was allegedly caused by a person who was acting in an official capacity at the time. Article 2 was therefore not engaged."], "id": "4df1239b-6383-49ec-a182-bd944fc3cf5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that the force used by the gendarmerie officers had not been absolutely necessary, that the excessive nature of the had shown that the officers had in fact intended to kill him, and that he had suffered bodily harm as a result of the shootings. He further complained under Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of his wounding."], "id": "be7cceee-c67f-4c94-850b-dcaf4e3c1d14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["244. The Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated. They also pointed out in respect of the claims by the first, second, third, fifth and sixth applicants, that their relatives had been members of illegal armed groups and had been killed as a result of the that had been no more than \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d. As regards the claims by the seventh, eighth, tenth and eleventh applicants, it was not established that the authorities had been involved into their relatives\u2019 disappearance."], "id": "5f817c82-841f-4ff9-ae70-a86ef4b9ef0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["171. The Government thus insisted that in the circumstances the by the federal forces was no more than absolutely necessary in order to eliminate danger to the local population emanating from the illegal armed groups and that it was impossible to eliminate that danger by any other means. In their submission, of all available methods, the military authorities had opted for pinpoint air strikes, which had enabled the federal forces to minimise the risk of civilian casualties while causing considerable losses to illegal fighters who, as a result, had subsequently, on 7 and 8 December 1999, surrendered the town without resistance, with the result that there had been no casualties among the federal armed forces. In the Government\u2019s view, the present case could be distinguished from the cases of Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia (nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, 24 February 2005) and Isayeva v. Russia, (no. 57950/00, 24 February 2005), since in the present case the military targets in Urus-Martan, their danger to the residents and the necessity of their destruction were obvious, and the consequences of the attack in question were less serious than those in the above-cited cases."], "id": "e335f305-0331-4371-894b-d92610035ab5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["295. The applicants alleged that the procedural aspect of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention had been breached in this case. They considered that the duty to investigate of their own motion contained in those Convention provisions was incumbent on the authorities under both domestic and international law. That duty was all the stronger in that the present case did not concern ordinary incidents of unlawful by State agents, but a conflict which was fuelled by the authorities then in power and which set various groups of the population \u2013 including ethnic groups \u2013 against one another."], "id": "37ba3417-1181-496b-b5f2-6a6149651f21", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant alleged that the death of his son had been caused by an excessive . In his view, domestic law did not regulate, in a manner that was compatible with the Convention, the use of firearms by State agents. The latter had allegedly been authorised to use lethal force against his son without it being absolutely necessary. He further complained that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into the death. He relied in this connection on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "286ec354-d251-4e8c-a367-a15c92e5d709", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicants considered that the by the prison officers to restrain their son had been neither necessary nor strictly proportionate to the latter\u2019s conduct. They pointed out that regard should be had not only to the actions of the prison officers but also to all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, \u00a7 150, Series A no. 324). In that connection, they argued that in the present case regard should be had to their son\u2019s particular vulnerability in the context of his detention and to his mental condition, of which the officers had been aware. They alleged that the methods used by the officers to restrain Michael Tekin had been completely disproportionate to his behaviour and that dialogue had at no stage been considered. In view of the officers\u2019 knowledge of Michael Tekin\u2019s psychiatric problems, they should have prepared their intervention in anticipation of a probable negative reaction on his part to the notification of new stricter security measures. In the present case, the officers should have treated their son as if he had been a person in full possession of his mental faculties. In the absence of appropriate training, they had not known how to react to Michael Tekin."], "id": "cdc38c46-55c1-4e75-a3e8-905aa661818e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government submitted that the deaths of the applicants' two relatives had resulted from the which was no more than absolutely necessary in order to effect their arrests. In particular, the security forces had done all that was necessary to apprehend the two persons alive and had ordered them, both in Turkish and Kurdish, to surrender and had also fired warning shots. The only reason to throw a hand grenade at the two men had been to eliminate the risk of a booby-trap."], "id": "95720aa9-5663-484e-a730-ed954e5b69db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "use of force", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government submitted that the during both of the demonstrations was proportionate and necessary. They stated that the demonstrators, who were attacking the police officers with fire bombs and stones, had first been verbally warned to disperse, then pressurised water and sticks had been used and, as a last resort, the police officers had fired warning shots in the air. According to the Government, the demonstrators had been stirred up by members of an illegal organisation. The police officers, who had a duty to maintain public safety, were under great stress and psychological pressure as the incidents lasted for almost two days. Finally, the Government referred to the ballistics reports which indicated clearly that the bullets recovered from the bodies of the deceased did not match the bullets obtained from the weapons of the security forces."], "id": "13e81b6e-c7c1-4127-8385-eb5232695e80", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicants made a twofold complaint under Article 2 of the Convention. They contended firstly that the State had failed to comply with their in order to prevent the deaths of M.T. and V.T. and secondly that the State had failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the possible responsibility of their agents for the deaths of M.T. and V.T."], "id": "48082b92-ed8f-4efa-8ba7-beb53a88d72c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["116. The applicants complained that the authorities had failed to comply with their to take appropriate measures to mitigate the risks to their lives against the natural hazards. The first applicant complained that the domestic authorities were responsible for the death of her husband in the mudslide of July 2000. She and the other applicants also complained that the domestic authorities were responsible for putting their lives at risk, as they had failed to discharge the State's positive obligations and had been negligent in the maintenance of the dam, in monitoring the hazardous area and in providing an emergency warning or taking other reasonable measures to mitigate the risk and the effects of the natural disaster. They also complained that they had had no redress, in particular they had not received adequate compensation in respect of their pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "id": "fe2d9421-c24d-4d0c-898f-9957b6ec76e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicants submitted that to comply with its under Article 2 of the Convention the State had to do more than adopt laws mandating the investigation and punishment of homicide. It also had to carry out effective official investigations of all instances of homicide. The investigation in the case at hand had not been effective; on the contrary, it had been tainted by a number of grave omissions, which had completely undermined its ability to establish both the exact circumstances in which Mr Ivaylo Zashev had been killed and the identity of the persons responsible for his death. The most serious error had been the loss of the cartridges impounded from the crime scene, as well as the failure to provide protection to Mr V.K., which had been both possible and indispensable, and the lack of which had led to his changing his statements several times. Other deficiencies had been the substandard inspection of the crime scene, the belated conducting of interviews with the neighbours, the belated commissioning of DNA and ballistic expert reports, and in general the excessive length of the investigation, which had lasted almost eight years. The applicants also criticised the passive conduct of the prosecution during the trial, in the course of which it had made only one \u2013 poorly substantiated \u2013 request for further evidence to be gathered. In addition, in its appeal against the acquittal the prosecution had not raised any additional arguments and had not made further evidentiary requests; nor had it sought later to appeal on points of law."], "id": "bc3e6f8f-32c9-4420-acb8-163843884bf9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to meet their and conduct an effective investigation into the car accident. He also complained that the compensation awarded in his favour had been insufficient. He relied on Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Article 2, which reads in so far as relevant:"], "id": "601f3fbe-78e8-4045-a40a-2a10539a5f98", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["122. The applicants submitted that the situation they had experienced had been contrary to Article 3 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above (\u00a7 263). The state of extreme poverty and material and psychological want in which the authorities had placed them, in full knowledge of their vulnerability as asylum-seekers and as a family with young children including a severely disabled young daughter, had reached the threshold required by Article 3. The obligation to provide for the applicants\u2019 basic needs as asylum-seekers had also been one of the of the Belgian State under European law and more particularly the Reception Directive, which provided that Dublin asylum-seekers had to continue being provided with reception facilities until they were actually transferred to the responsible State, as had been confirmed by the CJEU in Cimade and Gisti, cited above (\u00a7 58) (see paragraph 105 above), and the revised European Social Charter (see paragraphs 108-09 above)."], "id": "1fcc361a-5450-46d3-9162-c2b6ffdd960b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government submitted firstly that the applicant had failed to properly exhaust the available domestic remedies. Referring to the Court\u2019s case-law on the subject of the State\u2019s under Article 2 of the Convention, they argued that the criminal-law avenue was not the one to be pursued by the applicant. On this point the Government admitted that within the framework of criminal proceedings the applicant had brought a civil action, and had been recognised as a civil claimant who had suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. However, in each of the subsequent decisions to discontinue the criminal investigation of the death of the applicant\u2019s son the prosecutors suggested that she bring a separate civil claim against the Vilnius city municipality under Article 6.266 of the Civil Code. Moreover, by a decision of 3 July 2008 and subsequent decisions the prosecutors established that the Vilnius city municipality had been the de facto owner of the derelict building the collapse of which had caused the death, and that it thus had absolute liability. Referring to the practice of the Lithuanian courts (see paragraphs 40-42 above), the Government thus insisted that Article 6.266 of the Civil Code was an effective remedy the applicant should have pursued. Whilst noting that the pre-trial investigation did not establish physical persons liable for the accident, the Government also argued that the applicant could have alternatively claimed redress for the damage on the basis of Article 6.271 of the Civil Code, which sets forth a more general provision, namely liability to compensate for damage caused by unlawful actions of institutions of public authority. Again, the applicant could have relied on the prosecutor\u2019s conclusion that the Vilnius city municipality, which had learned about the poor state of the building in question in 2004, did not act promptly enough to eliminate the threat. Even so, the applicant had never lodged any separate civil claim under the rules of civil procedure in respect of the damage caused by her son\u2019s death."], "id": "8a479626-ea44-4804-8b1c-5a2543d128a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government stated that the State authorities had complied with their under Article 2 as they had put in place a legal framework governing the transportation of dangerous goods, the effectiveness of which the applicant had not challenged, and they had also carried out an effective investigation into the accident in a prompt manner. The Government emphasised in that connection that the obligation to conduct an effective investigation was not an obligation as to results but as to means, and that, in any event, the civil proceedings in respect of the applicant\u2019s claims were still ongoing."], "id": "f3d6c0b5-6ece-4da0-886d-e0e8069e9772", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government further maintained that in the present case, unlike in the case of Osman v. the United Kingdom (28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VIII), the State authorities had not known of the existence of a real and imminent risk to the life of the applicants\u2019 relatives. Moreover, D. had not been acting in his official capacity. Although the internal investigation had established \u201csome flagrant violations and shortcomings in the organisation of the working processes of the relevant police department\u201d, the national courts had not established any causal link between these shortcomings and D.\u2019s actions. Therefore, the Government considered that in the present case the State had complied with its under Article 2 of the Convention."], "id": "7d5aafc4-1dce-4391-95fe-f48c13798188", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government argued that the Chamber\u2019s conclusion that \u201call situations of unintentional death\u201d came within the scope of Article 2 had given rise to an unprecedented extension of the inherent in that provision. In their submission, the Chamber\u2019s reasoning departed from the position adopted by the Court in recent cases on the subject, such as Mastromatteo v. Italy ([GC], no. 37703/99, ECHR 2002-VIII), and was not supported by the cases to which it had referred, in particular Osman v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII) and Calvelli and Ciglio (cited above), in which no violation of Article 2 had been found."], "id": "05b93831-e6b9-4634-a44d-667322854e5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant argued that, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, the under Article 2 of the Convention imposed a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person and backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. She submitted that this could also imply in certain circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (she referred to Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, \u00a7 115, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VIII, cited in Kontrov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, \u00a7 49, 31 May 2007). She concluded that in the present case the Italian State had not taken the necessary measures to protect her life and that of her son."], "id": "028bac41-289b-4714-ba05-613bbe062d50", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government accepted that the positive obligation to protect patients from the danger they might represent to themselves or to third parties applied both in the case of patients who were hospitalised voluntarily and those hospitalised involuntarily. However, they submitted that in the case of patients who were hospitalised following a judicial order, and therefore involuntarily, such assumed a special intensity and nature."], "id": "57e89442-6a30-40ed-a43c-f8c34f0c880f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant complained that the State authorities had not discharged their under Article 2, as they had failed to effectively and diligently determine the criminal liability arising in connection with the circumstances in which his son had been killed. As a result of the inordinate length of the judicial proceedings and the authorities\u2019 inability to conduct the proceedings properly, the criminal liability of I.K. had become time-barred and the perpetrators of the crime had gone essentially unpunished."], "id": "0b7318d0-8913-4bca-9da7-383505d6e2c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicant believed that the time wasted on 7 July 2009, immediately after she had alerted the district prosecutor to her son\u2019s detention in the hospital, had resulted in a missed opportunity to immediately confront the captors and obtain the release of Mr Apti Zaynalov. The Government admitted that the reaction of the prosecutor\u2019s office had been inadequate and contributed to the criminals\u2019 escape (see paragraph 84 above). The Court will consider this allegation as a complaint that the State had failed in its to protect Mr Apti Zaynalov\u2019s life."], "id": "2c6a8ae8-bcc1-46ef-a3be-86b8fa2099dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["164. The Government claimed that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants' relatives met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators. They argued that the decisions to adjourn and to reopen the investigation signified that the authorities had continued to take steps in order to resolve the crime. They also noted that the investigation had been opened on the same day as the kidnapping, and that on that day a large number of witnesses had been questioned, that the prosecutor's office had forwarded numerous information requests to various bodies, trying to check the applicants' version of the events. The absence of results could not be treated as a breach of the under Article 2, which entailed an obligation to use particular means."], "id": "7da0a4bd-bfdb-414b-b1e8-0bbad7dd3b58", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government submitted that the \u201cTRNC\u201d authorities had been fully justified under paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention in taking all necessary precautions and using necessary force in order to avert the danger and protect the lives of others. An assembly of 150 persons throwing missiles at a patrol of soldiers to the point that they risked serious injury had been considered a \u201criot\u201d by the Commission in the case of Stewart v. the United Kingdom (no. 10044/82, Commission decision of 10 July 1984, Decisions and Reports (DR) 39, p. 162). In that case, the Commission had also pointed out that the authorities had no obligation to retreat when quelling a riot. In any event, as no death had occurred in the present case, there could be no question of a violation of Article 2. The arising from this provision entailed protecting \u201cby law\u201d the right to life, and there was no allegation that the laws of the \u201cTRNC\u201d failed to afford such protection."], "id": "90e71bef-76f7-4e1b-9f79-54ce8e8c634c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government drew attention to the minimum threshold bringing Article 3 of the Convention into play, which in their view had not been reached, and to the limited extent of the State\u2019s under that Article. They pointed out that there had been no intention to deny the applicants access to safe medicinal products. The experimental product that they wished to use had not been authorised in any country, and had not undergone clinical trials. Its safety and efficacy had not been established. Not being given the opportunity to use it could not therefore be regarded as inhuman treatment. On the contrary, its use, which would have amounted to a medical experiment, might have resulted in a breach of Article 3."], "id": "9ad1c906-1402-4a5d-914f-e7cdb5b268b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government pointed out that Bulgarian law made provision for \u201ccompassionate use\u201d of unauthorised medicinal products. However, they emphasised that such products carried serious risks, which required them to be carefully regulated. The State was entitled to refuse permission for the use of an unauthorised medicinal product, and this did not breach the right to life, but safeguarded it. The under Article 2 of the Convention had limits, and could not exceed what was reasonable. The applicants had been given conventional medical treatment. There was no further duty to allow them to use a product which was not authorised in any member State of the European Union or had not been subjected to a clinical trial. A State could not be obliged to make available all possible drugs, let alone products whose contents and origins were not clearly known, and which had not been authorised in developed countries with strong health care systems. The product at issue did not comply with the requirements for \u201ccompassionate use\u201d under Article 83 of Regulation (EC) no. 726/2004. If its producer met the applicable requirements, the authorities could envisage allowing its use in the future. In that sense, the applicants were not left with no hope at all."], "id": "a48b6a0c-347a-4af6-9e96-52132ee13259", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants noted that they were seeking damages arising from death and grievous bodily harm which were not the result of normal torts such as a traffic accidents but which were a result of the Government\u2019s failure to fulfil their under the Convention, namely to safeguard a person\u2019s life, to investigate properly any death or harm for which the State was responsible, to provide information about any risk to life or health, and to identify the persons responsible for the violation. It followed that they were also entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage."], "id": "e5c9a256-2e56-4aa0-a897-39344a6c9072", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["188. The applicants asserted that the authorities had failed to discharge their stemming from Article 2 as they had not secured the investigation's independence and had failed to investigate the allegations against the Chief Public Prosecutor and other high-ranking officials with whom Mr Kolev had been in conflict, despite serious indications that this was the most obvious line of inquiry to be pursued. This had been the result of structural deficiencies of the Bulgarian legal system, which did not provide for the possibility of conducting a meaningful criminal investigation against the Chief Public Prosecutor or against other persons whom he sought to protect. Against this background, the steps undertaken in the investigation, although necessary, were clearly not sufficient in a case of contract killing."], "id": "01981352-a3b3-4d5a-a030-6249104ea7c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government asserted that that remedy had been effective and adequate in terms of the under Article 2 of the Convention (see Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above) and that the applicant had, through her own inaction or negligence, deprived herself of a remedy which had nonetheless been available to her for four years from the time when the damage had occurred, and in respect of which she could have received advice from her lawyers. In Calvelli and Ciglio there had been no doubt that Article 2 of the Convention was applicable to a newborn child. In the instant case, in which the applicability of Article 2 was questionable, there were therefore additional reasons for considering that the possibility of using civil or administrative remedies to establish liability was sufficient. In the Government\u2019s submission, such an action for damages could have been based on the taking of the life of the child the applicant was carrying, since the relevant case-law of the administrative courts did not appear thus far to preclude the possibility of affording embryos protection under Article 2 of the Convention (Conseil d\u2019Etat (full court), Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration nationale des associations familiales catholiques et autres, judgment of 21 December 1990 \u2013 see paragraph 47 above). At the material time, in any event, the issue had not been clearly resolved by the Conseil d\u2019Etat."], "id": "f8caba14-7dfb-4968-aa25-2d44162def0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant made a twofold complaint under Article 2 of the Convention. He contended firstly that the State had failed to comply with its in order to prevent the death of his son whilst the latter had been in prison. Secondly, the applicant argued that the State had failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the circumstances of his son\u2019s death and that the culprits had remained unpunished."], "id": "8bd6a656-8910-457a-b944-3d1097541ac1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant further maintained that there were no effective remedies that he was required to exhaust in order to challenge the GPO of Ukraine's decision to extradite him to Kazakhstan. In particular, the applicant stated that he had complained on various occasions to the domestic courts about the unreasonable length of his detention and its unlawfulness, the unlawful inactivity of the Governor of Kharkiv SIZO no. 27, who refused to release him, and about the decision itself. The proceedings concerning these complaints and their unfavourable outcome showed that there were no domestic remedies available to the applicant."], "id": "3f352a17-9ec0-4a51-9eac-163754d7aa4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant complained under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that there was a real risk that he would be liable to capital punishment in the event of his to Kazakhstan. He alleged that the assurances given by the Government of Kazakhstan were insufficient as the moratorium imposed on capital punishment could be lifted at any time and the charges against him could be reclassified. This provision reads as follows:"], "id": "5d001ce6-f065-4e04-acc3-5e1bffe776e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicants alleged that they had not had a fair hearing in the criminal court that had ruled on the request for their , in that they had been unable to gain access to all the material in the case file or to put forward their arguments concerning the characterisation of the offences they were alleged to have committed."], "id": "09de5602-6052-437b-9687-e2fcd9b93d15", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant submitted that he was being sought on the capital charge of murder by the Chinese authorities. The Russian authorities had initially envisaged extraditing him to China but the proceedings had eventually been abandoned. An attempt to remove him to China through administrative removal proceedings had proved unsuccessful because the domestic courts had refused to order his administrative removal. The Russian authorities had then initiated exclusion proceedings, which were purely administrative in nature and did not require approval by a court. Although an exclusion order could be challenged in court, the judicial review proceedings did not have suspensive effect. The domestic authorities relied explicitly on the charges brought against him in China as grounds for finding that he presented a security risk justifying an exclusion order."], "id": "b5195581-7a65-450d-aed6-e8f213c3151b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government contested that argument. They stated that in the event of the applicant's to Kazakhstan he would not be liable to capital punishment as the indictment in his case related to a criminal act under Article 96(1) of the Criminal Code and involved the offence of murder, not punishable by capital punishment. Furthermore, they stated that there had been a moratorium on capital punishment in Kazakhstan, that capital punishment was applied only in exceptional circumstances and that this sentence could not be enforced, even if one assumed that such a sentence would be passed in relation to the applicant."], "id": "812a984a-2141-4e68-ae70-2c79ac7eba68", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government argued that Article 3 was not to be construed in a way that would engage the extraditing State\u2019s responsibility indefinitely. The State\u2019s responsibility should end once the extradited person had been found guilty and had started to serve his or her sentence. It would be straining the language of Article 3 intolerably to hold that by surrendering a suspect in accordance with the terms of an agreement, the extraditing State had subjected him to the treatment or punishment he received after his conviction and sentence in the receiving State. Such a decision would interfere with rights under international treaties and conflict with the norms of international judicial process, as it would entail adjudication on the internal affairs of foreign States that were not Parties to the Convention. There was a risk that it would cause serious harm to the Contracting State by restricting its ability to cooperate in the fight against international terrorism and organised crime."], "id": "6fb5ecc9-47ff-4f04-a0f1-6ed643db48a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicants further submitted that the Bochum prosecution authorities had not informed them of their various procedural rights in their capacity as next of kin of the deceased in accordance with Article 406h of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Relevant domestic and international law and practice above) which, as a consequence, had not been effective in practice. Moreover, they had not been able to exercise their right to join the public prosecutor as plaintiffs in the proceedings against U. since the prosecution authorities had omitted to notify counsel for the second applicant mandated in Germany of the termination of the investigations and of their decision to charge U. by means of an application for a penal order. Insofar as German criminal procedure did not impose an express obligation on the prosecution authorities to keep potential joint plaintiffs to the prosecution informed on the state of progress of pending (preliminary) criminal proceedings, the applicants argued that domestic law failed to give full effect to the procedural guarantees inherent in Article 2 \u00a7 1. They contended in this connection that the German authorities had concealed their intention to prosecute and convict U. in Germany with a view to preventing his to the United Kingdom where he would have expected a heavier sentence for having caused their father\u2019s death through negligence."], "id": "1f222742-ac4b-4043-abb2-2d00f50a9d9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s was ordered by the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision of 1 November 2010, which was final and had acquired the force of res judicata. In their view, Article 499 \u00a7 1 of the CCP provided for the applicant\u2019s release if the Ministry of Justice did not order the applicant\u2019s extradition within a month from the date of the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision, despite the fact that the applicant\u2019s appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. The Government further clarified that domestic law did not envisage the continuation of detention in the event of a remittal of a case by the Supreme Court. Consequently, in so far as the law did not stipulate the continuation of a defendant\u2019s arrest, the legal interpretation was to be in favour of the defendant, which would result in his subsequent release. In the present case, had the authorities released the applicant, the Government would have been in breach of the Extradition Treaty provisions. If the authorities had not extradited the applicant by 1 December 2010, they would have had to release him in accordance with Article 499 \u00a7 1 of the CCP. Consequently, the Minister of Justice was faced with an objective impediment to compliance with the Court\u2019s interim measure."], "id": "48e9e254-fca2-469f-9348-2092db86b4d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["109. The Government recalled that the High Court had accepted that, upon to Florida, there was a realistic possibility of prosecution under the felony murder rule. It was not the Government\u2019s position that the case against the applicant was one of premeditated killing. It had been accepted by the Government in the High Court proceedings that the case against the first applicant might be put on the basis that he killed Mr Hayes in the course of the robbery without the prosecution having to prove that the first applicant intended to kill Mr Hayes. It was not accepted by the Government that the fact that it was open to the prosecution to put the case on this basis demonstrated that the killing was accidental or that the first applicant did not intend to kill Mr Hayes."], "id": "152c8e95-8cbd-4594-813b-a49b7b12bde5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["437. The applicants' representatives alleged that the extradited applicants learned of their before being driven to the airport. As the extradition orders of 2 October 2002 had not been served on them, they had been deprived of the possibility of bringing their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention before a court. In addition, the extradition orders were not served on the applicants' lawyers before the domestic courts. The latter learned by chance on 3 October 2002 that the extraditions were imminent."], "id": "e7013796-66ef-4b8c-ae6a-aae23850135a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["126. The Government disagreed with the applicant. They submitted that the detention and of the applicant had been lawful and not arbitrary, as they were authorised to detain him according to the 1993 Minsk Convention and the relevant provisions of the domestic law, including section 11 \u00a7 5 of the Militia Act (see paragraphs 63 - 66 above). They repeated their arguments in the case of Soldatenko v. Ukraine (\u00a7\u00a7 104 \u2013 106, cited above). They further alleged that Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (c) and (e) were not applicable to the present case as the applicant's detention had from the outset related to his extradition. The Government stated that the applicant remained in detention due to the Court's decision to suspend extradition and due to its examination of the case. Thus, they could not release the applicant and they could not extradite him."], "id": "8ef7fea0-b11f-4282-9f71-f320eaff9af7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicants\u2019 representatives stated that, despite requests to the authorities, they had been unable to contact their clients following the latter\u2019s . The applicants had consequently been deprived of the possibility of having further inquiries made in order to obtain evidence in support of their allegations under Article 3. The applicants\u2019 extradition had thus proved a real obstacle to the effective presentation of their application to the Court."], "id": "352840f8-05a0-4282-8214-f8f7c629956d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["329. The applicants' representatives also contended that the assurances provided by the Russian authorities to their Georgian counterparts had no value and that the undertakings given to the Court by the Russian Government were no more than signed pieces of paper. They pointed out that the CPT itself had stated in one of its statements that Russia was failing to respect the undertakings that it had signed (see paragraph 267 (e) above). In their opinion, the Georgian authorities had not ensured that the assurances provided had any real value. On the contrary, they had actively cooperated with their Russian counterparts to facilitate the extraditions. Thus, they had sent photographs of the applicants which were subsequently used to support the request, and had kept the Russian authorities informed of changes in the applicants' identities. Assisted in this way, the Russian authorities had \u201cupdated\u201d their extradition request, altering the applicants' names to reflect the changes in identification. The Georgian authorities had not taken the measure of either the political nature of the accusations made against the applicants by the Russian authorities or the latter's clear bias in the disputed extradition proceedings. They had not required any prima facie evidence of those accusations. The letters referred to by the Georgian Government (see paragraph 324 above) did not contain a guarantee that the applicants would not be sentenced to death, but simply an assurance that a moratorium was in force in Russia."], "id": "48212314-9a4e-4c40-8edf-106c09c20fc1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicant contested this view. In particular, he submitted that he had complained about his unlawful detention and to the domestic courts. The applicant further stressed that the GPO of Ukraine decision of 27 September 2004 to extradite him had constituted a final decision for the purpose of exhaustion of domestic remedies. It was not amenable to appeal as to its lawfulness, as the domestic courts were allowed to review only the existence of the formal grounds for extradition and not the compliance of a decision to extradite with the obligations set out in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In that respect, he referred in particular to Resolution no. 8 of the Plenary Supreme Court of 8 October 2004 on issues related to the application of legislation governing the procedure and length of detention (arrest) of persons awaiting extradition, which summarised the domestic courts' practice on extradition issues."], "id": "51344773-88bd-4a63-aee9-e24889fd87fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government submitted that it was not the authorities\u2019 intention to disregard the obligations arising from the Court\u2019s Rule 39 interim measure. Having regard to the highly complex nature of the applicant\u2019s case, the societal risk he posed and the obligations stemming from other international commitments, the authorities attempted to find the best solution. The Government requested the Court, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, to be flexible in the assessment of the facts which prompted the applicant\u2019s ."], "id": "6700d878-1e31-432e-9ea6-61dc45e8b3a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["427. The Government do not dispute that the applicants' lawyers were denied access to the files. Having regard to the argument relied on in this connection by Mr Mskhiladze (see paragraph 177 above), the Court has no doubt that the employees of the Procurator-General's Office themselves needed to carry out a detailed examination of the documents submitted by the Russian authorities. However, this ground does not in itself justify refusing the applicants all access to documents which had direct repercussions on their rights and on which the exercise of the remedy set out in Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention was contingent. The Court does not accept the Government's argument that, since the right not to be extradited is not guaranteed by the Convention, it was not the task of the Procurator-General's Office to grant the applicants access to the case files concerning their extradition (see paragraph 395 above). It points out that, while Article 5 \u00a7 2 does not require that the case file in its entirety be made available to the person concerned, the latter must nonetheless receive sufficient information so as to be able to apply to a court for the review of lawfulness provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 4 (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley, cited above, \u00a7 40; and \u010conka, cited above, \u00a7 50)."], "id": "aed72ca5-766b-4e33-a5cd-a0fca2cec337", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["150. The Government disagreed, stating that such an effective procedure existed in the Ukrainian domestic law. They referred to Articles 106, 165-2 and 382 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which specified the procedure for examining appeals against preventive measures. They further maintained that on 8 October 2004 the Plenary Supreme Court had adopted a practice recommendation concerning review of complaints concerning matters."], "id": "536a1d4a-d42c-444b-bd96-695039a1735c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["388. The applicants' representatives claimed that their clients had never officially been detained with a view to their and that their placement in custody on 6 and 7 August 2002 was a disguised form of detention for the purpose of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. Their transfer on those dates from the civilian hospital to prison (the prison infirmary in the case of Mr Margoshvili) was the result of a visit to Georgia on 6 August 2002 by the Russian Procurator-General, who had brought with him the request for the applicants' extradition (see paragraphs 58-60 and 62 above). Quite apart from the requirement of promptness set out in Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the applicants were not informed either during their transfer to prison or subsequently that they had been arrested with a view to being handed over to the Russian authorities. The applicants had thus been deprived of the possibility of challenging the lawfulness of that detention. Submitting the same complaints, Mr Khadjiev relied on Article 5 \u00a7 2 and Article 6 \u00a7 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 235 above). He also complained that he had been questioned without an interpreter at the civilian hospital and that he had not been informed of the accusations against him when he was brought before a judge on 6 August 2002 (see paragraph 58 above)."], "id": "4264f606-a806-46ca-94a1-89177eb887af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicants responded that even if there had been no official request for their , the administrative actions against them had been taken on the strength of information and requests received from the Chinese authorities. Moreover, the Government\u2019s allegation that the orders for their removal from Turkey did not necessarily entail their return to China was not entirely accurate; they had been pressured constantly to purchase tickets back to China by the State authorities. In any event, whether or not they were sent there directly, they would most likely end up in China once deported."], "id": "cb404abc-0279-42a8-91cb-02a171742530", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant maintained that, on the basis of the documents submitted by the United States authorities, there existed the risk that a capital sentence would be imposed on him. He argued that this consideration was entirely overlooked by the District Court and the Court of Appeal which authorised his . This was further reinforced by the Supreme Court\u2019s decision of 26 November 2010. He also questioned the quality of the assurances given by the United States authorities by way of diplomatic notes: the only responsible authority for giving such assurances should have been the Attorney General. The applicant invited the Court to disregard the New York Court of Appeals\u2019 judgments since the crimes with which he was charged were federal crimes and that case-law did not therefore apply. The applicant\u2019s lawyer asked the Court to disregard the hearing record of 19 July 2011 as having been extracted under violence and ill-treatment (see paragraph 41 above)."], "id": "6b00a8b8-84fd-4d75-840e-78743350e34f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State\u2019s general duty under its Article 1 to \u201csecure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention\u201d, that Germany did not provide for an adequate or effective official investigation into their father\u2019s death. They further complained that the German authorities had refused to allow U.\u2019s to face trial in the United Kingdom. They relied in this respect on the procedural obligations inherent in Article 2 \u00a7 1 which provides in its first sentence:"], "id": "f6ef2a23-7f7f-4be5-ada7-f9be99fdc32b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["127. The applicant maintained that the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 did not dispense the State from fulfilling its international obligations regarding , since such a ground for detention was clearly provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 1(f), which only required the detention to be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by the domestic legislation. The applicant submitted that the Minsk Convention did not provide for such a procedure. He further stated that his detention, from the moment of his apprehension on 23 August 2004 until the present date, lacked a legal basis, had been groundless and in breach of the procedure prescribed by law. He stated that his detention until 16 September 2004 should fall within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1(c) of the Convention and after that date \u2013 it should be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 1(f)."], "id": "0b3fb4de-bec5-48d2-b407-8ecbfb96ea66", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["155. The applicant initially complained under Article 5 \u00a7 5 that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation as regards the violation of his rights under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1(c), (e) and (f), 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention. In particular, he mentioned that domestic law made no provision for compensation for unlawful detention pending . Article 5 \u00a7 5 provides:"], "id": "a47475af-0b68-45b3-a217-b21c29530239", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government relied on the reasoning of the House of Lords in Wellington and the Canadian Supreme Court in Burns and Ferris (see paragraphs 34\u201342 and 44 and 45 above). On the basis of those cases, the Government submitted that, in the context, a distinction had to be drawn between torture and other forms of ill-treatment. A real risk of torture in the receiving State should be an absolute bar on extradition. However, for all other forms of ill-treatment, it was legitimate to consider the policy objectives pursued by extradition in determining whether the ill-treatment reached the minimum level of severity required by Article 3. This was the appropriate means of resolving the tension that existed between the Court\u2019s judgments in Soering, on the one hand, and Chahal and Saadi, on the other. Article 3 could not be interpreted as meaning that any form of ill-treatment in a non-Contracting State would be sufficient to prevent extradition."], "id": "424f1077-4dc5-4aa6-b027-b312a3a9f354", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government, the applicant and the third party further referred to their arguments with respect to the Government's objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In particular, the third party stated that there were no effective remedies to complain about contrary to Articles 2, 3 or 6 of the Convention. They maintained that the law at issue was not sufficiently accessible and precise, failing to avoid risks of arbitrariness. They referred in contrast to the experiences of Poland and the United Kingdom in this area, where the courts, as opposed to the prosecutor's office rule, on requests for extradition. They stated that the courts in the United Kingdom, acting under the Extradition Act 2003, assessed the following issues in assessing the requests for extradition: (a) the rule against double jeopardy; (b) extraneous considerations (whether a person was in fact extradited for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or whether if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions); (c) passage of time; (d) the person's age; (e) hostage-taking considerations; (f) specialty; (g) the person's earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from different territories; (h) human rights considerations arising from the 1998 Human Rights Act."], "id": "3c31bb6e-8703-4742-8942-0a841b46e599", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["154. The applicant also challenged the remedy in terms of its . First of all, the letters sent out by the authorities notifying the issuance of the deportation and detention orders made no mention of the remedies available to challenge their lawfulness. Secondly, although it was possible in view of recent amendments to the relevant domestic legislation to apply for legal aid in deportation and detention cases, this was, as in asylum cases, rarely granted (see paragraphs 72, 76 and 124 above)."], "id": "a64eb1c4-1489-437f-93ed-780f40880f77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant submitted that the RUC investigation into her husband's death was, inter alia, hopelessly inadequate as it failed entirely to explore the possibility of collusion and as the investigating officers were hierarchically linked to those against whom allegations were made. The inquest was also strictly limited in its scope, involving no key witnesses or any persons suspected of involvement in the death and could not provide an effective part of the process of identifying or prosecuting the perpetrators of any unlawful act. As regards the first two Stevens inquiries, neither was concerned with investigating the murder of Patrick Finucane and neither fulfilled the requirements of independence, promptness, public scrutiny or to the next-of-kin. The inquiry teams never, for example, made contact with the applicant's family, her husband's firm of solicitors or any of his clients who had reported death threats."], "id": "8bf80189-d73d-4403-b097-11f81611f0ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant argued that he had raised the arguments relating to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention before the national authorities, namely in the temporary asylum procedure (see paragraphs 15 and 22 above). He argued that there was no statutory provision specifically requiring that a pending application for temporary asylum should have automatic suspensive effect vis-\u00e0-vis a removal order. The applicant disagreed with the Government, arguing that section 10 of the Refugees Act only concerned a ban on removing a foreigner pending an application for refugee status. The bailiff service in charge of enforcing the removal order had not issued a decision suspending such enforcement, for instance on account of the pending application for temporary asylum. Moreover, the applicant had had difficulties in communicating with his lawyer, which had adversely affected the of the temporary asylum procedure."], "id": "8e280854-f51b-41d7-b54f-f101c25b7d69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["289. The Government pointed out, first of all, that the relevant applicants had not adduced any documents proving their title to the houses, or any detailed description of the property allegedly lost by them. The Government argued that it was incumbent on the relevant applicants to have their property rights confirmed under domestic law by the competent national authorities. They further argued that the alleged interference with the relevant applicants\u2019 rights secured by Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been lawful, as the counter-terrorism operation in the Chechen Republic, in the context of which the strikes of 19 October 1999 had been executed, had been launched and carried out on the basis of Presidential Decrees nos. 2137, 2166 and 2155c of 30 November and 9 December 1994 and 23 September 1999 respectively, Governmental Decree no. 1360 of 9 December 1994, and the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998. In the Government\u2019s submission, the aforementioned decrees, except for certain provisions, had been found compatible with the Russian Constitution by the Russian Constitutional Court. The Government insisted that all the aforementioned legal instruments had met the requirements of foreseeability and ."], "id": "a9757a0b-14c9-43f5-bef8-b88782aeb5eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["402. The applicants submitted that the deliberate destruction of their homes, property and possessions and the resulting arbitrary from their homes and village represented a serious violation of their right to respect for private and family life and of their right to respect for their home, as well as a serious interference with their way of life. They further claimed that the destruction of their homes and family life was part of a practice and that, therefore, they had suffered an aggravated violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "bc67a769-4b74-45c6-92fd-173942533aa7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicants complained that their to Syria, if carried out, would be in breach of their right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, as provided in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. They also stressed that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of these violations, in breach of Article 13. The provisions read as follows, in so far as relevant:"], "id": "8f01fc17-78c8-4ba2-9e71-f0e99840ba28", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government argued that the applicant's claim appeared to be connected with the parts of the application relating to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, which had already been declared inadmissible by the Court. As the applicant's had not yet taken place, the Government further found it difficult to understand how damage resulting from a potential violation of Article 2 or 3 could already have been sustained by the applicant."], "id": "1fda5d3a-e271-4fe9-98f0-62e31d4dd0cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["129. The applicant did not claim that the general circumstances obtaining in Iran would on their own preclude his return to that country. Moreover, the Court notes that a general situation of violence will not normally in itself entail a violation of Article 3 in the event of an to the country in question (see H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, \u00a741, Reports 1997\u2011III). However, the Court has never excluded the possibility that the general situation of violence in a country of destination may be of a sufficient level of intensity as to entail that any removal to it would necessarily breach Article 3 of the Convention. Nevertheless, the Court would adopt such an approach only in the most extreme cases of general violence, where there is a real risk of ill-treatment simply because the individual concerned will be exposed to such violence in that country (see Sufi and Elmi, cited above, \u00a7 218 and NA. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, \u00a7 115)."], "id": "aa2b9fa7-0e0b-43d7-9525-18a344e09d55", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicants argued that the question of their to Syria had been considered and decided primarily within the framework of the administrative proceedings, in which they had submitted extensive documents and arguments pointing to the danger of a violation of Articles 2 and 3 in the event of their return. The judicial decisions of 15 and 16 April and 27 May 2014 had failed to take these arguments into account and had made no effort to dispel them. In the April hearings in the District Court, they had raised their fears of returning to Syria. During the hearing of 27 May 2014, they had submitted extensive and detailed information about the conflict there and the danger they would face if returned. These documents included UNHCR and FMS documents, other relevant information and their own detailed statements. The applicants stressed that L.M. was a stateless Palestinian and was therefore in particular need of international protection, while A.A. and M.A. were from Aleppo, where fierce fighting had been raging since 2013. A.M specified in addition that several of his family members had been killed by the opposition forces. Following the decision taken at that hearing, the decisions to expel them had entered into force."], "id": "7c571523-e8f5-404c-b462-2aa2402b64a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["143. The Government disputed the allegations. They were of the opinion that since the order remained valid, but was only temporarily stopped through the application of interim measures by the Court, the authorities still had lawful grounds to detain the applicants pending expulsion. They pointed out that the applicants\u2019 illegal residence in Russia was weighted towards maintaining detention as a measure to ensure compliance with the domestic court order. They also pointed out that the relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences did not allow for another measure of restraint, and that there were therefore no grounds for the applicants\u2019 release while the expulsion order remained in force (see paragraph 62 above). The Government were of the opinion that while no time-limit for the applicants\u2019 detention had been stipulated, the maximum term of enforcement of an administrative penalty was two years. The applicants were able to seek a supervisory review of the expulsion and ensuing detention orders if there was a significant change in their circumstances."], "id": "57909761-18af-411c-b44c-f8f3fc0bb33c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["129. The applicants listed the following elements as the basis for their complaint under this head: verbal abuse and physical violence by the detention centre staff, limited privacy, limited access to an interpreter and legal aid, lack of opportunity to take walks and have outdoor exercise, and a lack of medical treatment. They referred to their complaints and the affidavits made by themselves and to their representatives. They believed that the cumulative effect of these factors amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. They also referred to the Courts\u2019 previous findings of a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of confinement in detention centres for foreign nationals pending and argued that conditions there, as a rule, were substandard to the requirements of the Convention."], "id": "b363d17c-a6c1-4808-829c-aea881d98cbb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government submitted that Article 2 of the Convention did not apply in the circumstances of the present case. They maintained that the applicants were no longer victims of a violation of the aforementioned provision following the redress provided by the authorities, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. They further noted that in the case of D. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 30240/96, 2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011III), which concerned the attempted of an AIDS sufferer to St. Kitts where he would have been deprived of the medical treatment he was receiving in the United Kingdom, the Court had examined the complaints of the applicant under Article 3 of the Convention rather than Article 2."], "id": "18759be7-7dd3-4d4a-aaab-6ef1a32bf432", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["196. The Government submitted that the present case had to be distinguished from the cases cited by the applicants. Firstly, the applicants had never been removed since they had themselves decided to return to Serbia. Secondly, the decision taken by the authorities following their asylum application, even if it only concerned the determination of the responsible State and accordingly ruled out any examination of the application on the merits, aimed to ensure their transfer to France, a country in which they had not presented an arguable claim that they would be victims of treatment contrary to Article 3 and not be provided with the conditions necessary to have their fears examined. Where foreign nationals did not show that their return would have potentially irreversible consequences, it was not imperative, in order for a remedy to be effective, that it should have automatic suspensive effect but only that they should have an effective possibility of challenging the order and of having the relevant issues examined with sufficient procedural safeguards and thoroughness by an appropriate domestic forum offering adequate guarantees of independence and impartiality (see De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, \u00a7 83, ECHR 2012), which was not disputed by the applicants in the present case."], "id": "34a3677e-d6bb-42b7-9cd9-ded943aca566", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["376. The applicant further complained under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the destruction of his and the Orhans' home, property and possessions represented a serious violation of their right to respect for their private and family lives and their homes and of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. He also argued that his from his home, village and community represented a separate and serious violation of his rights under these provisions. The Government disputed that there was any such military operation in Deveboyu as alleged or at all."], "id": "28782163-57b6-4b65-895f-3ceabc60d2a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government further argued that during the administrative proceedings, notably during the court hearings, the applicants had only provided general and summary information about the reasons allegedly preventing their return. The documents to support the claims had only been submitted for the hearing of 27 May 2014 in the Kaluga Regional Court, and had either been outdated, such as \u201cUpdate I\u201d of December 2012 relating to the UNHCR document \u201cInternational Protection Considerations with regard to people fleeing the Syrian Arab Republic\u201d, or so general in nature that they had failed to corroborate the individual circumstances of each applicant. By way of example, the Government submitted copies of two court decisions where Syrian nationals had been able to obtain reversal of the expulsion orders (see paragraphs 71 and 73 above)."], "id": "f8662cd1-faac-47a8-a859-7c3cb43bf4fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["144. The applicants stressed that the court decisions did not stipulate the maximum length of this detention. Other than the requirement that the order be executed within the two-year time-limit, the Code of Administrative Offences did not contain any provisions governing the length of detention pending expulsion, and therefore lacked legal certainty. Moreover, there was a conflict between the position of the Federal Bailiff Service, which was of the opinion that the expulsion could not be carried out and sought to amend the relevant court decisions, and the court decisions confirming the validity of the measure ordered (see paragraphs 15-17 above). Lastly, the applicants claimed that such a long stay in detention significantly exceeded the maximum custodial sentence permissible under the Code of Administrative Offences, and that their detention pending expulsion was of a punitive rather than preventive nature."], "id": "a99e28c4-7ba2-48de-9df4-f1fe5b349f17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants alleged a breached of Article 3 of the Convention on account of their forced from their village. They had mentally suffered as a result of the actions of the members of security forces, who had burned their family houses. Under Article 8 of the Convention, they complained about the destruction of their property. Furthermore, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they maintained that the destruction of their houses and their forced eviction from the village had violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The provisions of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention are set out above at paragraph 59, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "ead7a42f-dc31-4818-8bf9-8d6f4679dfb5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government submitted that the circumstances of Y.C.\u2019s death had also been the subject of ensuing administrative proceedings, namely to examine the question of whether Y.C.\u2019s death had been caused by a lack of adequate medical treatment while in detention pending . The IAP had based its decision on findings which had relied on the results of two oral hearings during which the police officers concerned, a further medical expert and the detainee sharing a cell with Y.C. had been questioned extensively about the course of Y.C.\u2019s hunger strike and his medical treatment. Moreover, the Human Rights Advisory Board had carried out an independent review of the police investigation and published the results in a report (see paragraph 27 above)."], "id": "67cbb04d-3775-4563-99ef-3460d69244c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["240. The applicant, relying on the \u010conka judgment (cited above), submitted that he had been the subject of a collective operation. In his view, the intention of the authorities had been to deal with a group of individuals, namely Syrian Kurds, collectively. This had been evident from all the circumstances of the case. The relevant meetings that had been held by the authorities concerned the handling of the situation of Syrian Kurdish failed asylum-seekers. The Minister of the Interior had given instructions to proceed with the deportation of Syrian Kurdish failed asylum-seekers with the exception of those who were Ajanib or Mahtoumeen. The police had been instructed to use discreet methods of arrest and execute the deportation orders starting with the leaders of the protest. As a result, the police had carried out an operation on 11 June 2010 against the whole group of protesters, including women and children. According to the Government only those whose asylum applications had still been pending were released. The rest had been kept in detention pending deportation. However, in reality, the asylum procedure had not been completed for the applicant as well as a number of other protesters whom the Government had intended to deport. If it had not been for the application of Rule 39 by the Court they would all have been deported. In fact, some of the protesters had been released by the authorities following the application of Rule 39 and had had their deportation orders annulled. The applicant also noted that the authorities had issued deportation orders against stateless Syrian Kurds and that some of the asylum-seekers concerned had had their asylum applications dismissed purely on procedural grounds without having benefited from an examination of the merits of their claim."], "id": "46a6cd44-2651-450e-8363-5671f12592a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government further submitted that the domestic courts had found that the exclusion order against the applicant had been issued by a competent authority in accordance with the procedure and had been based on sufficient reasons. Given that the applicant was sought by the Chinese authorities on suspicion of murder, had been fined several times in Russia for driving offences and had lived in Russia unlawfully with an unlawfully issued passport, there had been sufficient reasons to find that he represented a real threat to public order and security."], "id": "63bfa900-4276-4579-9ecc-230f26af3012", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["127. The applicant maintained that the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 did not dispense the State from fulfilling its international obligations regarding extradition, since such a ground for detention was clearly provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 1(f), which only required the detention to be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by the domestic legislation. The applicant submitted that the Minsk Convention did not provide for such a procedure. He further stated that his detention, from the moment of his apprehension on 23 August 2004 until the present date, lacked a legal basis, had been groundless and in breach of the procedure . He stated that his detention until 16 September 2004 should fall within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1(c) of the Convention and after that date \u2013 it should be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 1(f)."], "id": "6740974a-416b-4cc8-bbdb-7255680ac5da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicant submitted, in particular, that the authorities who arrested his son had not acted in accordance with a procedure . He further argued that the authorities' failure to create, maintain and produce adequate documentation in relation to his son's arrest amounted to a violation of the lawfulness requirement inherent in Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "1a852e95-3c4f-4b27-8a41-fde06bc26a3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government further denied that the domestic law in any way failed to comply with the requirements of Article 2. They argued that the procedural aspect of this provision was satisfied by the preliminary investigation and the criminal proceedings. The authorities had taken the steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident. Witness testimonies were taken, autopsies, deciphering of the police radio communications and examining of forensic evidences were secured. These assured the fundamental purpose of the procedural obligation, in that they provided for effective accountability for the use of lethal force by State agents. They submitted that the available procedures provided the necessary effectiveness, independence, and transparency by way of ."], "id": "b50e3200-4bc6-4311-b8a9-020ce54776b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "2", "masked_sentences": ["289. The Government pointed out, first of all, that the relevant applicants had not adduced any documents proving their title to the houses, or any detailed description of the property allegedly lost by them. The Government argued that it was incumbent on the relevant applicants to have their property rights confirmed under domestic law by the competent national authorities. They further argued that the alleged interference with the relevant applicants\u2019 rights secured by Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been lawful, as the counter-terrorism operation in the Chechen Republic, in the context of which the strikes of 19 October 1999 had been executed, had been launched and carried out on the basis of Presidential Decrees nos. 2137, 2166 and 2155c of 30 November and 9 December 1994 and 23 September 1999 respectively, Governmental Decree no. 1360 of 9 December 1994, and the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998. In the Government\u2019s submission, the aforementioned decrees, except for certain provisions, had been found compatible with the Russian Constitution by the Russian Constitutional Court. The Government insisted that all the aforementioned legal instruments had met the requirements of and accessibility."], "id": "6a952f69-dca3-46a0-bfab-8d040e07318f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["118. The applicant maintained that her son had been ill-treated during his apprehension as he had been ordered to get half undressed, to kneel on the rails and to stay in this position for over two hours while his hands had been tied behind his back with iron wire. She further contended that the State had failed to conduct an into these events. The applicant also contended that the anguish and suffering she had endured amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "620ca524-6a0e-4b30-b168-fb21a97a5743", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicants submitted that Article 2 of the Convention had been violated in respect of their mother and close relative, Nura Luluyeva. They submitted that the circumstances of her detention and the discovery of her body in a mass grave indicated that she had been killed by federal forces. They further submitted that there had been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 since no had been carried out into the circumstances of her detention and murder. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "7b1c6628-f2ad-403c-bb8d-45435221f2b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["92. The Government maintained that the domestic authorities had conducted all necessary investigative actions and carried out an into the applicant\u2019s complaints. They further stated that the repeated quashing of the decisions refusing to initiate criminal proceedings, as well as the instructions given by the court and superior prosecutors to the investigating officer, indicated that the domestic authorities had intended to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s complaints."], "id": "4fa3459b-b099-42e0-955d-52fb0e823e96", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["102. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been beaten up on 28 October 2007 and 14 February 2008 while in State custody and that there had been no into these incidents. The Court will examine the applicant\u2019s complaints from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "id": "c0ae79dd-a1d1-474a-9b87-2ab74028c2f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant, who showed signs of injury after spending time in police custody, stated on his arrival at the SIZO that he had been beaten up by police officers of the Kanavinskiy RUVD on 15 September 2007 (see paragraph 13 above). The authorities were thus made promptly and sufficiently aware of his allegation of ill\u2011treatment. This was supported by the detention facilities\u2019 records of his injuries (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above). It was therefore credible and gave rise to the State\u2019s obligation to carry out an ."], "id": "18f913f0-55ef-4372-90d2-cefcce1d8ddf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government submitted that the incident at Buca prison was serious. They pointed out that the prisoners had piled up metal cupboards behind the dormitory door and had broken windows, burned beds and used metal handles from the cupboards to attack the gendarmes and prison officers. The Government maintained that Mehmet Kurnaz had actively taken part in the riot which took place ten days after he had been transferred to the prison. They stated that he had received all the necessary medical treatment immediately after he was injured. The Government further submitted that an had been conducted into the circumstances surrounding the incident in Buca prison."], "id": "0f640b5f-14bc-41ed-bf72-4f1fbef9dd46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government contended that the authorities had complied with the requirement of in the present case. They further stated that the applicant had complained to the prosecutor\u2019s office after a substantial delay \u2013 about three years after she had been diagnosed with hypothyroidism in 1996 (see paragraph 6 above). Thus, it had been impossible to establish whether she had been treated with radioactive iodine and whether this could have resulted in the destruction of her thyroid."], "id": "13cb083e-4fd0-40c9-803f-44e3d6b8d883", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants complained that it was very likely that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment and that no had been conducted in this connection. They also submitted that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relative\u2019s disappearance and on account of the State\u2019s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The applicants referred to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "104188e5-f3e1-4641-998b-02e5625d5805", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["125. The applicant claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of her husband's disappearance. She argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for over six years but had not achieved any tangible results so far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. Furthermore, the investigating authorities had failed to inform the applicant of the decisions to adjourn and reopen the investigation, or of its progress. Throughout the investigation the applicant had requested to be granted crime victim status, but had received no replies to those requests. In support of her argument regarding the inefficiency of the investigation, the applicant also referred to the Government's refusal to submit a copy of the file of the criminal case concerning her husband's disappearance. In her observations submitted after the Court's decision as to the admissibility of the application the applicant contended that she still had not been granted the victim status."], "id": "4e8d56e1-d6ed-465c-8a81-fc12067aeed5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicants further complained that there was no into the death of Kamil Mente\u015fe, Yusuf Bozku\u015f, Re\u015fit Demirhan and Abdulvahap Ma\u00e7o, or into their forced eviction and destruction of their family homes and possessions. In this respect, they alleged that they were denied access to a court, in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in relevant part, provides as follows:"], "id": "fa03fda8-39e2-432c-ae42-6d430b191a9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government contended that the circumstances of the present case were different from those in the case of Kaverzin, in which the Court had held that that the procedures of appeal to hierarchically superior prosecutors and to the courts had not been proved to be capable of providing adequate redress in respect of complaints of ill-treatment by the police and in (see Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, \u00a7 97, 15 May 2012). More specifically, the Government observed that in the Kaverzin case the Court had criticised the prosecutors\u2019 reluctance to take all reasonable steps, in a prompt and expeditious manner, to establish the facts and circumstances pertinent to complaints of ill-treatment and to secure relevant evidence (\u00a7 175). In the Government\u2019s opinion, the present case was different because the prosecution authorities had initiated a criminal investigation into the second applicant\u2019s complaint without delay, thus putting in place an appropriate framework for all the necessary investigative measures."], "id": "c5f469cd-17c3-4396-a13b-fde244a6961e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["148. The Government contended that the complaints should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. They also submitted that no evidence had been obtained in the domestic investigations to suggest that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held under State control, or were dead. They pointed out that the mere fact that the investigative measures taken had not produced any specific results, or had yielded only limited results, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an ."], "id": "62ed1f92-c3ff-41b5-b988-c8c8b5cae515", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant complained that on 15 June 2001 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an into those events. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "id": "9d99fe25-567a-4ae4-8186-79c00ff701dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant complained that the Pravieni\u0161k\u0117s Prison authorities had failed to protect his physical well-being when he was serving his sentence. As a result, he had been seriously injured but had received no compensation for the damage sustained. The applicant also argued that the State had failed to conduct an into the circumstances of the attack on him and his injury in the prison."], "id": "bd9b5ce9-48e6-46e6-bfc0-c0a67e39492f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["191. The applicants claimed EUR 100,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of their relatives, the failure to carry out an into the killings and the indifference shown by the authorities towards their grief. In addition, the third applicant claimed a similar sum of EUR 100,000 for each of her five daughters who had suffered as a result of their father's killing."], "id": "6220f744-acd4-4d1e-b5a4-5a1395b65f41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police officer, R., and that there had been no adequate or of his complaints. The applicant further complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of effective remedies for his complaints. The relevant Articles read as follows:"], "id": "a48b743a-5276-4e1d-b9dc-445b25c74f26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant submitted that he had exhausted the domestic remedies available to him and that he had lodged the complaint with the Court within the time-limit set by Article 35 \u00a7 1. He made reference to the Court\u2019s case-law in this regard, with particular emphasis on the Court\u2019s approach to applying the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. The applicant submitted that he had officially asked the judicial police officer in charge of investigating his brother\u2019s death to carry out an investigation with a view to clarifying the circumstances of his brother\u2019s death. This had constituted a formal request to bring charges under Article 59 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In addition, the mere fact that his brother had died, had given rise ipso facto to an obligation on the part of the authorities under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an ."], "id": "3a6af43a-c36f-44b6-9d1d-a173db6c7735", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["128. The Government contended that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the detainees had been held under State control or that the missing persons were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had produced only limited ones, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary measures were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an ."], "id": "b26a2875-9d95-4aa2-a5cc-11d20bbbff2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicants maintained their submissions. They stressed, in particular, that they feared for their lives. In their observations of 7 April 2008 on the admissibility and merits of the case they also complained for the first time that Idris Gakiyev had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen prior to his death and that there had been no into the ill-treatment."], "id": "e0068901-43a0-4aed-9027-65cc917b8b9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the first applicant\u2019s life had been put at risk and that he had been ill-treated by police officers, who had beaten him with truncheons, had punched and kicked in the face, head, stomach and back. They further complained under this Article that there had been no into his allegations. Relying on Article 13, they complained that there had been no effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. Lastly, they complained under Article 6 that they had been denied the right of access to court due to the failure of the public prosecutor to reject the criminal complaint by means of a formal decision. The Court considers that this last complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, as it concerns a particular aspect of the right to an effective remedy under this provision. It further considers that the applicants\u2019 complaint concerning the risk to the first applicant\u2019s life should be examined under Article 2 of the Convention. Articles 2 (the applicability of which the Court will examine, see below), 3 and 13 of the Convention read as follows:"], "id": "35131a2d-16e1-46f8-82e6-6ba3d3192480", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["313. The Government contended, on the one hand, that Article 2 of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants\u2019 complaints concerning the disappearance of their relatives and that their complaints under this head must be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. To this end they referred to the case of Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, \u00a7\u00a7 101\u201109, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011III). On the other hand, they submitted that the complaints should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. Further, the Government submitted that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held under State control, or that they were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures employed had not produced any specific results, or had yielded only limited results, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an ."], "id": "9d191a00-3da5-4837-9df2-0fb8eb6c6538", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that she had been ill-treated while in police custody. She alleged that she had been beaten with a truncheon, hosed down with cold water and banged against walls, which had brought about intense mental suffering leading to a suicide attempt, considering in particular her age at the material time. The applicant also maintained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention that the respondent State had failed to conduct an into her allegations of ill-treatment as her request to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused police officers had not been dealt with by an independent and impartial tribunal."], "id": "6829a1e0-747b-44d3-bfcc-502661d15fc5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government submitted that the respondent State had undertaken a prompt, thorough and into the applicants\u2019 allegations of ill-treatment. They did not contest that the prison guards had used excessive force, but considered it justified. Following the Ombudsman\u2019s recommendation to that effect, disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against three prison guards who had ultimately been fined for the use of excessive force. The applicants\u2019 families, the Ombudsman and the NGOs with an interest in this case were duly informed about the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings."], "id": "8d9325d3-8883-47e2-9989-44a9014bae91", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["212. The applicant\u2019s representatives alleged that his disappearance and possible unlawful removal from Russia, the failure of the Russian authorities to put in place the necessary protective measures, and the lack of an into the matter had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39. These claims, substantively focusing on a violation of the right to individual application, fall to be examined under Article 34 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "fd37f5f3-d5df-4f02-a118-1ed247d2d47f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["114. The applicants complained that as a result of their relative's killing and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured profound mental suffering. Furthermore, referring to the forensic expert examination report, the applicants alleged that Umar Zabiyev had sustained an injury to his lower jaw prior to his death and that no investigation had been carried out in respect of his ill-treatment. Lastly, the first applicant complained that on 10 June 2003 she had been seriously wounded by State agents and that no had been conducted into the incident. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:"], "id": "5e3a451b-e784-4aea-a197-4338bd1f9a1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["112. The applicant argued that his son's disappearance and presumed death and the failure of the authorities to conduct an and to provide an effective remedy were due to the fact that he and his son were of Kurdish origin. According to the applicant, there was a discriminatory practice by the police and other State security forces in the south-east region of Turkey which singled out members of the Kurdish population for enforced or involuntary disappearances and for assassination in police custody."], "id": "56307c2d-9f05-4661-8151-1e7bb67dbeb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant submitted that the authorities had failed to carry out an into her complaints concerning her husband's disappearance. She argued that the location, nature and circumstances of her husband's disappearance were sufficient by themselves to warrant a full investigation. She also alleged that, at the material time, there was an official tolerance of the lack of effective remedies in south-east Turkey, a fact that demonstrated a systematic practice in relation to complaints of this nature."], "id": "077e299a-00da-484e-88ec-2f9e486e4783", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant argued that the compensation awarded by the Warsaw Regional Court\u2019s judgment of 3 March 2010 did not constitute a sufficient redress. He maintained that only a prompt and would have satisfied the requirements of Articles 3 and 13. In addition, the outcome of the criminal and civil proceedings in his case did not have a sufficient deterrent effect on the individuals concerned."], "id": "d2382e98-2002-46ee-8b2e-134556fca092", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant maintained his allegations that he had been ill-treated by policemen during his visit to the Prilep police station to discuss issues related to the petrol station. He further submitted that the Government\u2019s arguments were contradictory. The public prosecutor had not taken any effective measure to discover who the perpetrators were, although, as was evident from the Sector\u2019s records, the Ministry had been aware of their identity. No statement had been taken from the eyewitnesses put forward. No had been carried out with respect to Mr P.R., whose identity was known to the trial court."], "id": "5f9525f0-532c-4480-999b-f9ad2e2d61ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["85. The applicant alleged under Article 5 of the Convention that his son had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty since his detention had not been recorded and that there had been no prompt or into his allegations. He maintained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention that his son had been denied access to a lawyer and contact with members of his family while in police custody. In his post-admissibility observations, the applicant further submitted under Article 8 of the Convention that the authorities had withheld information from him which might have shed light on the circumstances of and reasons for his son\u2019s abduction."], "id": "81d24b99-2810-4855-8ef0-2f2cbc304977", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant claimed EUR 20,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to him. He submitted that he had been suffering as a result of his ill-treatment and continued to have health problems despite his young age, and that there had not been an , also that he had been threatened and obstructed in the course of the criminal proceedings against the perpetrators. The sum awarded to him domestically (MDL 15,000, the equivalent of EUR 997 at the time), was completely disproportionate to his suffering and the delay and small increments in which he receives even that sum only added to his humiliation."], "id": "ef072c17-18b2-427e-8c90-0d25dcb9d740", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicants complained that no had been conducted by the national authorities into the killing of their relatives. In that connection they referred to the document drawn up by the Ovac\u0131k prosecutor on 18 June 2005, in which it was stated that that prosecutor had not gone to the area where their relatives had been killed because of security concerns. The applicants pointed out that that document clearly disproved the Government\u2019s submissions according to which \u201cimmediately after the armed clash had ended the prosecutor had gone to the incident area, conducted an on-site inspection, prepared an incident report and opened an investigation\u201d (see paragraph 17 above and paragraph 103 below). The applicants questioned the validity of the prosecutor\u2019s concerns for his security in connection with a visit to an area where the operation had ended and which was under the control of the soldiers."], "id": "e2927e5b-3757-408e-a197-d55c03ccd2ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the absence of an into the applicant\u2019s allegations of rape. They observed that the courts of the Dagestan Republic had repeatedly criticised the ineffectiveness of the inquiry carried out by the investigative authorities and held that the latter\u2019s acts and omissions were in breach of domestic law."], "id": "c0a50b94-a28e-4882-9945-af83e9cb0963", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that the facts of the case as a whole did not support the allegations that the injuries observed on the applicant\u2019s body, which in their opinion had not attained the level of severity proscribed by Article 3, were caused by a treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. They submitted that bearing in mind the applicant\u2019s reckless conduct from the moment of his arrest, it was likely that the injuries noted in the medical reports had been self-inflicted. Moreover, if any force had been used against the applicant by the police, such use of force had been proportionate and had been made strictly necessary by the applicant\u2019s own aggressive conduct. The Government further contended that an had been immediately carried out in respect of the applicant\u2019s allegations and that the authorities had taken the necessary steps to identify and prosecute the alleged perpetrators. However, the mere fact that the outcome of the proceedings had not been favourable for the applicant did not mean that the remedy in question had been inadequate."], "id": "6fea22ec-20e8-47f8-be6c-2095ba130fcb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["97. The applicants next alleged that their relatives had been ill-treated after having been detained, which constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. They referred to the medical certificate of death issued on 8 October 2001 in respect of Umar Musayev, confirming that there had been multiple stab wounds and bruises on the latter's head and chest. They further submitted that the authorities had failed to conduct an in this respect, in violation of their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "03882c59-471d-4d14-80fa-ee8bcfdbc49f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government argued that there had been an in response to the first applicant\u2019s complaint about his alleged ill-treatment on 30 June 2004. They distinguished the present case from Labita v. Italy on the facts, stating that the actions of the C\u0113sis District Police Department had never been the subject of explicit media attention. Moreover, the applicants\u2019 allegations had given rise to certain doubts as to their credibility. In this regard the Government referred to Av\u015far v. Turkey (no. 25657/94, ECHR 2001\u2011VII (extracts)), noting that the obligation under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention was one of means, not result (ibid., \u00a7 394): an effective investigation could well end with a finding that no violation had taken place."], "id": "07e7d9e4-97db-406e-9e47-c3429cee64b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["140. The applicant argued that she had provided sufficient evidence to prove that her husband, Mehmet \u015een, had been abducted, tortured and killed by security forces. She requested the Court to find that the death of her husband and the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out an were in violation of Articles 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention."], "id": "112f3034-b4de-4679-a768-0acc0bf18ea2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["391. The Government contended that the domestic investigations had found no evidence to suggest that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held under State control or that they were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there were any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with theobligation to conduct an ."], "id": "9a5fa321-81ec-407f-8ddf-0d4d15f7faa2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and subsequently during his custody at the Security Directorate Building. He also alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible for the treatment. In respect of his complaints, the applicant relied on Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention."], "id": "730ca3f8-4300-4385-8831-efba287c3e3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["127. The Government considered that the domestic authorities had conducted an , as of the time of occurrence of the events, with a view to ascertaining the cause of the applicant\u2019s injuries and identifying those responsible. They recalled the different inquiries made, emphasising the intensive involvement of both the judiciary and the public prosecutors. They submitted that the length of the investigation had not been excessive given, in particular, the number and complexity of many of the expert assessments conducted."], "id": "0dbe15d8-71ba-4f5e-93e8-cca44237ffb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["169. The applicants Sonia Biga, Augustin Biga, Carol Ciorcan, Sorin Ciorcan, Costel Ciorcan, Edith Csiki (Biga) and Ildiko Kalanyos (Biga) claimed jointly a total amount of 2,000,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage including costs and expenses for the pain and suffering caused by the use of excessive force against their mother and the lack of a subsequent ."], "id": "2059ef13-caf4-454f-9c04-55b318ac9b96", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["159. The Government submitted that the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained an injury had been examined within the framework of the criminal case against him. His allegations of ill-treatment had received a prompt and due response. The investigation into his criminal case had been carried out by authorities, the Ararat Regional Prosecutor\u2019s Office and the Yerevan City Prosecutor\u2019s Office, which had no hierarchical or institutional connection with the Artashat Police Department and were therefore independent and impartial bodies. The authorities had taken all possible measures to identify those responsible, including numerous interrogations, confrontations and medical examinations. Moreover, an additional medical examination had been ordered specifically upon the applicant\u2019s own motion. Furthermore, all the motions and requests filed by the applicant had been treated with necessary promptness. The investigation had been open, which was supported by the fact that the applicant had had access to all the necessary materials in his case. In sum, the authorities had complied with their positive obligation under Article 3 to carry out an ."], "id": "ac2f1708-61e0-423c-a925-3eab2cdbe9e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the police officers had had to use reasonable force against the applicant in order to effect a lawful arrest and to take him to the police station, because he had insulted them and resisted arrest. Furthermore the applicant\u2019s allegations were ill-founded, given that the findings contained in the medical report dated 29 October 1997 were inconsistent with his allegations. In the Government\u2019s opinion, had the applicant been beaten up by six police officers, as he alleged, he would have sustained serious injuries. Finally, they claimed that an did not necessarily mean a favourable outcome for the applicant. Nonetheless, the authorities had carried out an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations and had concluded that they were unsubstantiated."], "id": "c80b132b-4ad0-49e7-a141-8d5b6a02da23", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["117. The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of Saydi Malsagov\u2019s disappearance. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for six years without any tangible results, having been repeatedly suspended and resumed. The main investigative steps had been taken after the communication of the present application to the Government, which, according to the applicants, once again proved the overall ineffectiveness of the investigation. The first applicant had not been granted victim status until two months after the opening of the investigation; she had not been promptly informed of all developments in the case."], "id": "40dc69ef-4ea8-4df7-9d32-69099e82781b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government alleged that the available domestic remedies in respect of the above complaint had not been exhausted when their observations had been lodged (23 December 2013). First of all, at that time the criminal proceedings against the co-owners of the applicant\u2019s flat, instituted in 2007, had been still pending at the material time; thus it had been premature to prejudge their outcome. Secondly, had the applicant been unsatisfied with the manner in which the law-enforcement authorities had conducted these proceedings or generally responded to her complaints, it had been open for her to lodge a complaint against them seeking damages for delayed and in . Finally, it had always been open to the applicant to institute private criminal prosecution proceedings to seek punishment of the alleged offenders for the episodes of violent behaviour, in particular, under Articles 125 and 126 of the Criminal Code. She had not done so until July 2006, and even then she had failed to pursue her claim."], "id": "2126edbb-9f19-4951-bcf4-0f66030c995b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant interpreted the Government\u2019s stance as an admission that, four years after the events in question, they were not in possession of any factual information on his detention, even though between 18 June and 23 November 2000 he had lodged no fewer than nine complaints to various authorities, including the Moscow City Prosecutor, the Minister of the Interior, the Prosecutor General and the Head of the Moscow Department of the Interior. However, these complaints had not prompted any or the punishment of those responsible. No criminal proceedings had been instituted or inquiry carried out. Moreover, in the subsequent civil proceedings for compensation, the domestic courts had refused his requests for information concerning his detention and permission to interview witnesses. The applicant considered that an investigation that had been started only after the communication of his application by the Court, by which time a significant period had elapsed, could not be effective or produce any tangible results."], "id": "423445f9-14d6-42a6-9aa8-03957afa475e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government denied the factual basis of the applicant\u2019s allegation that his son had been killed while in prison. They further submitted that the investigation carried out by the security directorate and the public prosecutor\u2019s office in Diyarbak\u0131r into his death had revealed that Cemal U\u00e7ar had committed suicide. They maintained that the authorities had not been and could not have been aware of the psychological problems of Cemal U\u00e7ar, especially because he had committed suicide only fifteen days after he was placed in Diyarbak\u0131r E\u2011type prison. The Government finally submitted that the domestic authorities fulfilled their obligation to conduct an into the death of Cemal U\u00e7ar."], "id": "8aaac564-e35d-4669-af80-46dedbbe4fc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant argued that she had retained the status of a victim in respect of the above complaints because, apart from the violations being acknowledged, she had not been provided with adequate redress. Notably, no into her allegations of ill-treatment had been conducted, and the compensation award had been too small to provide redress for her suffering. The applicant further contended that she could not be blamed for having failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of her allegations regarding the damages awarded being insufficient: despite her non-compliance with the procedural formalities, the Higher Administrative Court should have provided her with additional time to allow her to rectify all the procedural shortcomings in her appeal on points of law."], "id": "28b9de43-7b8b-437b-97af-a41e18ffd64c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["322. The applicants did not agree with the Government and maintained that the prison authorities had interfered with their correspondence to the Court and tried to put pressure on them to discourage them from pursuing their applications. The applicants alleged that their correspondence and complaints did not reach the domestic authorities they were sent to, as they were intercepted by the prison administration, forwarded to the prosecutor's office and eventually destroyed. No into these allegations had ever been conducted by the General Prosecutor's Office and the local prosecutor's office."], "id": "78d9f41c-b363-4cc1-adf5-81df5b2176ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants argued that they had complied with the six-month rule and there had been no excessive and unexplained delays in the submission of their application to the Court. In particular, they submitted that after the initiation of the criminal investigation they had had no reason to doubt its effectiveness. They pointed out that the armed conflict in the region had led them to believe that delays in the investigation were inevitable. Moreover, owing to their lack of legal knowledge and funds to hire a lawyer, and in the absence of information concerning the Convention standards for an , they had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the pending criminal proceedings. Referring to Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, the applicants further argued that the six-month rule did not apply to \u201ccontinuing situations\u201d such as cases of enforced disappearances."], "id": "7676ab16-c577-4e60-a77b-4392562e51c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that Mr Abu Aliyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that no had been conducted in this respect. She also complained that as a result of her husband's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly she had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:"], "id": "f0f70eff-3d93-45b9-b42b-b40c646db0c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["106. The applicant also submitted that the authorities had not carried out an of those events. The first failure in that respect had been that the applicant\u2019s injuries had not been properly documented. It was true that the applicant had been examined on 2 June 1999 by Dr D.D., but she had not been a qualified forensic specialist, had carried out the examination solely for the purpose of checking whether the applicant needed medical treatment, and had noted only the injuries brought to her attention by the applicant. Even though Dr D.D. had noted that the applicant\u2019s injuries were indicative of ill\u2011treatment, the applicant had been examined by a forensic specialist as late as fifty\u2011three days after his arrest. A full examination, conducted in the presence of attesting witnesses and an investigator, and accompanied by photographs, had not taken place until the fifty\u2011sixth day after his arrest. That delay had been deliberate: there was evidence that the investigator had tried to put off the applicant\u2019s medical examination, which had made it necessary for his superiors to specifically take measures to make that happen."], "id": "e467335f-5f5c-40a6-9f23-701f9d7615a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government first noted that the applicant had not been arrested and taken into custody, but merely kept under police surveillance in accordance with Article 5(b)(4) of the Regulations on Apprehension, Custody and Taking of Statements in force at the material time on account of her refusal to disclose her identity. Secondly, they maintained that the applicant had failed to submit any concrete evidence to suggest that she had been ill-treated or even handcuffed at any point during her detention at the Bah\u00e7elievler police headquarters. The Government stressed in this regard that, upon her release from police custody, the applicant's family had not even attempted to obtain a medical report in support of her allegations of ill-treatment. The Government further argued that the applicant had been extremely calm and quiet during the period she had spent under police surveillance and only started acting in a disorderly manner upon seeing her family at the police station. The applicant's family had already acknowledged that she had psychological problems and that this was not her first attempt to run away from home. In these circumstances, the State authorities could not be held accountable for the applicant's self-destructive actions, especially her suicide attempt after she was handed over to her family. The Government lastly contended that an had been immediately carried out in respect of the applicant's allegations."], "id": "99e9cafa-c0b8-4af2-9435-0f6daefa3ba4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["102. The applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of their relatives' disappearance. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and the Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for several years but had not brought any tangible results thus far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. Furthermore, the investigating authorities had failed to inform the applicants of the decisions concerning the adjournment and reopening of the investigation or its progress. The applicants' numerous requests to the authorities throughout the investigation had remained unanswered or only produced standard replies. The applicants had not been granted access to the case file. In support of their argument regarding the ineffectiveness of the investigation, the applicants also referred to the Government's refusal to submit a copy of the file in the criminal case concerning their relatives' disappearance. The applicants also argued that the investigation could not have met the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention since civilian prosecuting authorities were not competent to conduct investigations involving the military and military prosecuting authorities could not be considered to be independent from the military."], "id": "c0c66ea1-c5b2-4792-a190-a7077511ca8c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant complained of two distinct violations of Article 3 of the Convention by prison staff while he was in Jelgava prison. First of all, he claimed to have been subjected to various unlawful disciplinary penalties; he particularly emphasised the illegal and unjust character of the last of these, imposed on 18 July 2000. Secondly, he complained of a brutal assault by prison guards which, according to him, took place on an unspecified date at the end of 2000 while he was again placed in a disciplinary cell. He claimed to have suffered serious injuries as a result and alleged that no adequate medical treatment had been provided to him. Finally, he alleged that there had been no into his allegations of ill-treatment."], "id": "46ab6b33-c6a7-41be-a69f-f7be2783bd7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government contended that the complaint should be rejected as unsubstantiated, as the investigation into the disappearance had not obtained any evidence that State agents had killed Mr Aslan Dudayev, that Mr Ali Dudayev had been abducted by them or that he was dead. They further noted that all the necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an into the killing and the abduction."], "id": "0faf30a9-d869-4738-9c12-882040eaff03", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government contested the applicant's allegations. In particular, they submitted that the physical findings noted in the medical reports did not attain a sufficient level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. In addition, the Government maintained that an had been conducted into the circumstances of the case. In this connection, they referred to the steps undertaken by the public prosecutor."], "id": "4afd73ee-99ff-45ed-8f57-7447e544072d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government also submitted that the domestic authorities had carried out an . The public prosecutor\u2019s office heard the parties and all the relevant witnesses, including the witnesses brought by the applicant in support of his allegations. The prosecutor\u2019s office also ordered a forensic medical report and gathered all the relevant medical evidence from all the hospitals which examined the applicant. In addition, it submitted all the available medical evidence to the Superior Review Panel for examination. Moreover, the public prosecutor assessed the evidence in the file, decided that the witness evidence submitted by the applicant was biased because it was contradicted by the remaining evidence available to the file, and dismissed the applicant\u2019s complaint. Furthermore, at the second stage of the proceedings the public prosecutor\u2019s office clarified all the aspects raised by the Court of Cassation in its judgment of 11 May 2005."], "id": "c16f0f77-0072-4398-88dc-caabf895cdf4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicant claimed 86,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. He noted that he did not have any evidence of pecuniary damage in the form of medication he had bought to treat his illnesses obtained in detention. As to non-pecuniary damage, he submitted that he had suffered as a result of the ill-treatment, and also as a result of the in , the inhuman conditions of detention and the failure to provide him with appropriate medical assistance, as well as his unlawful detention and the excessive length of the proceedings against him. He also claimed to have been subjected to additional suffering by the fact that he had feared for his life after complaining about officer R.B."], "id": "dc558d1c-31b0-44f7-a37a-434009d3329a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to various forms of torture, including rape, by gendarmes at the \u00c7\u0131nar Gendarmerie Station with a view to extracting confessions concerning their alleged involvement in the PKK. The gendarmes had forced them to sign confession statements which they had not been allowed to read. Furthermore, although they had undergone three medical examinations, all reports stated that they had not had any sexual intercourse and that there was no sign of ill\u2011treatment. These reports had been written in a suitable manner to preclude any criminal responsibility on the part of the gendarmes and, very strangely, none of them had indicated the name of the medical doctor who had examined them. Lastly, the national authorities had turned a blind eye to their allegations of torture by failing to carry out an and had allowed the gendarmes to escape justice."], "id": "c0c748f9-3a0c-4fe6-bfe5-bd5eab48280b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to lodge their application with the Court with due expedition as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicants had lacked diligence in voicing their grievances before the relevant domestic authorities in a timely fashion. They ought to have realised that no would ensue from their criminal complaint of 10 November 2009, as the prosecutor had readily forwarded it to the court examining the case against the applicants instead of initiating a separate enquiry, and no response had been provided to the complaints lodged throughout the subsequent months. The Government also argued that the criminal proceedings against the applicants had not constituted an effective remedy for their grievances concerning the alleged ill-treatment, as their scope had been limited to the charges brought against the applicants."], "id": "856d3adf-8a35-4c43-be8a-70ccfd911f90", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that the domestic authorities conducted an of the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment. In particular, the Government noted that following the applicant\u2019s complaint on 9 November 2005 the domestic authorities instituted criminal proceedings. The investigator heard the applicant, two witnesses and A.V. and took all appropriate actions to identify those who had beaten the applicant. Moreover, the investigator ordered a forensic examination for 28 January 2006, at which the applicant failed to appear."], "id": "8942d8be-1aba-44e3-93cf-2e52d8855882", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicants contested the Government\u2019s statement as incorrect. They pointed out that in fact they had lodged a court complaint about the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out an into the events of 27 October 2001, which had yielded no results. The applicants contended in this connection that they were not required to pursue that remedy, since it was ineffective and, in particular, incapable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, as required by the Court\u2019s settled case-law in relation to complaints under Article 2 of the Convention."], "id": "d29cae5c-2eba-4e36-b4e6-aa9b682d1cc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant stressed that public prosecutors, who are exclusively responsible for examining charges of police misconduct, lack sufficient independence and impartiality, given their dual and contradictory functions: they are both parties to and supervisors of criminal proceedings. This resulted in the absence of a thorough and into his allegations, which manifested itself in the disregard of the testimonies of his witnesses and his medical evidence and in terminating the case for want of conclusive evidence."], "id": "58c61169-706d-4e7d-87a9-c815c413ad2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["146. The applicant claimed 60,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage suffered on account of the violations of the Convention in his case. He submitted that he had suffered severe emotional anguish and distress, anxiety and trauma. He had also suffered immense frustration, helplessness and injustice in the face of the indifference that the Russian authorities had demonstrated in his case by refusing to conduct an into his complaint."], "id": "2b436e00-9a8c-4634-89eb-670f167f7641", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant submitted to the Court sufficiently detailed information about the investigating authorities\u2019 response to his complaints of police ill-treatment, the authenticity of which the Court has no reason to doubt. Contrary to the Government\u2019s view (see paragraph 45 above), that information, together with the national courts\u2019 decisions taken in the case, can serve a basis for the Court\u2019s assessment of whether the authorities have carried out an into the applicant\u2019s serious allegations of police ill-treatment."], "id": "d3eba1c8-a5e1-41ef-b831-97d344542e02", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant complained that the State had failed to effectively address her complaint of sexual abuse, contrary to Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. However, as the applicant\u2019s complaints were limited to the effectiveness of the criminal proceedings concerning the continuous sexual assault committed against her, the Court considers that it is not necessary in the particular circumstances of the present case, where the offences against the applicant were committed from 1992 until 1994 and therefore at least to a large extent before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Slovenia on 28 June 1994, to decide whether its temporal jurisdiction also extends to issues under Article 8 (see P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, \u00a7 58, 24 January 2012). Having already held that Article 3 provides sufficient legal basis for the State\u2019s duty to conduct an and/or trial of such criminal offences, the Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaints fall to be examined solely under this provision, which reads as follows:"], "id": "45337e66-c5d2-42b9-87fa-15fb457eafc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["83. The applicant complained to the prosecutor about the beatings inflicted by the police, the forceful removal of his underwear, clipping of his nails and attempted taking of a blood sample. His detailed account of the events, together with the visible bodily injuries, amounted to an \u201carguable claim\u201d of ill-treatment. Accordingly, the authorities had an obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of the alleged ill-treatment."], "id": "407c995e-83ba-4c1a-a060-d38b0bfc6dc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["203. The applicant finally claimed that the police in northern Cyprus were effectively under political and military control. Accordingly, the requirement that the persons responsible for carrying out the investigation had to be independent from those implicated in the events was not satisfied. For all these reasons, the applicant invited the Court to hold that the authorities of the \u201cTRNC\u201d, for which the respondent Government were responsible, had failed to conduct a prompt, thorough and into the murder of her husband."], "id": "37d50db8-2525-4dad-9c00-9dfeb2c31111", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant alleged that towards the end of 1993, gendarmes had raided his village and that his home and possessions had been destroyed. He requested the Court to find that the destruction of his property and the failure to carry out an by the authorities engaged the responsibility of the respondent State under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that each of these Articles had been violated."], "id": "ef57b529-40a0-4bff-9314-11677ed2fad3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government submitted that the penalties imposed on the three officers had been proportionate and fully in line with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. The authorities had first carried out a prompt and . They had gathered and duly assessed all relevant evidence, and had on its basis carefully considered what penalties to impose on the officers. In fixing the penalties, the Kazanlak District Court had taken into account the requirements of both domestic law and Article 3 of the Convention. On appeal, the Stara Zagora Regional Court had, of its own motion, examined the proportionality of the penalties, including with regard to the point that the officers\u2019 act had infringed the applicant\u2019s human rights, and had not found them manifestly unjust. That, coupled with the disciplinary penalties imposed on two of the officers and the award of damages obtained by the applicant, showed that this was not a situation in which police officers had been able to encroach with impunity on the rights of those under their control."], "id": "59e19289-4011-4ee7-bffc-9306ef3f3624", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant argued that the investigation had been pending for a long time without producing any tangible results. That remedy had proved to be ineffective and her complaints, as well as any other potential remedies, had proved futile. She further argued that she had complied with the six-month rule and there had been no excessive or unexplained delays in the submission of her application to the Court. In particular, she submitted that after the initiation of the criminal investigation she had had no reason to doubt its effectiveness. She pointed out that the armed conflict in the region had led her to believe that delays in the investigation were inevitable. Moreover, owing to her poor command of Russian, her lack of legal knowledge and funds to hire a lawyer, and in the absence of information concerning the Convention standards for an , she had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the pending criminal proceedings. As soon as she had been able to obtain legal advice from the pro bono lawyer, she had realised that the investigation was ineffective and had applied to the Court."], "id": "a81240b0-7359-4f5e-a1d4-075cbeb13716", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["467. The Government contended that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held under State control or that they were dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there were any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an ."], "id": "1f4dcaa8-a703-4b13-b779-ae9ace74473a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an into the circumstances of the deaths of her mother and brother, in violation of their procedural obligation under Article 2. She argued that the investigation had fallen short of the standards established by the Convention and national legislation. She argued that the investigation had not been prompt because of the delay in opening it and in taking important steps. A number of investigative measures had never been taken, such as securing the relevant evidence and questioning servicemen who could have been involved. The investigation had been going on for more than six years without producing any tangible results. Despite her requests, she had not been granted victim status in the proceedings. The authorities had systematically failed to inform the applicant or her family of the progress of the investigation and they had been given no information about important procedural steps. The applicant also asked the Court to conclude that the Government had failed in their obligations under Article 38 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention in that they had not submitted a copy of the entire criminal investigation file to the Court."], "id": "87307c67-fd23-4c09-9fd0-3d1720db9ced", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government further disputed that the witness statements obtained by the Commission showed beyond reasonable doubt that the Turkish authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and . The statements taken from members of the applicant's family and persons close to the family were riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions if considered together or, even worse, on their own. These inconsistencies concerned such matters as the number of assailants, their physical characteristics, the date on which the applicant and her sister had gone to the gendarmes or the prosecutor, the existence, or absence rather, of any denunciation on their part of the killings when they appeared before the competent authorities. Neither the applicant nor her sister, who were the only eye witnesses, were able to read or write or speak Turkish and had both led withdrawn lives. At the hearing the applicant revealed that she had little notion of time, space and distance."], "id": "a2050775-55f0-40dd-9695-ef15d8963ee1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicants contended that the authorities had failed in their obligation to carry out an into the circumstances of their relative's disappearance. They argued that the investigation had fallen short of the requirements of domestic law and Convention standards. In particular, it had been pending for several years but had not brought any tangible results so far, having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. The applicants contended that the main investigative actions had been taken only after the communication of the present application to the respondent Government on 7 June 2005. Furthermore, the investigating authorities had failed to inform the applicants about the decisions concerning the adjournment and reopening of the investigation or its progress and had not granted the first applicant the status of victim of a crime until 15 January 2003, that is, two months after the criminal proceedings had been instituted. The applicants also insisted that the authorities had failed to take all possible measures to establish the identity of the alleged perpetrators, and, in particular, had not checked the possible involvement of federal military personnel in their relative's abduction. In support of their argument regarding the inefficiency of the investigation, they also referred to the Government's refusal to submit a copy of the file in the criminal case concerning Vakhid Musikhanov's disappearance."], "id": "68b5b694-3dfd-4593-b454-44e4d1f5d7a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicant substantiated his complaint with medical documents dated 19 March 2006 which attested to fractures to his eighth and ninth ribs on the left side and abrasions and haematomas on his face, head, chest, back and hips (see paragraphs 30-32 above). The applicant\u2019s claim was therefore shown to be \u201carguable\u201d and the domestic authorities were under an obligation to conduct an satisfying the above requirements of Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "8eb7cce4-2f62-4efe-955a-4428a0dadd38", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and subsequently during his custody at the Security Directorate Building. He also alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an capable of leading to the punishment of the police officers responsible for the treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "86c48a5f-3045-4366-bf3a-e0f0bcda9839", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant maintained his complaint. He argued that while he had had no injuries when he had been taken to the police station at 11 p.m. on 9 April 2007 (as confirmed by concordant evidence, including written submissions by eyewitnesses I., A. and Pan., and not contested by the Government), he had been discovered to have an injury on his head when he had been released from the police station on the afternoon of 10 April 2017 (which was also not contested by the Government). The applicant promptly brought an arguable claim of ill-treatment before the domestic authorities. However, no had followed. In particular, although the pre-investigation inquiry had concluded that there had been no objective data confirming the fact that the injuries had been inflicted under the circumstances indicated by the applicant, no explanation had been provided by the domestic authorities as to how the applicant had sustained his injuries."], "id": "a66a61a0-09cd-4287-a03c-254bd1cecead", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government contested that argument. They submitted, in view of the judicial award in the applicant\u2019s favour, that he had lost his victim status, even though such an award did not signify that his rights set out in Article 3 of the Convention had been infringed. The amount of the award had been commensurate with the severity of his injury. In the alternative, the Government asserted that the applicant could have sustained the injuries prior to his arrest, a fact which had been confirmed in the course of the conducted by the authorities in response to the applicant\u2019s complaint about the alleged ill-treatment in custody. The investigating authorities had taken all the steps necessary to verify the applicant\u2019s allegations. They had questioned the witnesses and studied the medical documents. Both the investigating authorities and the courts had repeatedly looked into the matter. Accordingly, the national authorities had complied with their obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation."], "id": "88f289d4-940e-436e-8f4f-48e22a00be8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["139. The Government considered that when the Bulgarian Consular Section signalled a coercive holding of a minor-aged female, the Italian authorities gave full assistance and carried out an , but after having established the above-mentioned facts, could not conclude that the case concerned trafficking in human beings. They noted that the Italian authorities \u201cfreed\u201d the first applicant who was found to be in a good health and mental condition. She was questioned by staff specialised in interaction with minors and had access to an interpreter. Moreover, the authorities provided support to her and her relatives, including accommodation and payment of costs. The Italian authorities took all the relevant witness testimony and other measures to establish the facts and the applicants had ample opportunity to participate as witnesses in the investigation, throughout which they were provided with an interpreter. Thus, the relatives had also been directly involved in the investigation. Therefore, the criteria for an effective investigation according to the Court\u2019s case-law (Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, \u00a7 233, 7 January 2010) had been fulfilled."], "id": "f522cdcd-c6b1-4f7c-a4ae-6906e634d4c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicant also complained that the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out an capable of providing redress for the ill\u2011treatment suffered by the applicant constituted a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. Furthermore, he complained that he could not effectively challenge, before a court, the decision not to prosecute taken by the military prosecutor in favour of the police officer who had allegedly injured him."], "id": "414c8bb5-38db-481f-b4dc-14b578e54d8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government maintained that they could not conduct an , as no arguable claim had ever been raised by the applicant concerning his ill-treatment in Sremska Mitrovica Prison. In their view, the reason why there had been no investigation into the circumstances of the applicant\u2019s case was because he had failed to lodge his complaints with the relevant domestic authorities. Besides, the Government claimed that the circumstantial evidence established in the civil proceedings would not have been sufficient to trigger or prompt a criminal investigation on the part of the State."], "id": "d6380f9f-c744-4977-8071-3d4163b81e4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government stated that the prosecutor\u2019s office had conducted an into the applicant\u2019s complaints of ill-treatment. In particular, the investigation was started immediately after the applicant\u2019s lawyer\u2019s complaints and a number of important witnesses were questioned, and a forensic medical examination was conducted. Later, more witnesses (the applicant\u2019s cellmates) were questioned and additional information was checked. The applicant\u2019s complaints of ill-treatment were carefully checked and finally rejected on 27 June 2013 as unsubstantiated. The investigation was full and prompt and all the court\u2019s and prosecutor\u2019s instructions were followed. Therefore, there was no breach of the applicant\u2019s right to an effective investigation under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "994ad17c-1952-4406-8b65-1616d63aec14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant maintained his complaint. He pointed out that the Government\u2019s version that he had been ill-treated in Kazakhstan, before his extradition, had been refused by the official statements from the administration of the remand prison certifying that on 23 February 2006 he had not had any evidence of ill-treatment at the time of his arrival in Moscow (see paragraphs 10 and 27 above). Furthermore, his allegations of ill-treatment had been confirmed by the medical examinations of 1 March and 1 June 2006 (see paragraphs 29, 26 and 39 above), his consistent complaints to the authorities (see paragraphs 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 42 and 47 above) and the domestic court\u2019s findings of 3 October 2007 (see paragraph 41 above). He stressed that the Government neither provided a satisfactory explanation as to the origins of his injuries nor carried out an into his complaints. The applicant further stated, in particular, that the inquiries conducted had been neither timely nor thorough; the authorities had not questioned him nor taken any steps to identify his torturers. Finally, he submitted that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected by the police amounted to torture. In support of his allegations, the applicant referred to the documents submitted and the findings of the CPT of 13 March 2007 in respect of the human rights violations committed by the staff of the ORB-2 at the material time (see paragraph 61 above)."], "id": "deca2d0e-cebd-45ea-a9ba-4939a0b4f727", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicant sought an award for non-pecuniary damage for the suffering she had endured as a result of the loss of her elderly mother and her brother, the failure to carry out an into the killings and the indifference shown by the authorities towards her grief. She also stressed that she had suffered immense frustration and helplessness as a result of her inability to obtain any information about the investigation into her family members' deaths. She left the amount to be determined by the Court."], "id": "4f47ce9f-33b4-4179-aa2f-0c5a32efbc4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicant disagreed with the Government's objection. Firstly, he argued that there was an administrative practice of non-compliance with the requirement to investigate effectively abuses committed by Russian servicemen and members of the police in Chechnya. He referred to complaints submitted to the Court by other persons claiming to be victims of such abuses, who also complained about lack of . The applicant cited reports by human rights groups, international organisations and the media on violations of civilians' rights committed by federal forces and the subsequent lack of effective domestic investigation."], "id": "569c3ad6-7b4e-47cf-81bf-76da66a32c79", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["146. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that, as a result of their relative\u2019s disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also argued that they had serious grounds to believe that Mr Ali Khadayev had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment when in detention and complained that no had been conducted in this respect. Article 3 reads:"], "id": "74faa872-9d9d-49db-a766-2ef3c8338cf4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicants complained that the police had used physical force against them, and that no had been carried out into their complaints. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, and some of them also on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "1ec44df4-6d7c-4b82-94e3-c58ee95fc02a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants submitted that the injuries found on Vasiliy Mikhalkov's body resulted from beatings by two police officers and his body being dragged, to which the first applicant was an eyewitness. Referring to their arguments in respect of the investigation under Article 2, the applicants argued that there had also been a breach of the obligation of the authorities to conduct an into the allegations that Vasiliy Mikhalkov had been ill-treated."], "id": "9c7bb7b2-8818-47c2-ac3e-ed8dd5974ed8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["188. The applicant submitted that the authorities had failed to carry out an in relation to her complaints concerning the disappearance and murder of her husband. She argued that a full investigation had been necessary and that, at the material time, there had been a practice of ineffective remedies in south-east Turkey in relation to complaints of this nature by Kurdish people (cf. the Kurt v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III; the aforementioned Ya\u015fa judgment; the Commission Report of 12 March 1998 in \u00c7ak\u0131c\u0131 v. Turkey, no. 23657/94, \u00a7 286). "], "id": "8c6a1b9c-b945-4ad0-b250-f41060e3be79", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicant submitted that his son had worked as a plumber and, as the eldest of ten children, had contributed significantly to his family\u2019s upkeep. He claimed 12,300 euros (EUR) on behalf of the beneficiaries of the estate of Mehmet \u015eah \u015eeker, and on behalf of himself, for loss of earnings over five years and five months. He further claimed EUR 12,300 on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an . The applicant also requested that, in the case of a finding of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, these figures be increased by 50%."], "id": "cfc30313-b313-4717-8a10-c5c99eeb898a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant contested the Government's submissions. He maintained that the investigation officers had failed to comply with the court decisions of 11 January and 12 November 2001 and had not held an in his case. He further submitted that the reconstruction of events had been held in the absence of G. Moreover, the testimony of G. had been rejected on the ground that he was \u201can interested person\u201d while the testimonies of the tax police officers had been included in the case file even though they were S.'s subordinates. Finally, the information about the applicant's head injury had been ignored and no investigation had been conducted into it."], "id": "47827a52-fac0-49a0-b6bf-5c4c706165b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant further complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an into his complaint of ill-treatment in police custody, and that their refusal to open a criminal case had made it impossible for him to be granted the status of \u201cvictim\u201d, which could have entitled him to compensation for the alleged ill-treatment. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "288b9e9e-bf8d-4d65-8ee7-70838be64e56", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["118. The applicants complained that as a result of their son\u2019s abduction and killing and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly they had endured mental suffering. Furthermore, the first applicant complained that at the time of his son\u2019s abduction he had been beaten and that no was conducted into the incident. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:"], "id": "b2d542c3-9178-4dad-b52e-18dc578ed620", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant maintained his complaint and submitted that in the present case a substantive violation of Article 3 of the Convention was difficult to prove because there had been no . He disagreed with the Government\u2019s contention that his complaint was belated \u2013 he had submitted the complaint one week after his discharge from the hospital, on 8 September 2003, and one week later it had been forwarded to the police. He argued that he was not obliged to provide conclusive evidence in support of his allegations as the obligation to investigate and gather evidence was incumbent on the domestic authorities."], "id": "91118909-53b2-4d87-a884-e5ba4d750fb2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant maintained that Article 13 had been violated since the State authorities failed to conduct an into his case. He referred to his arguments mentioned in paragraph 68 above. He further submitted that national legislation did not provide for the award of compensation in the circumstances of his case since he was found guilty of a crime (see paragraph 52 above). The applicant maintained that examination of a civil claim for compensation would in any event have been dependent on the outcome of the criminal proceedings, which are still pending."], "id": "0774b4c8-1927-41ba-9630-56547dca26ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["135. The applicant submitted that she had reasons to believe that Mr Sultan Isayev had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention following his arrest and that there had been no into the matter. The applicant also complained that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish amounting to ill-treatment falling within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "6cc9f70d-64cc-4e4f-8ed8-28ce6ee4ebd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicants contested the Government's objection. They pointed out that immediately after their relatives' detention and thereafter they had repeatedly applied to law-enforcement bodies, including various prosecutors. This avenue had proved futile, however, given that the criminal investigation had now been pending for several years but had failed to find and identify those responsible. The applicants also stated that there was no specific requirement in national law to have recourse to any other remedy once criminal proceedings were instituted and an investigation was under way. The applicants contended that, in any event, in the absence of an any other remedy, including a civil claim, would also be rendered ineffective by the fact that court decisions would be based on the findings made within the context of the criminal investigation, which had so far failed to establish whether State agents had been involved in the murder of the Musayev brothers. In this latter respect the applicants referred to the judgments of Basmanny District Court of 23 December 2003 and 21 May 2004 which had dismissed their claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage in connection with the unlawful detention on the ground that it had not been established that the applicants had lost their relatives as a result of State agents' unlawful actions."], "id": "8909b4c5-1c67-4163-bbfc-5594bb3766f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective investigation", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicants complained under Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by police officers. They further alleged under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) and Article 13 of the Convention that the authorities had failed to carry out an of their allegations of ill-treatment and to duly examine the evidence they had submitted in support of their allegations. The applicants claimed that the authorities had also failed to punish the police officers responsible, which cast doubt on their independence and impartiality. Lastly, the applicants maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the decisions of the Izmir public prosecutor and the Kar\u015f\u0131yaka Assize Court lacked reasoning."], "id": "2f87331b-d027-43e6-b710-cd256d4370bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["169. The applicant relied on the evidence set out at paragraphs 106\u2013124 above, which, he submitted, demonstrated that Jordanian prisons were beyond the rule of law. was endemic, particularly for GID prisons and Islamist prisoners, who were frequently beaten. There was a systemic failure to carry out prompt and effective investigations of allegations of torture. This evidence was even more compelling than at the time of SIAC\u2019s determination. Moreover, the culture of impunity that prevailed in the GID rendered it incapable of abiding by the assurances, even if its leadership wanted to. Jordan could not be relied upon to meet its international human rights obligations. It had refused to submit to any form of enforcement of those obligations; for instance, it had refused to ratify either Article 22 to UNCAT (the right of individual petition to the Committee against Torture) or the Optional Protocol to UNCAT (which established the Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture and gave it, inter alia, the right to visit places of detention)."], "id": "2a66d728-dc83-475a-9095-d54451779e12", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government argued that the applicant's conditions of detention could not be regarded as or inhuman or degrading treatment. The conditions did not differ from, or at least were no worse than those of most detainees in Russia. Overcrowding was a problem in pre-trial detention facilities in general. The authorities had had no intention of causing physical suffering to the applicant or of harming his health. The administration of the detention facility took all available measures to provide medical treatment for those persons suffering from any disease and to prevent the contagion of other inmates. "], "id": "b16922f6-062b-4206-a502-7f2da65d1682", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his removal to Tunisia would expose him to a real risk of and other forms of ill\u2011treatment on account of his affiliation with Ennahda. He further submitted, without relying on any Article of the Convention, that he had not been interviewed by the competent authorities regarding his asylum request until November 2009, and has not been informed of the outcome of that interview. The applicant also contended that he was not able to challenge the decision to deport him as he had not been informed of any deportation order made in his respect."], "id": "73744fcf-2d94-46df-97b1-3c3644903b04", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant maintained that he had argued before the Russian courts that there was a real risk that he would be ill-treated and persecuted politically in Uzbekistan. He had submitted reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and international NGOs, confirming that was widespread in detention facilities and that this information had not been properly assessed by the Russian authorities. He pointed out that the courts had rejected his arguments without giving any reasons other than the reference to the assurances given by the Uzbek authorities. Finally, he referred to a number of cases examined by the Court in which it had been established that extradition to Uzbekistan of a person sought for political crimes would constitute a violation of Article 3."], "id": "65361dbe-9996-453c-b82d-bad3455c10dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to an unjustified use of force which amounted to , and had been further subjected to degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention since the police officer had insulted him and demanded that he plead guilty. He further invoked Article 13 of the Convention, stating that for more than seven years the State authorities had failed to protect his rights."], "id": "c8e3723e-0d08-4555-8044-0a612b405619", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["139. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his brother had been subjected to and inhuman and degrading treatment during his time in police custody from his arrest on 13 April 1996 until his admission to hospital on 16 April 1996. He further complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during his confinement in hospital from 16 April to 3 May 1996, when, in great pain and in need of care and support, he was deprived of all contact with his family while police officers were posted permanently in his ward. As his death had been caused by serious and severe injuries, the treatment he had been subjected to amounted to torture. The applicant further claimed that his brother had been tortured for the purpose of compelling him to confess to certain crimes."], "id": "d5061b41-8ae8-4d62-b984-d7a7b5b1116b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["136. The applicants alleged that there was a practice of non-respect of the requirement to investigate abuses committed by servicemen and members of the police effectively, both in peacetime and during conflict. The applicants based this assertion on four principal grounds: impunity for the crimes committed during the current period of hostilities (since 1999), impunity for the crimes committed in 1994-1996, impunity for police and ill-treatment all over Russia, and impunity for the torture and ill-treatment that occur in army units in general."], "id": "1c26bf66-1015-42ce-9bc9-b3edc2df9586", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that she had been subjected to acts of police brutality which had caused her great physical and mental suffering amounting to , inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment. She also complained under the same provision, taken together with Article 13 of the Convention, that the Greek investigating and prosecuting authorities had failed to carry out an effective and impartial official investigation into the incident which could have led to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. The applicant therefore claimed that she had been denied an effective domestic remedy for her sufferings."], "id": "0b7e9774-4a13-405a-a59e-ddb54d927667", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants maintained that they would run a real risk of being caught by the Iranian authorities and subjected to , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment based on the general situation in Iran regarding political dissidents, the high profile that the applicants had as such dissidents and these factors together with the fact that the applicants had left Iran illegally."], "id": "2dd27275-dc87-497f-8895-93b1b2411f2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant submitted that only in respect of cases of violence between individuals is a complaint from the victim necessary to trigger a police investigation. Under Articles 276 and 298 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the triggering of an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by police is not conditioned by the existence of a prior complaint from the alleged victim of ill-treatment. In support of his contention the applicant sent a copy of an order of the Prosecutor General addressed to his subordinates, according to which prosecutors are obliged to investigate ex officio any case concerning or ill-treatment by the police."], "id": "96753bcc-aca6-4fa7-98c4-2417b358aab8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["165. The applicants also referred to the institutional deficiencies of the proceedings conducted by the Investigative Committee, which was unable to investigate effectively the acts committed by the agents of the FSB, and depended in its work on the inadequate operational support provided by the police, who themselves could have been involved in the abductions. They referred to a letter of 11 March 2011 sent by the Deputy Prosecutor of Chechnya to the Head of the NGO, Committee Against , in which the prosecutor had accused the officers of the Investigative Committee of outright \u201cconcealment\u201d of the crimes related to the abductions (see paragraph 84 above)."], "id": "7c31bd13-d5aa-4bb0-b3b0-4ed8ca8aeb92", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant maintained his complaint. He claimed that all his confessions, testimonies and statements had been made under . He had had no access to a lawyer between 23 and 26 February 2006 and lawyer Mr G. Ber. had been appointed for him by the investigators, in violation of the relevant procedure. The lawyer had signed backdated documents and had failed to provide the applicant with proper legal assistance."], "id": "6a667178-a168-4ecf-b806-c13a7bf140f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["143. The applicant did not claim pecuniary damage. As to non-pecuniary damage, he submitted that the danger of being submitted to in detention in Turkmenistan, his unlawful detention and the prolonged inability to have the lawfulness of his detention examined had caused him feelings of anguish, distress and anxiety for which the sole finding of a violation would not be sufficient compensation. He left the determination of the exact amount of compensation to the Court\u2019s discretion."], "id": "2553f094-f017-47eb-b271-f8c737990d4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant alleged that the suffering to which he had been subjected, taken as a whole, amounted to . He submitted that he had been blindfolded, stripped naked, immersed in cold water and beaten with a truncheon on various parts of his body. He further maintained that he had been beaten on the soles of his feet and then forced to walk on a salt-strewn floor. He contended that he had been subjected to \u201cPalestinian hanging\u201d and that electric shocks had been administered to his genitals, his fingers and feet. The applicant relied on the medical reports of 27 December 1993 and 14 January 1994 (see paragraphs 14 and 17 above). As regards the difference in the contents of these two reports, the applicant submitted that, upon a complaint made by an arrestee, on 15 June 1995 the Istanbul Chamber of Physicians had forbidden the medical expert who had examined him on 27 December 1993 to practice medicine for a period of six months as the Chamber had found that the expert had drafted medical reports concealing signs of ill-treatment inflicted on the complainant while in police custody."], "id": "c0ca57ab-2b5a-4e39-9913-a5784ab049d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government argued that the offences of which the applicant was accused in his home country were not punishable with the death penalty. The Court notes, however, that the thrust of the applicant\u2019s complaint concerns not a fear of receiving the death penalty but the risk of him being subjected to ill-treatment or if he were expelled to Uzbekistan."], "id": "33f0346d-cf51-4cf0-b662-6ebdd8f5d2f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant submitted that the Bulgarian authorities had agreed to extradite him to Iran on the basis of de facto reciprocity, rather than pursuant to an extradition agreement. In doing so, they had not subjected the request of the Iranian authorities \u2013 in particular the part concerning the punishment likely to be imposed on him under Article 656 of the Iranian Penal Code \u2013 to proper scrutiny, even though the duty to assess the risk of ill-treatment in the event of extradition stemmed from Bulgaria\u2019s own law. Such scrutiny had been particularly necessary because it was well known that people accused and convicted of offences in Iran were often subjected to and inhuman and degrading punishments, which were lawful in that country. No other European State was extraditing people to Iran. In the applicant\u2019s view, the risk of his suffering ill-treatment was real. He referred in this connection to reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch."], "id": "ae44a87f-cac8-4b50-85c0-0bafe6f13508", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant submitted that his conviction had been exclusively based on self-incriminating statements extracted under during the investigation, as well as on statements of P.M. and his brother extracted under ill-treatment during the investigation. In support of his claim, the applicant submitted the written statements by P.M. and his brother, in which they confirmed that their statements against the applicant had been extracted under ill-treatment during the police investigation."], "id": "ba7e03d2-dc6f-466a-a994-fe823373846c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["122. The Government argued that the offences of which the applicant was accused in his home country were not punishable by the death penalty. The Court notes, however, that the thrust of the applicant\u2019s complaint concerns not a fear of receiving the death penalty but the risk that he would be subjected to ill-treatment or if he were expelled to Uzbekistan. The Court\u2019s task is now to establish whether there is a real risk of ill\u2011treatment in the event of the applicant\u2019s extradition to Uzbekistan. Since he has not yet been extradited, owing to the application by the Court of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the material date for the assessment of that risk is that of the Court\u2019s consideration of the case (see, among others, Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, \u00a7 128, 21 October 2010)."], "id": "9b0c0dce-97e3-4b01-9a4e-6fd0e3229cc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["300. The applicants insisted on their account of the events as outlined in paragraphs 25-108 above. They maintained that, during and/or following the search and security operation conducted in Izyaslav Prison on 22 January 2007, they had suffered: extensive and cruel beatings; humiliation and degrading treatment, including but not limited to being ordered to strip naked and adopt humiliating poses; application of special means of restraint, including handcuffs, unnecessarily and in a particularly painful manner; being deprived of access to water or food for a long period of time during their transfer to the SIZOs; exposure to low temperatures without adequate clothing upon their arrival at the SIZOs; a lack of adequate medical examinations and assistance. They insisted that the ill-treatment complained of had amounted to ."], "id": "1f970e81-d2fe-4a89-bf62-5fa26021fc41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["111. The applicant insisted on his version of the events described to the Court in the application form and subsequent letters. He stressed that he had been tortured by the police officers, that he had never used force against them or resisted their orders, and that the change in his statements in February 2006 was merely his fearful response to an interview in the conditions of the correctional colony. The applicant argued that the evidence put forward by the Russian authorities in support of their explanation of his injuries had been contradictory and unconvincing. He pointed to the fact that certain police officers had not mentioned his having resisted arrest and that the authorities had not recorded any injuries when he was placed in the police station detention unit. The applicant also claimed that two of the police officers who had taken part in his beating had later been charged with the of another detainee, and one of them had been convicted of the offence. However, he acknowledged that the evidence in support of his version was also weak, given that he had been in detention, had been unable to collect evidence himself and had been entirely dependant on the Russian investigating authorities. At that point, he listed numerous defects in the proceedings pertaining to his ill-treatment complaints. His complaints were similar to those which he expressed in respect of the inquiry into the events of 16 and 17 January 2002."], "id": "ca565e5c-6216-4a9c-a872-a6f25d5213d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["132. The applicant\u2019s representative submitted that the applicant had been forcibly handed over to Uzbek State agents by the FSB agents \u201cTimur\u201d and \u201cZakhar\u201d. The applicant had been subjected to while in detention in Uzbekistan. The Russian authorities had belatedly opened an investigation into the applicant\u2019s abduction and had failed to take all the requisite measures to elucidate its circumstances, in breach of their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "71980cbf-1bb4-4e6b-92ca-a2a8a238d530", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant maintained that he had been subjected to while in detention. He referred to his detailed submissions about the ill-treatment, to the medical documents produced after his release and to the witness statements which corroborated his account. He alleged that the documents submitted by the Government could not be regarded as conclusive evidence of the contrary, because some had been issued in 2004 and the records kept in 2000 were not accurate. Even these documents acknowledged that he had had a bruise on his shoulder (his medical record made upon admission to Chernokozovo, see paragraph 66 above). He also referred to reports by NGOs, Council of Europe documents and other complaints brought to the Court that denounced the widespread ill-treatment of detainees in Chechnya, and particularly at the Chernokozovo detention centre."], "id": "0ceb10f4-32f6-44e9-80c2-39d2512147d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["161. The Government submitted that the materials on diplomatic assurances, which the applicant and third parties had provided (see paragraphs 141\u2013146 above), all spoke of what the practice of courts should be, rather than the established requirements of the Convention. This Court\u2019s approach had been to find that assurances were not in themselves sufficient to prevent ill-treatment; however, the Court would also examine whether such assurances provided in their practical application a sufficient guarantee against ill-treatment (see Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) nos. 24027/07, 11949/08 and 36742/08, \u00a7 106, 6 July 2010). Furthermore, contrary to the applicant\u2019s submission (see paragraph 168 below), there was no principle in the Court\u2019s case-law that, where there was a real risk of ill-treatment owing to systemic in the country of destination, assurances were incapable of eliminating that risk."], "id": "bac79eba-0d1e-4d15-92b9-db55102fe7b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["108. The applicant claimed that his extradition to Turkmenistan would be incompatible with Article 3. He stated that the authorities had failed to take into account information which indicated that there existed a real risk of and ethnically motivated persecution. He referred to numerous data showing that torture and ill-treatment were widespread among detainees in Turkmenistan, and that as a member of an ethnic minority he would be in a particularly vulnerable situation."], "id": "1ff31743-c296-429b-8514-fb5c31159f9b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicants maintained that they had become direct targets in China on account of their political and religious beliefs. For that reason, they would be exposed to a real risk of being executed or subjected to incommunicado detention, or other inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention if returned to China. They further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective domestic remedy at their disposal with regard to their complaints under Articles 2 and 3, whereby the risks involved in their deportation could be subjected to meaningful judicial scrutiny in a timely manner. The relevant provisions of the Convention read as follows:"], "id": "8d2ab85c-77ea-4d67-b358-732dc834c7d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicant disputed the Government's submissions. He maintained that his state of health in detention had progressively deteriorated, which meant that he had not received proper medical treatment or nutrition. The applicant claimed that medical treatment had been denied to him with malicious intent. He further submitted that the effects of such treatment amounted to . In October 1998 the applicant's heart problems had worsened. In March 1999 he had again suffered from an open duodenal ulcer, a tumour in his back and skin diseases. The same health problems had recurred when his detention had been renewed by the judge of the Kyiv City Court hearing his case from June to August 1999."], "id": "37ae2e0d-c842-469f-9673-674e93940377", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicant submitted that the cells where he had been detained had been severely overcrowded. He pointed out that the space available to him during the whole detention period had been below the domestic standards (which specified no less than four square metres of personal space per inmate \u2013 see paragraph 70 above) and those recommended by the European Committee for the Prevention of and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (\u201cthe CPT\u201d \u2013 seven square metres per prisoner). The applicant further referred to the Court\u2019s findings in earlier cases concerning the conditions of detention in the same remand prison, no. IZ-77/2 (Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, \u00a7 24, 7 October 2010; Bychkov v. Russia, no. 39420/03, \u00a7 18, 5 March 2009; and Ilyadi v. Russia, no. 6642/05, \u00a7 20, 5 May 2011). In those cases the Court had found a violation of Article 3 on account of detention in overcrowded cells. Such overcrowding, in the Court\u2019s view, constituted a structural problem in Russia."], "id": "7b482113-b090-4f3f-ba1b-db7d774dfd2c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant also submitted copies of newspaper articles according to which various officials had admitted that the conditions in the Plovdiv Investigation Service detention facility had been designed to the detainees and bring pressure to bear on them. The applicant also referred to the 1995 report of the CPT on their visit to Bulgaria in which the conditions obtaining in similar detention facilities were described as inhuman and degrading."], "id": "14ea70fc-a0a3-4d94-9bb9-a6401384f179", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government contested that argument. They stated that the Kyrgyz Republic had applied for the applicant\u2019s extradition in connection with his participation in a \u201cgeneral\u201d crime, which had not been connected with the inter-ethnic clashes that had taken place in 2010 in Kyrgyzstan. In its request for the applicant\u2019s extradition the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office of the Kyrgyz Republic had provided the applicant with an adequate guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment. It had issued assurances that there were no political grounds for his prosecution, which was not connected with his nationality or religion, that he would not suffer or other cruel or degrading treatment, and that his rights of defence would be protected."], "id": "1235f845-9818-42dd-bb73-80b93384705f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["104. The applicant maintained that he had argued before the Russian courts that there was a real risk of his ill-treatment and political persecution in Uzbekistan. He had submitted reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and international NGOs, confirming that was widespread in detention facilities and that this information had not been properly assessed by the Russian authorities. He pointed out that the courts had rejected his arguments without giving any reasons other than the reference to the assurances given by the Uzbek authorities. Finally, he referred to a number of cases examined by the Court in which it had been established that extradition to Uzbekistan of a person sought for political crimes would constitute a violation of Article 3."], "id": "de9569de-ab87-4e3a-a408-2fc51b00ae13", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to acts of police brutality inflicting on him great physical and mental suffering which amounted to or inhuman and/or degrading treatment. Furthermore, he alleged that he was a victim of a procedural violation of the above Article since the prosecuting authorities had failed to proceed with an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. Article 3 reads as follows:"], "id": "a6a3c537-5e9f-4409-ba69-4d4767e1e5c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant submitted that the restriction on his right of access to a court did not serve a legitimate aim and was disproportionate. The House of Lords in ex parte Pinochet (No. 3) (see paragraph 34 above) had accepted that the prohibition of had acquired the status of a jus cogens norm in international law and that torture had become an international crime. In these circumstances there could be no rational basis for allowing sovereign immunity in a civil action when immunity would not be a defence in criminal proceedings arising from the same facts."], "id": "2a8f1771-3624-4394-86c9-8176c237cebd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["501. The applicant submitted that in the light of the Court\u2019s case-law Poland had been under a positive obligation under Article 3 to protect him from and other forms of ill treatment by the CIA on its territory and to prevent his transfer from Poland to other CIA secret detention facilities, which had exposed to him to further violations of that Article. However, the authorities, despite the fact that at the relevant time they knew, or should have known, that under the HVD Programme CIA prisoners were being subjected to interrogation methods and other practices manifestly incompatible with the Convention, had done nothing to stop or prevent the violations of his fundamental rights."], "id": "376413a9-cb39-44c6-9040-3d8a2c0e5fd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant complained that during his arrest and subsequent detention he was subjected to acts of police brutality which caused him great physical and mental suffering amounting to , inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He also complained that the investigative and prosecuting authorities failed to proceed with a prompt and effective official investigation into the incident capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. The applicant therefore claimed that, contrary to Article 3, taken together with Article 13 of the Convention, he had had no effective domestic remedy for the harm suffered while in police custody."], "id": "58afe80c-9d81-476e-a0bc-663396901ffe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["168. The applicant submitted that, as a matter of law, proper regard had to be given to the international community\u2019s criticism of assurances. The international consensus was that assurances undermined the established international legal machinery for the prohibition on and, if a country was unwilling to abide by its international law obligations, then it was unlikely to abide by bilateral assurances. International experience also showed that proof of compliance was notoriously difficult. The applicant also submitted that, following the approach taken by the Supreme Court of Canada in Suresh (see paragraph 152 above), it was also appropriate to distinguish between an assurance that a State would not do something legal (such as carry out the death penalty) and an assurance that it will not do something illegal (such as commit torture). Moreover, this Court\u2019s case law, particularly Shamayev and Ismoilov, cited above, demonstrated that, once a particular risk was shown to apply to an individual, assurances would not be sufficient, especially when torture was also shown to be systemic in the country of destination. He submitted, therefore, assurances would only suffice where (i) a previous systemic problem of torture had been brought under control; and (ii) although isolated, non-systemic acts continued, there was independent monitoring by a body with a track-record of effectiveness, and criminal sanctions against transgressors. These criteria had not been met in his case."], "id": "be0d86a4-55ef-466b-af1c-5cdefd89bae2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["186. The Government\u2019s third ground of challenge to the House of Lords\u2019 decision was directed principally at the approach taken towards the comparison between non-national and national suspected terrorists. The Court, however, considers that the House of Lords was correct in holding that the impugned powers were not to be seen as immigration measures, where a distinction between nationals and non-nationals would be legitimate, but instead as concerned with national security. Part 4 of the 2001 Act was designed to avert a real and imminent threat of terrorist attack which, on the evidence, was posed by both nationals and non-nationals. The choice by the Government and Parliament of an immigration measure to address what was essentially a security issue had the result of failing adequately to address the problem, while imposing a disproportionate and discriminatory burden of indefinite detention on one group of suspected terrorists. As the House of Lords found, there was no significant difference in the potential adverse impact of detention without charge on a national or on a non-national who in practice could not leave the country because of fear of abroad."], "id": "b537da51-a159-472e-bf36-8d059ac0e39e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant argued that the proceedings leading to his conviction and sentencing had been unfair and arbitrary. He submitted, in particular, that the Supreme Court of Justice had convicted him in his absence; that the Supreme Court had not examined the arguments of the defence and had ignored the findings of the first-instance court; that there had been no sufficient evidence to find him guilty of any of the accusations and that the findings of the Supreme Court had been arbitrary; that the statements incriminating him by other co-accused had been obtained illegally by the use of and pressure by police. The applicant drew the Court's attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Land of Thuringia (see paragraph 37 above) concerning the applicant's co-accused G.D. in which it was found, inter alia, that the applicant's co-accused were subjected to ill-treatment by the police in order to extract confessions and statements incriminating each other and that courts in Moldova were not independent from the Government. He also pointed to the lack of reasons in the judgment of the Moldovan Supreme Court. He finally accused the Supreme Court of having falsified a piece of evidence and of wrongly applying the domestic law."], "id": "1d9f806a-1285-4144-b015-c57ec69c8d28", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 allegations were unfounded. They noted that the applicants had undergone three medical examinations and that the medical reports had stated that there were no signs of ill-treatment or sexual intercourse. Accordingly, it was understandable that the investigating authorities had terminated the proceedings against the gendarmes since there was no evidence capable of substantiating the applicants\u2019 allegations. The Government further claimed that the applicants had failed to adduce any concrete evidence capable of proving that they had been subjected to in the hands of the security forces."], "id": "e45931f8-c318-4cc4-8077-58c7ec0f4f67", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["116. The applicant\u2019s repeated complaints to the courts dealing with his criminal case that his confessions had been obtained through did not lead to an examination of the matter, either in the context of an assessment of the admissibility of the applicant\u2019s self-incriminating statements or through a separate inquiry. The courts rejected the complaints as unsubstantiated, having fully relied on the prosecutor\u2019s decision of 26 January 2001."], "id": "37ac46f3-89ff-4677-80dc-f209669d52ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to substantiate his allegation that he risked ill-treatment if extradited. Belarus is a party to a number of international agreements on human rights, and its own legislation, including its Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibits . In approving the decision to extradite the applicant, the Russian courts took into account the assurances provided by the Belarusian authorities. Among other things, the authorities guaranteed that the applicant\u2019s criminal prosecution had not been politically motivated; that he would not be subjected to torture; and that he would only be tried for those criminal offences in respect of which the Russian authorities had authorised his extradition. The Government also noted that in their experience of cooperating with the Belarusian authorities in extradition matters, they had never been faced with a failure on the authorities\u2019 part to comply with their assurances."], "id": "15c8439e-b595-45a8-be79-1287ebfed247", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicant alleged that the known circumstances in which her mother and brother had died and the nature of their injuries entailed enough evidence to conclude that they had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. She submitted that acts of had been widespread in Grozny at the beginning of 2000. She also contended that the authorities had failed to investigate the ill-treatment."], "id": "d85fe1b2-f196-4ddb-8dd6-dbe2cbbb729e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["268. The applicant has alleged that his retrial would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors, including the absence of a lawyer during interrogation, his notoriety and the composition of the State Security Court (see paragraph 248 above). However, as the Court has observed, the central issue in the case is the admission of evidence. Accordingly, it will first examine this complaint."], "id": "bede7cca-f7fb-43c5-a4ac-985314257b7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government pointed out that Kyrgyzstan had enhanced its cooperation with the UN and other international organisations, and had ratified all fundamental international conventions on human rights. In particular, Kyrgyzstan had been a party to the Convention against and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984 since 5 September 1997, and to its Optional Protocol of 18 December 2002 since 29 December 2008. In accordance with that Protocol, international experts regularly visited detention facilities in Kyrgyzstan to monitor the situation in respect of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."], "id": "6106aee3-5b2f-491d-91ec-7bbeb700b530", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant believed that in the event of extradition he would run a real risk of being ill-treated and tortured in order to extort his confession. In particular, the applicant stated that he had already been ill-treated by the police during the pre-trial investigation into his criminal case in 2001. Moreover, significant evidence collected by the international bodies confirmed that the practice of and ill-treatment in order to extract a confession or to intimidate political opponents and activists was widespread in Belarus."], "id": "b5fe0f26-80ce-462b-b6be-2ce48b8de789", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["137. The applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated and humiliated during his arrest in the street and at Kentron Police Station after he had been taken there on 1 March 2008. The violence he had faced was above the required threshold to be qualified as under Article 3 of the Convention and was attributable to the police officers. Being in a very bad condition as a result of ill-treatment, he had not even been able to give testimony to the investigator who had come to question him. He had consistently raised the fact of his ill-treatment in all his submissions to the domestic authorities, including the courts and the prosecutor\u2019s office. The Government did not deny that the police officers had been responsible for his injuries but, relying on the statements of the alleged perpetrators, simply doubted that those injuries had been inflicted during his arrest."], "id": "45481d71-eab7-4bd1-9f15-bb36ad3b6a77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government argued that, while deciding on the applicant\u2019s extradition, the domestic authorities had carefully examined the possibility of his being subjected to and various forms of ill-treatment. They referred to the extradition request and the letter of 26 January 2011 from the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office of Tajikistan, which had contained various assurances to that effect. They further referred to the letter of 18 November 2010 rebutting the allegations of torture made by the applicant\u2019s co\u2011accused. The Government emphasised Tajikistan\u2019s various international obligations in respect of the prevention and punishment of torture and the fact that it had created the post of ombudsman as proof of its good faith in making genuine efforts to protect human rights. They pointed out that the court reviewing the extradition order had heard the applicant and his counsel, the prosecutor and numerous witnesses. It had admitted to the case file the opinion of Ms Ryabinina, the reports by various human\u2011rights organisations and the relevant case-law of the Court. The court had carefully examined the available material and had rightfully arrived at the conclusion that the applicant\u2019s arguments had been ill-founded. Lastly, the Government forwarded a statement by the Tajik Prosecutor General\u2019s Office, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "id": "028f533c-1a4e-46a0-988d-27d868633846", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicant complained that the use of morphine had not been an appropriate medical treatment but instead had resulted in his becoming addicted to drugs again, since he had been a drug addict since 1997 but had stopped shortly after his arrest and detention. The applicant was of the opinion that the medical treatment in question had amounted to ."], "id": "e08200b0-fed3-48b9-9dd2-3c598ae57b60", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["143. The applicant maintained that neither of the investigations had met the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention. He contended, in particular, that the disappearance and ill-treatment of Cemal U\u00e7ar between 5 October and 2 November 1999 had never been investigated although his son had told the authorities that he had been subjected to between 5 October and 2 November 1999. In this connection, the applicant contended that the prosecution authorities and the police had failed to take a detailed statement concerning his allegations of torture from Cemal U\u00e7ar. Nor did they make any efforts to obtain other evidence, such as forensic evidence and witness statements."], "id": "6dd964ba-a5d6-4afd-9736-3b1ab568a498", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that police officers had subjected him to in order to force him to confess to a crime. He argued that he could still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 because the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation, and the amount of compensation was disproportionate to the suffering he had endured. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "f869e0c4-b4e9-4425-b834-8459cc8e4fec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant alleges that he was subjected to while in police custody. He claims that during his interrogation, he was blindfolded and stripped naked. He was strung up by his arms in the form of torture known as \u201cPalestinian hanging\u201d. His head was hit against the wall and he was held parallel to the ground on his hands and feet. He was also electrocuted, threatened and insulted."], "id": "a2e10805-f672-4117-8ecf-f56c40baf309", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants complained that the treatment to which they were subjected by the prison authorities and gendarmes on 20 July 1995 in Buca Prison amounted to and inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In their observations dated 11 May 2006 the applicants further complained, without any elaboration, that the incident at Buca prison and subsequent developments also violated their rights under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention."], "id": "1d97a06f-bfc3-4a20-80d1-b6e3286ac671", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government submitted that, generally, the alleged lack of medical treatment could not be considered as amounting to or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, the Government argued that the applicant had been provided with all necessary medical treatment. Specifically, they noted that all of the applicant's requests for medical examination had been satisfied and that he had been regularly examined by the government doctors and provided with necessary in-patient and out-patient treatment. After the applicant's in-patient treatment in the specialised hospital for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis, his health condition stabilised and no deterioration in his state of health was observed thereafter."], "id": "66d5bbb5-eb6b-428f-a338-807413e669fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicants insisted that there were serious reasons to believe that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had been ill-treated after being detained. They referred to applications submitted to the Court by other individuals claiming to be victims of similar violations, and to documents by human rights NGOs and the Council of Europe reporting numerous instances where people detained in Chechnya had been found dead, or had returned from custody showing signs of or ill-treatment. The applicants further claimed that no investigation had been carried out into the matter."], "id": "a01fc7d8-8160-4f27-81df-297b8ff368d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant claimed that he had done everything possible in the circumstances to substantiate the assertion that he would face a real and serious risk of if he returned to Iran. He was of the view that, essentially, he had explained to the Migration Board what had happened in Iran in a consistent way. The inconsistencies in his story concerned only minor events and were due to the fact that the two interviews with the Migration Board had been different in nature. While the first one had been a short summary interview, the second had consisted of detailed questioning. It was therefore logical that certain details of his story, like the house search of 2011, had only been mentioned during the second interview. Furthermore, it had to be taken into account that a period of almost two years had elapsed between the two interviews. Nobody could be expected to tell exactly the same story after such a long time."], "id": "894a6b24-49e2-45b6-a848-e062c9cef505", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant maintained that her husband had been subjected to after his abduction. In this respect she claimed that it was common knowledge that persons held in detention were subjected to torture. In addition she affirmed that, during his previous periods in detention, her husband had been tortured. She further claimed that she had been misled by the authorities when they first said that her husband was in custody and later denied this fact."], "id": "d3490e86-3fb7-448d-943d-55095035061f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants maintained their complaint. They submitted that the expulsion proceedings had been instituted by Russian authorities in order to circumvent the effect of the refusal to extradite them. They asserted that and ill-treatment of prisoners were a common practice of Uzbek law-enforcement and security forces. In this connection they relied on the data published by international human rights NGOs and the US Department of State about the situation in Uzbekistan. They further referred to the Court\u2019s earlier findings in a number of extradition cases against Russia that the ill\u2011treatment of prisoners who, like themselves, were charged with membership of an extremist religious organisation, was a pervasive and enduring problem in Uzbekistan. As regards the Government\u2019s referral to Uzbekistan\u2019s ratification of the UN Convention against Torture, they referred to the Court\u2019s earlier finding that the existence of domestic laws and accession to international treaties guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights in principle were not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment where reliable sources have reported practices resorted to or tolerated by the authorities which are manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, \u00a7 147, ECHR 2008)."], "id": "04588a56-39fb-4479-9871-921075549c57", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant\u2019s representative argued that his allegations of a risk of ill-treatment had not been examined by the Russian authorities. She relied on several reports by United Nations agencies and international and regional organisations and argued that the applicant had run and continued to run a risk of in Uzbekistan on account of his religious beliefs. She gave examples of cases when Muslim detainees had been ill-treated, and in certain cases killed, because of their religious beliefs, or unjustifiably subjected to disciplinary penalties such as placement in punishment cells without food or water, in particular because of their attempts to pray. She also referred to recent reports on the allegedly appalling conditions of detention and the lack of monitoring of detention facilities in Uzbekistan. The applicant\u2019s representative also relied on the third-party interveners\u2019 submissions before the Court in the cases of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005\u2011I) and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008). According to the applicant\u2019s representative, the applicant\u2019s expulsion had been in fact \u201can extradition in disguise\u201d, as a result of which the applicant had been convicted of the offences in respect of which the Russian authorities had refused extradition. The applicant had been expelled in flagrant violation of Russian law before his appeals against the expulsion order and the dismissal of his refugee application could be examined. Besides, no diplomatic assurances had been obtained from the Uzbek authorities in the present case and, even if they had been obtained, they could not have been effective in the context of an administrative expulsion formally unrelated to any pending criminal proceedings against an applicant. With reference to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia (no. 36378/02, ECHR 2005\u2011III), it was argued that the respondent Government\u2019s failure to comply with an indication under Rule 39 should not necessarily prevent the Court from examining on the merits a complaint under Article 3. Otherwise, it would be less burdensome for a respondent State to remove an applicant from its territory in cases in which Rule 39 was applied and to be held in violation of Article 34 of the Convention than to comply with Rule 39 and to be found to have breached Article 3 and/or Article 6."], "id": "f4e97b50-e79d-4ebe-a2a2-ab8af87d63c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants submitted that they were wanted by the Kazakh authorities for their political activities in that country and alleged that if extradited to Kazakhstan they would be tortured by the authorities with the aim of extracting their confessions and subjected to the unacceptable conditions of detention. According to them, the Kazakh legal system did not guarantee either effective protection against and ill-treatment or adequate investigation of allegations of ill-treatment. In this respect they referred to reports of various international organisations and governmental bodies concerning the human rights situation in Kazakhstan. The applicants, citing the Court\u2019s judgment in Soldatenko v. Ukraine (no. 2440/07, \u00a7 73, 23 October 2008), argued that the assurances against ill-treatment provided by the Office of the General Prosecutor of Kazakhstan were not legally binding on that State."], "id": "aee7d69e-1c7f-4ad9-89de-fff0e6ba92a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["162. The Government relied on the reasoning of the House of Lords in Wellington and the Canadian Supreme Court in Burns and Ferras (see paragraphs 66\u201372, 74 and 75 above). On the basis of those cases, the Government submitted that, in the extradition context, a distinction had to be drawn between and other forms of ill-treatment. A real risk of torture in the receiving State should be an absolute bar on extradition. However, for all other forms of ill-treatment, it was legitimate to consider the policy objectives pursued by extradition in determining whether the ill\u2011treatment reached the minimum level of severity required by Article 3. This was the appropriate means of resolving the tension that existed between the Court\u2019s judgments in Soering, on the one hand, and Chahal and Saadi, on the other. Article 3 could not be interpreted as meaning that any form of ill-treatment in a non-Contracting State would be sufficient to prevent extradition. Such an absolutist approach to Article 3 would mean, for instance, that practices such as head shaving or shackling could act as a bar to extradition because the Court had found these forms of ill-treatment to be in breach of Article 3 (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, \u00a7\u00a7 114-121, ECHR 2003\u2011XII (extracts); and Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, \u00a7\u00a7 45-89, ECHR 2003\u2011XI)."], "id": "6db1dde1-0cf7-4298-ac76-7fded830044a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant maintained his complaint. He pointed out that the Government\u2019s version that he had been ill-treated in Kazakhstan, before his extradition, had been refused by the official statements from the administration of the remand prison certifying that on 23 February 2006 he had not had any evidence of ill-treatment at the time of his arrival in Moscow (see paragraphs 10 and 27 above). Furthermore, his allegations of ill-treatment had been confirmed by the medical examinations of 1 March and 1 June 2006 (see paragraphs 29, 26 and 39 above), his consistent complaints to the authorities (see paragraphs 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 42 and 47 above) and the domestic court\u2019s findings of 3 October 2007 (see paragraph 41 above). He stressed that the Government neither provided a satisfactory explanation as to the origins of his injuries nor carried out an effective investigation into his complaints. The applicant further stated, in particular, that the inquiries conducted had been neither timely nor thorough; the authorities had not questioned him nor taken any steps to identify his torturers. Finally, he submitted that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected by the police amounted to . In support of his allegations, the applicant referred to the documents submitted and the findings of the CPT of 13 March 2007 in respect of the human rights violations committed by the staff of the ORB-2 at the material time (see paragraph 61 above)."], "id": "b3d20741-9818-452a-94a4-a70f1bd4578e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["114. The Government further relied on the diplomatic assurances provided by the Uzbek Prosecutor General\u2019s Office. They submitted that there was no reason to doubt that the assurances would be complied with: Uzbekistan was a party to all UN human rights treaties prohibiting , and submitted regular reports to the UN bodies responsible for their supervision. To the Government\u2019s knowledge, none of the persons extradited from Russia to Uzbekistan had been ill-treated."], "id": "eec61825-eae7-4cc2-aabe-4376662fc080", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government submitted that the applicant had identified the body of his son from the photographs of the three persons killed during the armed clash at the petrol station. The applicant knew, therefore, that his son had been killed in the armed clash between the terrorists and security forces rather than as a result of . In the opinion of the Government, the applicant's allegation to that effect demonstrated bad faith."], "id": "12174e66-dd84-4332-a9f0-87fb25be70c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["92. The Government argued, first, that the present application had been entirely based on knowingly untrue facts and therefore should be declared inadmissible for \u201cabuse of the right of individual petition\u201d, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. For the Government, the content of the present application was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application, as the information provided therein was untrue or insidious. An appropriate and carefully selected form of social care for the applicant had been portrayed as detention. Appropriate medical care and striving to save her life had been presented as her . The facts concerning the reopening of the guardianship proceedings were also untrue, as well as those related to the applicant\u2019s complaints of the alleged refusal of the K\u0117dainiai Home\u2019s management to allow the applicant to have personal visits and of the censorship of her communications."], "id": "b6327b95-dbb8-488d-95b4-b7c729c310ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["114. The applicants insisted that there were serious reasons to believe that Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov had been ill-treated after being detained. They referred to applications submitted to the Court by other individuals claiming to have been victims of similar violations, and to documents by human-rights NGOs and the Council of Europe reporting numerous instances where people detained in Chechnya had been found dead, or had returned from custody, with signs of or ill-treatment."], "id": "102d2da8-cb1b-4fa5-9495-ba8f0d2dd0a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant maintained his complaint and noted that his allegations had been confirmed by the inquiry conducted by the authorities on 7 July 2006. He further contended that the lack of finance could not have justified the appalling conditions in the temporary detention facility. As regards the measures implemented by the authorities to upgrade the temporary detention facility, they had been taken only after he had lodged his complaints with the Court. Lastly, he considered that his detention had amounted to and resulted in the deterioration of his health."], "id": "72cd409e-d37a-4c89-9e28-9fe713c5b16e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["108. The applicants alleged that there was a practice of non-respect of the requirement to investigate abuses committed by army servicemen and members of the police effectively, both in peacetime and during conflict. The applicants based this assertion on four principal grounds: impunity for the crimes committed during the current period of hostilities (since 1999), impunity for the crimes committed in 1994-1996, impunity for police and ill-treatment all over Russia, and impunity for the torture and ill-treatment that occur in army units in general."], "id": "4e98928b-8263-4f51-8890-90163589a348", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government did not argue that the situation in Uzbekistan had improved during the period under consideration in the present case. Having examined recent materials originating from reliable and objective sources (see Salah Sheekh, cited above, \u00a7 136), the Court is also unable to find elements which would be indicative of such an improvement. Quite the contrary, it follows from the latest reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the US Department of State, as well as the information of other organisations to which they refer in their documents, that the use of and ill-treatment against detainees in Uzbekistan is \u201csystematic\u201d, \u201cunpunished\u201d and \u201cencouraged\u201d by law-enforcement and security officers. According to those sources, despite the Uzbek authorities\u2019 assertions that such practices had significantly decreased, reports of torture and ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners continued unabated (see paragraphs 46-48 above). Against this background the Court cannot but conclude that the ill-treatment of detainees remains a pervasive and enduring problem in Uzbekistan."], "id": "28a2f65b-2ffd-4401-9640-f9bbda984c3d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicants submitted that since the first applicant\u2019s initial confession had been extracted through and had been made in the absence of a lawyer \u2013 evidence that had subsequently been declared inadmissible by the trial court for being irregular \u2013 it was even more difficult to understand why the domestic courts had chosen to rely on those statements when they had been repeated during the reconstruction of the events at the scene of the crime. The applicants also reiterated that the procedure in which the victim had identified the first applicant had been conducted with serious procedural deficiencies. The applicants further complained that the domestic courts had failed to give any meaningful answer to the first applicant\u2019s arguments that he had had an alibi. The second applicant also maintained that although he had formally been assigned a public defence lawyer, that lawyer had never actually taken part in any of the early investigative measures at Tbilisi police headquarters."], "id": "63d1ab0b-9e04-4a71-83f6-9d7797eaa93d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["223. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and while in detention, referring to the methods of ill-treatment inflicted on him by the police officers of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. He also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into his relevant allegations. The applicant referred to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "28b9ac8a-4c99-4185-82fb-4e343a0b44a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["110. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment and . They referred, in particular, to the methods of ill-treatment to which they had been subjected in Ingushetia and in Khankala, to the conditions of detention in Khankala and to the threats of execution. The applicants also complained under Article 3 that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "197d1cfb-4a14-4291-943e-f9b823609491", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant submitted that the fact of his ill-treatment was sufficiently corroborated by the available evidence, in particular the medical evidence of injuries recorded after the applicant had left police custody. The domestic authorities had failed to provide any plausible explanation for his injuries. The applicant further argued that the ill-treatment he had suffered amounted to , in particular in view of his young age at the time, the prolonged and intentional nature of ill-treatment, and the fact that he had been subjected to humiliating acts and to \u201cPalestinian hanging\u201d."], "id": "b8dcb8fb-1141-4ed8-8da1-13b2fd4c3970", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants considered that their ill-treatment by the authorities during their arrest and detention had constituted inhuman and degrading treatment which in certain instances amounted to . The Government had failed to specify in what respect exactly the applicants\u2019 behaviour had not been law-abiding. The applicants contended that none of them had offered any resistance towards the police at any time while being apprehended or during their detention. In such circumstances the force used had been excessive and unnecessary."], "id": "74e5e689-5f09-41c4-ba3b-8ff9d46792c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["252. The applicant also submitted that any possible distinction between and ill-treatment (either in international law or in the Convention) was immaterial for two reasons. First, his allegation was that Al-Hamasher and Abu Hamsher\u2019s ill-treatment was so severe as to amount to torture. Second, there was a breach of Article 6 whenever ill-treatment was inflicted in order to secure a confession and it was clear that Al-Hamasher and Abu Hamsher had been ill-treated for that reason."], "id": "cc079b48-053d-4e1e-9546-34a070adf6fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["114. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing as a result of the domestic courts' admission of statements obtained from him under and in the absence of a lawyer during his detention in police custody. The applicant maintained also that he had not been informed promptly of the nature and cause of the accusations against him and that he had not been able to secure the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf in the proceedings brought against him."], "id": "d4b5d27a-4064-414c-8620-b58035ed609d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant maintained that he faced a real risk of and ill\u2011treatment if extradited to Uzbekistan, arguing that this kind of practice was widely used by the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities. In this regard, he relied on different reports of the UN institutions and international NGOs. The applicant contested the reliability of the Uzbek authorities' assurances. The applicant also submitted that he and all the members of his family had been previously persecuted and subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment by the Uzbek authorities. In support of this claim, he submitted his family members' detailed accounts of their alleged ill\u2011treatment in Uzbekistan."], "id": "94681793-acbe-4bdf-ba58-e0d0de89c9c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["148. The Government also noted that the applicant had never contended that he had been arrested or convicted or that any search warrant had been issued against him in his country of origin. Nor had he ever stated having been subjected to or threats. On these grounds, and for the reason that the applicant had used several identities, his statements as a whole had not been considered reliable."], "id": "00b78e3a-fe06-4fb2-8e3f-416419190810", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Government may further be understood to argue in general terms that the situation in Uzbekistan had been improving during the period under consideration in the present case. However, having examined recent material originating from reliable and objective sources (see Salah Sheekh, cited above, \u00a7 136), the Court is unable to find elements which would be indicative of such an improvement. Quite to the contrary, it follows from the latest reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well from information from other organisations to which the above non\u2011governmental organisations refer in their documents, that the use of and ill\u2011treatment against detainees in Uzbekistan is systematic and unpunished by law-enforcement and security officers. According to those sources, despite the Uzbek authorities\u2019 assertions that such practices had significantly decreased, reports of torture and ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners continued unabated (see paragraphs 91-93 above). Against this background the Court cannot but conclude that the ill-treatment of detainees remains a pervasive and enduring problem in Uzbekistan."], "id": "96d07603-aada-447f-b117-6ad094cd1477", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["155. The applicant alleged that the injuries and anguish she had suffered as a result of the violence inflicted upon her by her husband had amounted to within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Despite the ongoing violence and her repeated requests for help, however, the authorities had failed to protect her from her husband. It was as though the violence had been inflicted under State supervision. The insensitivity and tolerance shown by the authorities in the face of domestic violence had made her feel debased, hopeless and vulnerable."], "id": "7aac8165-ac38-434d-be04-2fd2bef172f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant, who submitted that he would run a risk of or inhuman or degrading treatment if he were removed to Eritrea, complained of the absence in domestic law of a remedy with suspensive effect in respect of decisions refusing aliens leave to enter the country and ordering their removal, whether or not they were asylum-seekers and whatever the risks, alleged or real. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3, which provide:"], "id": "bdb74f77-df1c-4dac-a108-15821472ec5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["164. The applicants rejected the submission that Article 3 allowed for a balancing exercise of any kind. The Court had specifically rejected that submission in Saadi, cited above. Even if, in extradition cases, a relativist approach could be taken in respect of ill-treatment which fell short of , this was irrelevant to their case because, in their submission, years of solitary confinement at ADX amounted to torture or, at the very least, was at the upper end of the scale of ill-treatment (see further below). Furthermore, none of the policy reasons for taking a relativist approach to ill-treatment arising from life sentences could apply to ill-treatment arising from prison conditions. Detention at ADX was not mandated by United States law and the United States could give an undertaking not to detain the applicants there. Thus, the alternative to detention at ADX was not that they would be fugitives from United States justice, but rather that they would be detained in American prisons which were Article 3 compliant."], "id": "444d0347-f8d5-43cc-a328-5f4883e985a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant complained that on 8, 22 and 28 June 2004 he had been subjected to violence by officers from the ORB police unit. He had then been transferred to correctional colony IK\u201114 and during his detention there from July to November 2004 had been subjected to further violence by the police and prisoners acting on their instructions with the connivance of the prison administration. He argued that the violence had been used to make him confess to crimes, and had amounted to . Furthermore, no effective investigation had been carried out into his complaints. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "96192459-e75e-4c3d-b54e-d2b8280e0451", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicant argued that her allegations of a violation of Article 3 in respect of Mr Sharani Askharov were supported by the fact that other men detained on 18 May 2001 who had subsequently been released had sustained serious injuries as a result of . She claimed that the Government had failed to produce any evidence that could refute her allegations. The applicant also maintained her complaint that she herself had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention because of the anguish and distress she had suffered as a result of her husband\u2019s disappearance."], "id": "bd70d880-faae-4f94-ac75-9ae69eb6c2e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant maintained his allegations. In particular, he alleged that the police officers present in the room were all known from criminal investigations involving and arbitrary killings and that, therefore, the attack against him had been premeditated. He further criticised the promotion of Mr A.\u00c7. and submitted that, due to the physical and mental injuries he had sustained, he had been unable to pursue his profession effectively. Finally, he complained about the impunity enjoyed by the police in Turkey. In his additional observations, the applicant challenged the veracity of the witness testimonies given by the journalists whom he accused of being partial, due to links with the police."], "id": "00460f60-d271-4eb4-b7ad-557729adb913", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["175. The applicant did not submit any claims for pecuniary damage. As regards non-pecuniary damage, he submitted that he had endured stress, frustration and anguish as a result of the high risk of being subjected to if extradited to Uzbekistan and of the eleven months of his unlawful detention pending extradition in inadequate conditions. He left the determination of the amount of compensation to the Court."], "id": "c40be7c5-3e78-44df-881e-261daa3b50d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicant also invoked a number of other reasons why he faced a risk of ill-treatment or in Syria. First of all, he raised the general situation for the Kurdish ethnic minority in Syria. In particular, he claimed that he was at risk of persecution by reason of his Kurdish origin, as Kurds in Syria were members of a generally oppressed minority whose human rights were systematically violated. Secondly, as a failed asylum seeker, he ran the risk of being imprisoned upon return to Syria. Thirdly, he relied on his connections with the Yekiti party or other political activities. He had participated in demonstrations organized by the Yekiti party and Syrian Kurds in Cyprus, including that of 17 May 2010. He believed that his activities were well known to the Syrian Embassy in Cyprus and the Syrian authorities in general. Fourthly, in his observations dated 12 August 2011 the applicant invoked the deterioration in the human rights\u2019 situation in Syria."], "id": "af3fbc50-8434-418b-9bb1-f6e3cb66681a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant argued that none of the Russian authorities had properly examined his claim that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if extradited to Uzbekistan. Those authorities had only relied on the material obtained from the Russian governmental agencies. No attempt had been made to study reliable independent sources. The Court had previously confirmed that the ill-treatment of detainees was a pervasive and enduring problem in Uzbekistan, especially in respect of detainees charged with politically-motivated criminal offences, as in his case. This submission had been and remained corroborated by other independent sources. If extradited, the applicant would be placed in detention pending trial and thus was running a risk of in view of the charges against him. The Uzbek assurances should be disregarded, in view of the overall climate of impunity for human rights abuses in Uzbekistan and absence of any control mechanism attached to the assurances given by the Uzbek authorities."], "id": "124d1bb3-d40d-48cb-a3d1-4815fef489d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["123. The applicant maintained his allegations. He contended that the admission by the domestic courts of unlawful evidence in the case file had breached his right to a fair hearing. Despite his repeated requests for the removal of his statements obtained under from the case file, no response had been given by the first-instance courts and the Court of Cassation. Thus his conviction had been based on his statements obtained under torture and in the absence of legal assistance during his detention in police custody."], "id": "4e9f8a3c-ae11-4a84-b229-ff22d71fc6c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["150. The applicant also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He indicated that he had been subjected to with electrodes in the police station, which had caused him severe physical and mental suffering. Moreover, his fall from the window had resulted in a very serious and painful trauma. His legs were paralysed, he could move around only in a wheelchair and would never have children. For the rest of his life the applicant would be dependent on other people. He could not work and experience professional development and advancement in his career. The building where he lived had no elevator and he had to undertake strenuous efforts every time he wanted to go out. Most of the public buildings in Russia lacked special access facilities for wheelchair users. As a result, his movements and social contacts were very limited. All these factors caused him constant and severe mental anguish."], "id": "f570cf2e-d933-46ef-bf13-405bac6a3e24", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government maintained that the police had had no choice but to use force since the first, second, third and fourth applicants had resisted arrest and/or tried to escape. In any event, any injuries suffered by them had not reached the threshold of , inhuman and/or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. Also, the said applicants\u2019 statements as to when exactly the alleged abuse had occurred, upon arrest or subsequently, had been inconsistent and the third applicant had even stated that he had not been abused during arrest. There were likewise inconsistencies in their statements concerning the duration of the alleged abuse. Only the first applicant admitted before the police to having committed the crimes in question, whilst the second and third applicants did not do so. It is therefore difficult to maintain that the police had used force in order to elicit their confessions. The medical report of 22 September 2008 also concluded that the injuries sustained by the first, second and third applicants were inflicted between 3 and 7 days prior to 13 November 2007. Finally, the Government recalled that the fourth applicant had failed to attend the medical examination on 13 November 2007."], "id": "7ed51dfe-831b-4f3a-9694-e5fbfe11659f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government further noted the lack of basis of the impugned statements, which amounted to value judgments. They did not dispute the veracity of the factual information about the acts of , but took the view that the subjective conclusions as to the judges\u2019 implication in the commission of those acts were inadmissible; the Criminal Court had pointed out that M.B. had not been authorised to participate in S.A.\u2019s interviews in Syria."], "id": "bad67062-f853-485c-9b6e-9dbcb641f91f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government also submitted that the legislative framework governing pre-trial detention issues had evolved in the light of the recommendations of the Committee for the Prevention of . For example, untried prisoners had been granted the right to make telephone calls to their relatives; the practice of accommodating foreign prisoners on separate premises had been discontinued; letters addressed to the federal and regional Ombudsmen and to the Court were exempt from censorship; the minimum exercise time for detainees in the punishment cell had been increased from 30 minutes to one hour. Improvements in the provision of medical care and assistance had been achieved."], "id": "fbfa521d-ac04-44e1-85d1-f4935af722b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant also referred to the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from 15 to 19 July 2002 (CPT/Inf(2003), which indicated that physical ill-treatment of persons in police custody was a serious problem and expressed doubt that judges or prosecutors conducted effective investigations where such ill-treatment came to their attention. This indicated a deep-rooted and widespread practice of abuse in police custody and impunity with regard to officers who perpetrated such acts. It was for the Government to show what they had done in response to the scale and seriousness of the problem at issue. In the present case, they had clearly done nothing. Finally, the applicant disputed that any remedies existed to provide redress for the authorities' blatant inaction."], "id": "ffdcec25-9a4c-4877-8f8e-db5618b93d7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["149. The applicant complained that the response of the authorities to the complaints and petitions about the detention, and killing of Kadri Ate\u015f was utterly inadequate. According to the applicant, the necessary remedies either did not exist or they were, in practice, useless. The applicant submitted that there had been a very clear violation of Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "ead61929-c063-4b84-92da-a6103947b62f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["128. The applicant argued that if he were deported to northern Somalia there was a real risk that he would be subjected to or to cruel and inhuman treatment because he belonged to the Reer Hamar minority group. Not having any clan or family ties in the \u201crelatively safe\u201d areas, there was every possibility that he would be forced to live in a camp for IDPs; conditions in these camps had been described as inhumane. In the applicant's opinion, national policy based on the country reports prepared by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs paid only lip service to the position paper issued by UNHCR (see paragraph 100 above). An analysis of the November 2004 country report carried out by the Dutch Refugee Council (see paragraphs 81-83 above) had undermined that report's validity and highlighted its inadequacies. Nevertheless, from an anthropological point of view it gave a useful insight into the position of the Reer Hamar in Somalia, a position with which the applicant's personal circumstances were completely in line."], "id": "07f9329b-fb31-48fd-a31a-cd3a080a284f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["79. The applicants submitted that Mr Stefanov\u2019s fall from the window of room 36 had been either a suicide attempt provoked by severe , or an attempt by the police to cover up his prior ill\u2011treatment. There was no evidence that the fall had been an attempt to escape, since the window was situated at 9.6 meters above ground level. No one could be expected to jump from such a height and subsequently be able to run away. There were no structures which could cushion the blow resulting from the fall; in particular, it was obvious that Mr Stefanov\u2019s body had not touched the iron sheet roof before hitting the ground. The assertion that Mr Stefanov had made an attempt to flee was even more improbable in view of the facts that he had been handcuffed and that all of his injuries were inflicted on his upper body, which indicated that he had fallen head down. There was likewise no indication that the fall had been the result of a suicide attempt. Mr Stefanov had no history of mental illness and had been facing only a trivial burglary charge. Moreover, such an explanation had not been proffered during the investigation."], "id": "b76fed92-c55f-494e-8691-507da08c3f69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s submissions. He maintained that he had been beaten up by the police officer, R., and that such treatment had amounted to . The applicant maintained that he had had only some scratches and a bruise when he had been taken to the police station, but had been suffering from more serious injuries when he had been released 22 hours later. The applicant stated that his first medical examination had included a check for evidence of injected drugs, so he had had to remove his upper clothes. Moreover, he had been wearing a T-shirt with short sleeves. Therefore, if the applicant had had significant physical bodily injuries at that time the doctor should have noted them. The applicant also stated that the State authorities had already been aware of the assaults on him on 9 July 2005, when the ambulance doctor had informed the police of his hospitalisation, but that no action had been taken, and his allegations had not been investigated. In any event, when the criminal proceedings had finally been instituted, the investigation had not been adequate and effective."], "id": "17961d97-987e-4e09-b285-9de4a600782e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant maintained that he had argued before the Russian courts that he faced a real risk of ill-treatment and political persecution in Uzbekistan. He had submitted reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and international NGOs confirming that was widespread in detention facilities and that this information had not received proper assessment by the Russian authorities. He pointed out that the courts had rejected his arguments without giving any reasons except a reference to the assurances given by the Uzbek authorities. Finally, he referred to a number of cases examined by the Court in which it had been established that extradition to Uzbekistan of a person sought for political crimes would constitute a violation of Article 3."], "id": "9f591fd6-47d7-48eb-934a-2676d963cd37", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["147. The applicant claimed a sum of GBP 40,000 for the non-pecuniary damage arising from the violations of the Convention suffered by his son and from the alleged practice of such violations, to be held by him on behalf of his son's widow and four children, as well as a sum of GBP 2,500 for himself on account of the lack of an effective remedy. He referred to the Court's previous decisions regarding unlawful detention, and the lack of an effective investigation.\u201d"], "id": "cc80c953-c4c8-427a-81a3-16ab7f57be5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant claimed that, should he be returned to Baghdad or other parts of Iraq, he would face a real risk of being subjected to or other inhuman or degrading treatment. He pointed out that the Christian minority was still in a vulnerable position in southern and central Iraq and that the authorities there could not guarantee the safety for Christians."], "id": "ea09dd60-e60c-4881-bfbb-0a87599697f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["172. The applicants also referred to the problem of the statute of limitations and the absence of a coherent official policy in that respect. They referred to the developments following two of the Court\u2019s judgments: Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia (no. 21519/02, 5 February 2009) and Akhmadov and Others v. Russia (no. 21586/02, 14 November 2008). In the first case, the Court had qualified the ill-treatment of the applicants as and found a breach of both the substantive and the procedural aspects of Article 3. In May 2010 the domestic criminal investigation into abuse of authority had been closed because the prescribed period had expired. In the second case, the criminal investigation into the death of the applicants\u2019 relatives, opened following charges of abduction and murder, had been terminated in October 2011 for the same reasons. The applicants stressed that since the crime of kidnapping under Article 126 of the Criminal Code could be qualified as either serious or particularly serious, depending on the circumstances, a more coherent approach was necessary to prevent the application of the period of limitations to the bulk of unresolved cases in the near future. The applicants referred, by way of example, to Article 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, which stipulated that for crimes which were not investigated for political reasons, the statute of limitations started to run once such reasons had ceased to exist."], "id": "0c4bb5ba-8089-4b88-a48a-b8437d92a69d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government submitted that the allegation of politically motivated persecution of the applicant had been assessed by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the order, and rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan to the effect that the applicant would face no risk of ill-treatment if he were to be extradited to Uzbekistan and on the fact that the Russian authorities such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the FSB did not have any information confirming his allegation. Referring to the assurances from the Uzbek authorities the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to ill\u2011treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "32c67854-b083-4357-a9ce-d9653c5776b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["153. The Government argued that, given the existence of the Uzbek court\u2019s detention order, the applicant\u2019s detention during the impugned period was governed by Article 466 of the CCrP and was in accordance with the requirements of the Minsk Convention. The Court observes, however, that the Russian prosecutor\u2019s detention order of 15 July 2010 contained no reference to Article 466 of the CCrP, presumably because that provision, as follows from its wording, started to apply only from the moment of receipt of the request. In the applicant\u2019s case that request was received on 16 August 2010 (see paragraph 20 above). Hence, the Court must assess what was the legal basis for the applicant\u2019s detention from 14 July to 16 August 2010."], "id": "169433a3-8b61-4f39-a313-e792978109ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["146. The Government insisted that the applicant\u2019s detention pending included only the period of time from 11 January 2010 to 11 January 2011. They argued that this period of detention was lawful as it was based on detention orders issued by competent courts. While deciding on the extension, the courts had taken into account the progress of the extradition proceedings against the applicant. In compliance with Article 463 \u00a7 4 of the CCrP, the domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction had swiftly examined the applicant\u2019s appeals against the extradition decision within a month."], "id": "68ebd2b3-2963-4c64-94d2-e958e72f4ee1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government pleaded that the applicant had failed to exhaust available effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that the examination of the applicant\u2019s refugee status application by the migration authorities and domestic courts, including at the appeal stage, had had \u201can automatic suspensive effect\u201d in respect of the order. If the applicant had applied for and been granted temporary asylum, his extradition would have been suspended. Examination of an application for temporary asylum would also have had \u201can automatic suspensive effect\u201d vis\u2011\u00e0-vis the extradition order."], "id": "c0cc0f0f-90b6-4414-9bd3-582db7a0f977", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant complained under Article 6 that he did not understand the charges against him during his deportation. The Court notes that there were no judicial proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s removal from the territory of Ukraine and that any such proceedings would fall outside the scope of Article 6 of the Convention (see Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, \u00a7 40, ECHR 2000\u2011X). Despite its findings that the applicant\u2019s expulsion has appearances of in disguise (see paragraph 58 above), the Court considers that this does not preclude it from examining the question of whether the removal of the applicant from the territory of Ukraine, which was formally presented as expulsion, complied with the Convention requirements. Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, the Court decides to examine the problem raised by the applicant under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, which reads as follows:"], "id": "bf8660de-43cb-4cd3-81e1-c480706e392a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant submitted that the Bulgarian authorities had agreed to extradite him to Iran on the basis of de facto reciprocity, rather than pursuant to an agreement. In doing so, they had not subjected the request of the Iranian authorities \u2013 in particular the part concerning the punishment likely to be imposed on him under Article 656 of the Iranian Penal Code \u2013 to proper scrutiny, even though the duty to assess the risk of ill-treatment in the event of extradition stemmed from Bulgaria\u2019s own law. Such scrutiny had been particularly necessary because it was well known that people accused and convicted of offences in Iran were often subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading punishments, which were lawful in that country. No other European State was extraditing people to Iran. In the applicant\u2019s view, the risk of his suffering ill-treatment was real. He referred in this connection to reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch."], "id": "4fdfdc92-71eb-439e-882c-29caa502bc50", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["177. The Government argued that it had been open to the applicant to complain about his detention ordered on 15 July and 24 August 2010 under Article 125 of the CCrP to the Frunzenskiy District Court, that is, the court which had jurisdiction to examine complaints by persons held in custody in the Frunzenskiy District of St Petersburg, and that that court had the power to order the applicant\u2019s release. In particular, under Article 125 \u00a7 5 a judge could declare a decision by a law-enforcement authority unlawful or unjustified and instruct the authority to rectify the indicated shortcomings. In the same procedure, should the court find that a person was unlawfully detained with a view to , it was open to it, pursuant to Article 1 \u00a7 3 of the CCrP and Article 46 of the Constitution, to apply provisions established by an international treaty and to order such detainee\u2019s release from custody."], "id": "ff09c342-ac65-4697-b520-cce608bdae5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["175. The applicant did not submit any claims for pecuniary damage. As regards non-pecuniary damage, he submitted that he had endured stress, frustration and anguish as a result of the high risk of being subjected to torture if extradited to Uzbekistan and of the eleven months of his unlawful detention pending in inadequate conditions. He left the determination of the amount of compensation to the Court."], "id": "81cc5fbb-f4d1-4fe9-8c04-86d13ef66bff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention as he had not complained about either the alleged unlawfulness or the length of his detention pending to a prosecutor's office or a court. They also submitted that the applicant had not appealed against the decisions of 30 November and 28 December 2007."], "id": "b288d9b1-5d2c-43cc-ad2e-8f3d9df8b56d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["107. The Government maintained that, as their decision was not based on guarantees made by Rwanda but, instead, on an assessment that the extradition of the applicant \u2013 regardless of guarantees \u2013 would be consistent with Article 6, the issue of monitoring commitments was not relevant. However, in the letter of 12 August 2009 (see \u00a7 24 above), the Rwandan Minister of Justice had confirmed that Swedish authorities were welcome to monitor and evaluate the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention or imprisonment in Rwanda as well as his trial. While not considering that Sweden had an obligation to do so under international law, the Government stated that, due to the circumstances of the case, Sweden was prepared, if necessary, to take measures to monitor the legal proceedings and the applicant\u2019s situation as a detainee."], "id": "fe3b3336-cd9c-401a-9012-f3d41d624576", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s argument that the decision on administrative removal did not necessarily mean that he would be expelled to Uzbekistan. He stated that no other possibility had ever been discussed in the course of the administrative proceedings and, furthermore, that there was no reason to believe that any other country would be willing to accept him.The applicant submitted that he had brought his fears of ill\u2011treatment in Uzbekistan to the attention of the domestic authorities during the refugee-status and proceedings. He had relied on reports by UN agencies and respected international NGOs, which clearly demonstrated that individuals who, like him, were suspected of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir were at an increased risk of ill-treatment. In particular, to demonstrate that there had not been any positive change in the human\u2011rights situation in Uzbekistan, he had referred to the concluding observations of the UN Committee against Torture of 10 December 2013, the Human Rights Watch report released in January 2014 and the Amnesty International report of July 2013 (cited in paragraphs 66, 69 and 73 above, respectively). He had also made reference to the Court\u2019s case-law (cited in paragraph 14 above), as well as the cases of Umirov v. Russia (no. 17455/11, 18 September 2012); Abdulkhakov (cited above); Ermakov v. Russia (no. 43165/10, 7 November 2013); and Kasymakhunov (cited above). However, the domestic authorities had not taken into account the evidence he had submitted and had dismissed his fears as unsubstantiated without making a thorough assessment of the general situation in Uzbekistan or his personal situation."], "id": "3cbfefbc-ba7d-4699-8e45-f21e2d1aabc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["106. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention that his ongoing detention pending had been \u201cunlawful\u201d: first, until 21 December 2007 he had been detained in the absence of an official request for extradition; secondly, the term of his detention had not been extended by the domestic courts. He also invoked Article 5 \u00a7 2, complaining that he had not been promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest. Lastly, he relied on Article 5 \u00a7 4 arguing, first, that his detention had not been subject to any judicial control and, secondly, that he had been deprived of the right to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed by a court owing to lack of access to a lawyer during the first two weeks of his detention."], "id": "d666db6a-9c76-47be-b3c8-b55678560f7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant noted that under the Court\u2019s case-law, for a remedy in respect of Article 3 complaints in cases to be an effective, the courts had to be able to effectively review the legality of the exercise of executive discretion on substantive and procedural grounds and quash decisions as appropriate. He maintained that he had no possibility of raising his complaint before the domestic courts, because Ukrainian legislation lacked a procedure for examining such complaints and providing him with sufficient means for defending his rights. He further referred to the Resolution of the Plenary Supreme Court of 8 October 2004, which provided specifically that \u201c...[h]aving regard to the fact that the current legislation does not allow the courts independently to give permission for extradition of persons ... the courts are not empowered to decide on this issue.\u201d. The lack of such a procedure, in the applicant\u2019s opinion, created a real risk of extradition being carried out prior to the final decision of the domestic courts. He further maintained that the lack of information about the state of the proceedings for his extradition and the means of challenging it, as well as his lack of access to the material in the case file and to legal assistance, seriously hindered effective access to the courts."], "id": "44630b04-7735-487f-8b85-f86392b859b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["92. The Government argued that the applicant had had ample opportunities to challenge the lawfulness of his detention but had failed to use them. The applicant's lawyer had challenged the lawfulness of detention before the Prosecutor General on 11 October 2002 and before the Moscow City Court on 18 October 2002. The PGO had replied to the applicant's lawyer on 11 November 2002. The Moscow City Court had refused to consider the complaint because it should have been submitted to a competent district court. The applicant himself had not made any complaints. He had been informed of the decision to extradite him on 24 October 2002 and had not requested to contact a lawyer. The Russian legislation did not provide for notification of the lawyer of the person whose was under way."], "id": "5a525d15-d324-4c35-945b-da7f2f3de2e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government further argued that the domestic authorities, including the FMS and the courts, had carefully examined the applicant\u2019s allegations that he would risk ill-treatment if extradited to Uzbekistan. In particular, the FMS examined the applicant\u2019s complaint that he risked ill\u2011treatment if extradited to Uzbekistan on 16 June 2010, that is before the Prosecutor General\u2019s office had decided on the applicant\u2019s . The conclusions by the FMS had been subsequently upheld by the domestic courts. Furthermore, the ill-treatment grievance had also been duly examined within the proceedings concerning the validity of the extradition order. The courts had correctly dismissed the applicant\u2019s allegations as unfounded. They had also taken into account the reports on Uzbekistan by the UN Institutions of 2002 and 2006. In the proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s challenge of the extradition order the domestic courts had reached a reasoned conclusion that the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office did not possess any information on human rights violations in Uzbekistan in 2010."], "id": "1f529ed9-9f2f-41cc-8805-1ec30010dcdc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae. They submitted that the applicant had not been extradited by the Russian authorities to Uzbekistan, the measure at issue had not been applied to him, his had been suspended and therefore he could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3."], "id": "5a4745f2-f3a1-4a60-8907-7c7b9369d2db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["87. The Government argued that the applicant did not have victim status, as enforcement of the order had been and remained suspended due to the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Uzbek authorities had provided assurances that the applicant would not be prosecuted for offences other than those indicated in the extradition request; that he would not be surrendered to another State without Russia\u2019s consent; and that he would not be subjected to ill-treatment. The offences for which the applicant was being prosecuted did not entail the possibility of a sentence of capital punishment. The Russian courts had delved into the issue of the possible risk of the applicant\u2019s ill-treatment and had dismissed it."], "id": "189fdab0-4f7c-45b5-bcd3-40e3261556f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government, arguing that the applicants were not awaiting deportation or , took the view that the facts of the case did not fall within sub-paragraph (f) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which authorised a person\u2019s \u201clawful arrest or detention ... to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country\u201d or when \u201cdeportation or extradition\u201d proceedings were pending against the person (see paragraph 81 above). The Government did not, however, indicate under which other sub-paragraph of Article 5 the deprivation of liberty could be justified in the applicants\u2019 case."], "id": "b5f95713-8266-4342-a08e-94c8c7c143b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government insisted that the applicant's detention pending had been lawful as it had been based on the decision of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of 1 November 2007. They submitted that after that his detention had been authorised by the same court on 30 January 2008 and that it fully complied with the provisions of Article 466 \u00a7 1 of the CCP. They further stated that the duration of the detention had lengthened owing to the applicant's request for refugee status and the application of the interim measures by the Court."], "id": "e9fe27f2-93e2-4edf-8bda-12bdf265f501", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["185. The Government initially submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint concerning the risk of ill\u2011treatment in the case of his . He had not requested refugee status immediately on his arrival in Russia, had stated during the hearing of 8 July 2010 that he had come to the respondent State to earn money, and had also omitted to raise the issue of the risk of ill-treatment before the appeal court on 22 September 2010. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the remedy and the existence of a \u201cwell-established practice\u201d in that regard, they referred to the case of Zokhidov (see Zokhidov, cited above, communicated to the Government at the time of the events), where the applicant had brought his ill-treatment argument to the attention of the domestic authorities and the extradition order had been set aside."], "id": "d9910ba4-faaa-400e-84f0-4f203d28b0d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["221. The applicant submitted that his abduction and transfer to Tajikistan, despite the interim measure under Rule 39 indicated by the Court, had hindered the effective exercise of his right of individual application. The risk of his from Tajikistan was imminent, as confirmed by the detention order issued by the Tajik court from which it followed that he had been detained with a view to extradition to Uzbekistan (see paragraph 61 above). The applicant argued that such a risk persisted even after his release. He had not been informed of the reasons for his release and he had subsequently been warned that he was again wanted by the Tajik authorities."], "id": "e009ef62-b0da-4e42-be16-d221882a8869", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government contested this claim. They argued that the provisions of the Russian law governing the detention of persons pending were clear enough and foreseeable. In accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court of 4 April 2006 No. 101-O, the provisions of Article 466 and Chapter 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were applicable to such detention. The Government noted that the first applicant had been brought before a judge within forty-eight hours of her arrest. Under Article 109 of the Criminal Procedural Code, her detention could not exceed twelve months, while she had spent eleven months and twenty-five days in detention. In so far as the first applicant complained about the absence of review of her detention, the Government noted that she had made use of the relevant provisions of the Russian criminal procedural legislation and appealed to higher courts against the decisions by which her detention had been ordered. She could also make use of Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allowed the parties to the proceedings to seek judicial review of decisions of the investigation."], "id": "53cdb223-9a7a-44fa-a3d2-68577eb291fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["97. The applicant complained that he was detained in violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3. He maintained that prior to 30 January 2007, when the General Prosecutor\u2019s Office had received the official request for his , his detention had fallen within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c). Only after that date, in his view, could the detention be qualified as being \u201cwith a view to extradition\u201d."], "id": "0367a1bf-a348-4e44-ad1c-f25f0c424bac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicant submitted that Russian courts did not apply Articles 108 and 109 of the Code to proceedings and normally refused to review the lawfulness of detention pending extradition, with reference to Article 466 of the Code. The applicant argued that the delay of eight months had been unreasonable in view of the fact that the request had been rejected on formal grounds and showed that the proceedings had not been conducted with due diligence. His detention pending extradition had served other purposes than that of being \u201cwith a view to extradition\u201d (for example, examination of his applications for asylum and refugee status). Lastly, in his observations he raised a new argument, alleging that his continued detention after the decision of 22 September 2006 until 29 September 2006 had also violated Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "c03987da-f1c9-4cb6-9c31-52cc14313ec1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["149. The Government further submitted that the domestic authorities had been obliged to hold the applicant in custody because the Strasbourg Court had applied Rule 39 and indicated to them to suspend his . Referring to the Chahal case (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V), they stressed that paragraph 1 (f) of Article 5 of the Convention provided for a level of protection different from paragraph 1 (a)-(e), requiring only that extradition proceedings be pending. Hence, it was immaterial for that provision whether there existed sufficient grounds for holding the person in custody. Accordingly, the applicant's detention from 5 August 2008 onwards had been \u201clawful\u201d within the meaning of the above provision."], "id": "27fc9d00-987b-4f94-bbb4-eecf9b871abf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["107. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to provide any reliable evidence to show that in the event of his to Uzbekistan he would run the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Uzbekistan had sought the applicant\u2019s extradition in order to pursue criminal proceedings against him arising out of ordinary criminal charges. The applicant had not alleged that he belonged to any banned religious movement or any other vulnerable group which, according to reliable international sources, systematically endured the practice of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan. Moreover, in his explanations given to a Russian prosecutor on 29 June and 20 July 2010 and 2 June 2011 (see paragraphs 23 and 33 above) the applicant had stated that he had left Uzbekistan for Russia on business and had denied any persecution on political grounds there. He had never sought political asylum in Russia, or applied for Russian citizenship. The Government went on to note that the guarantees provided by the Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan were sufficient to protect the applicant from the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of his extradition."], "id": "f7515600-b844-4563-a5dd-d44ed50d7cf0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["139. The Government submitted that the applicant had been arrested on the basis of the decision of the Bukhara Criminal Court of 15 June 2011 ordering his placement in detention, and the decision of the prosecutor of the Meshchanskiy District of Moscow of 19 March 2012. The request had been received within thirty-eight days, that is, in compliance with the forty days\u2019 time-limit provided for in Article 62 \u00a7 1 of the Minsk Convention. They pointed out that Russia had accepted the Protocol of 28 March 1997 to the Minsk Convention without any reservations. On 25 April 2012, after receipt of the extradition request, the prosecutor of the Meshchanskiy District of Moscow had extended the applicant\u2019s detention for a total period of two months. By a decision of 15 May 2012 that court had extended his detention to a total period of six months, that is, until 17 September 2012, when the applicant was released. The decisions on the applicant\u2019s detention had been taken in full compliance with the applicable laws. The applicant\u2019s counsel\u2019s appeals against the detention orders had been examined and dismissed by the courts."], "id": "f73e835c-910b-4c56-9959-f264cc5d0dd5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government, the applicant and the third party further referred to their arguments with respect to the Government's objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In particular, the third party stated that there were no effective remedies to complain about contrary to Articles 2, 3 or 6 of the Convention. They maintained that the law at issue was not sufficiently accessible and precise, failing to avoid risks of arbitrariness. They referred in contrast to the experiences of Poland and the United Kingdom in this area, where the courts, as opposed to the prosecutor's office rule, on requests for extradition. They stated that the courts in the United Kingdom, acting under the Extradition Act 2003, assessed the following issues in assessing the requests for extradition: (a) the rule against double jeopardy; (b) extraneous considerations (whether a person was in fact extradited for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or whether if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions); (c) passage of time; (d) the person's age; (e) hostage-taking considerations; (f) specialty; (g) the person's earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from different territories; (h) human rights considerations arising from the 1998 Human Rights Act."], "id": "4a4361fc-e2d5-45b7-8f42-00d90b03aeac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant pointed out that, in view of the Court\u2019s practice in the matter, if he had requested the interim measure before 6 August, his request would have been disallowed because the date of his had not yet been set. He was not convinced by the Government\u2019s argument that they had not had enough time, alleging that two or three hours\u2019 notice would have sufficed to take the necessary steps to prevent his extradition."], "id": "e8d7beb9-85fd-42e9-a1e9-db4b8384c381", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant submitted that he was being sought on the capital charge of murder by the Chinese authorities. The Russian authorities had initially envisaged extraditing him to China but the proceedings had eventually been abandoned. An attempt to remove him to China through administrative removal proceedings had proved unsuccessful because the domestic courts had refused to order his administrative removal. The Russian authorities had then initiated exclusion proceedings, which were purely administrative in nature and did not require approval by a court. Although an exclusion order could be challenged in court, the judicial review proceedings did not have suspensive effect. The domestic authorities relied explicitly on the charges brought against him in China as grounds for finding that he presented a security risk justifying an exclusion order."], "id": "a79b8843-deff-4f1e-80d1-5fa9f7eb9bc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["130. The Government submitted that the Minsk Convention required that the applicant\u2019s arrest and detention be regulated by the Russian CCrP, which included Chapters 13 and 54. Referring to a 1998 constitutional ruling, the Government argued that Article 466 \u00a7 1 of the CCrP required any deprivation of liberty exceeding forty-eight hours after arrest to be authorised by a court decision. Article 61 \u00a7 1 of the Minsk Convention allowed detention before receipt of a formal request, which had been the case in respect of the applicant when a prosecutor had ordered his detention. After receipt of such a request, the applicant\u2019s situation had come within the scope of Article 466 \u00a7 2 of the CCrP. His detention had thus been sought before and authorised by a court."], "id": "5413835d-99f8-4650-b8b2-6b59ba0e3b54", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant\u2019s vague reference to his poor state of health cannot in itself be regarded as a ground warranting his stay in Russia, as nothing in the applicant\u2019s submissions suggests that treatment facilities in Kazakhstan are in any way inferior to those available in Russia and that the applicant would not receive appropriate medical treatment for cancer in the requesting country. The Court thus does not discern any compelling humanitarian grounds against the applicant\u2019s in the present case (see N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, \u00a7 42, ECHR 2008)."], "id": "292410cf-fbd1-4825-946d-96d4e9a9d9ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant complained under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that there was a real risk that he would be liable to capital punishment in the event of his to Kazakhstan. He alleged that the assurances given by the Government of Kazakhstan were insufficient as the moratorium imposed on capital punishment could be lifted at any time and the charges against him could be reclassified. This provision reads as follows:"], "id": "d4034613-64f6-4b11-a0ed-9aa5cd49c45d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government maintained that they could not assess the probability of a violation of the applicant\u2019s right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, after his . The Government observed that no proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case were pending before the Turkmen courts, and they had no grounds to believe that his case would be considered by an unfair court in Turkmenistan."], "id": "479c164e-afc2-43e7-bf31-632f76547a21", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government pointed out that in the course of their cooperation on matters there had been no instances of violations of the assurances provided by Kyrgyzstan. They referred to information from the Kyrgyz Republic regarding the outcomes of criminal prosecution of extradited persons. The Government cited examples of three individuals of Uzbek ethnic origin who had variously received a suspended sentence, been released on parole, and whose criminal case had been dismissed."], "id": "031804d5-cadf-40bb-87b2-329eeafda0d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["96. The applicant was detained in Russia pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the Prosecutor General of Turkmenistan. As the Court has found above, the applicant's detention was not authorised by a Russian court, in violation of the relevant domestic provisions. The Moscow City Court refused to consider the complaints concerning the unlawfulness of detention for lack of jurisdiction, but did not indicate which district court would be competent to review them. It nevertheless addressed the issue of detention in the context of the proceedings, but only after the applicant's extradition had taken place. Thus, the lawfulness of the applicant's detention during the period in question was not examined by any court, despite his appeals to that effect."], "id": "5b4497fa-5856-4050-a891-de140a460a44", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["117. The applicant agreed with the Government in so far as the periods from 24 to 30 July 2013 and from 31 July to 5 August 2013 were concerned. He maintained, in respect of the entire period of his detention pending administrative removal as from 31 July 2013, that administrative\u2011removal proceedings had been initiated only when the authorities had faced the need to release him. He argued that the authorities had abused their powers by ordering his detention within the framework of administrative proceedings solely with a view to ensuring his return to Uzbekistan, notwithstanding the refusal of the request. The applicant considered that his detention pending administrative removal had in any event been unlawful, as the Code of Administrative Offences set no time-limit for such detention, and no such time-limit was given by the domestic courts. He argued that the Russian law on detention pending expulsion was not sufficiently clear and foreseeable. Referring to Azimov (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 172-73), the applicant argued that detention pending expulsion must not exceed the maximum term for detention as an administrative penalty, as otherwise it constituted a punitive rather than a preventive measure."], "id": "e02315b7-7ec6-45e3-b87d-0e481bdba1cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["115. The Government have not elaborated on their assertion in relation to Chapter 16 of the CCrP and section 17(1)(7) of the Custody Act (see paragraphs 56 and 57 above). In any event, the Court observes that Chapter 16 of the CCrP concerns the possibility for \u201cparties to the criminal proceedings\u201d to challenge decisions taken in the course of a preliminary investigation, such as a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings or a decision to discontinue them. There is no indication that the applicant was a party to criminal proceedings within the meaning given to that phrase by the Russian courts (see Nasrulloyev, cited above, \u00a7 89). Thus, the Court is not satisfied that the provisions of this Chapter afforded an effective remedy for challenging detention pending . As regards the Custody Act, the Court notes that it derives from the Code of Criminal Procedure and concerns persons suspected or accused of criminal offences in Russia. There is no indication that this Act applied at the material time to persons who were detained pending extradition. Thus, the Court is uncertain that the remedies suggested by the Government related to the breaches alleged. In such circumstances, the Government was required, but failed, to show that the existence of the above remedies was sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, among other authorities, A. and E. Riis v. Norway, no. 9042/04, \u00a7 41, 31 May 2007, and Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, \u00a7 27). Thus, the Government\u2019s argument under this head should be also dismissed."], "id": "1cd10855-9e4b-464e-8e52-9f6b297eade0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicant further argued that the diplomatic assurances of the requesting State were insufficient to discard the risk of ill-treatment. First, there was no control mechanism at the domestic level which would allow tracking the authorities\u2019 compliance with the assurances and holding them liable in case of a breach. Second, the information sent by the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office to their Uzbek counterpart following the request, such as the applicant\u2019s intention to apply for asylum in Russia and his criticism of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, made him particularly vulnerable to a risk of political persecution. Lastly, as the Court had established in a number of cases concerning extradition to Uzbekistan, assurances from the Uzbek authorities could not offer a reliable guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment, given that the practice of torture there was described by reputable international sources as being systematic."], "id": "ff1d9531-ccb6-453b-9edd-eb2a7a25650a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant maintained his complaint. He pointed out that the Government\u2019s version that he had been ill-treated in Kazakhstan, before his , had been refused by the official statements from the administration of the remand prison certifying that on 23 February 2006 he had not had any evidence of ill-treatment at the time of his arrival in Moscow (see paragraphs 10 and 27 above). Furthermore, his allegations of ill-treatment had been confirmed by the medical examinations of 1 March and 1 June 2006 (see paragraphs 29, 26 and 39 above), his consistent complaints to the authorities (see paragraphs 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 42 and 47 above) and the domestic court\u2019s findings of 3 October 2007 (see paragraph 41 above). He stressed that the Government neither provided a satisfactory explanation as to the origins of his injuries nor carried out an effective investigation into his complaints. The applicant further stated, in particular, that the inquiries conducted had been neither timely nor thorough; the authorities had not questioned him nor taken any steps to identify his torturers. Finally, he submitted that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected by the police amounted to torture. In support of his allegations, the applicant referred to the documents submitted and the findings of the CPT of 13 March 2007 in respect of the human rights violations committed by the staff of the ORB-2 at the material time (see paragraph 61 above)."], "id": "58112505-029d-498d-a248-024adb228aec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["128. The applicant complained that as a result of his secret transfer to Tajikistan, where he was under an imminent risk of to Uzbekistan, he had been exposed to a threat of torture and religious persecution. He also complained that his arguments concerning the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if extradited to Uzbekistan had not received genuine and thorough consideration by the Russian authorities. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "960130d2-77aa-4d4e-974f-f37c10d5fa9e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["101. The applicant also questioned the value and credibility of the assurances put forward by the Tajik authorities. In particular, he drew attention to the fact that they had only provided for the possibility of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs examining the conditions of his detention but had not pointed to any specific mechanism that would allow monitoring of the treatment received by the applicant, nor had they established any form of responsibility on the part of the authorities of the requesting country for a potential breach of their obligations. Furthermore, he referred to the Court\u2019s position in the case of Saadi v. Italy ([GC] no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008) and the cases concerning to Tajikistan: Khodzhayev, cited above; Khaydarov v. Russia (no. 21055/09, 20 May 2010); and Gaforov, cited above, to the effect that diplomatic assurances were not sufficient to conclude that a State would refrain from subjecting the individual extradited to torture when various independent sources pointed to the existence of such practice in that State."], "id": "086ea011-4a3d-489a-8004-7a095da4f445", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicant has further claimed that he would risk persecution in Rwanda because of the fact that he is a Hutu. The Court notes that none of the decisions by the ICTR and national jurisdictions refusing transfer or to Rwanda has been based, even in part, on such considerations. Nor has any evidence been submitted or found which gives reason to conclude that there is a general situation of persecution or ill-treatment of the Hutu population in Rwanda. Moreover, the applicant has not pointed to any particular personal circumstances which would indicate that he risks being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 due to his ethnicity."], "id": "ec80b7b7-e161-4610-9ccb-4a22a9177228", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant averred that his submissions concerning the risk of ill\u2011treatment had not been properly, if at all, considered by the domestic authorities either in the expulsion or the asylum proceedings. In the former proceedings the courts had had no obligation to consider the issue of the risk of ill-treatment and, given the expedited nature of the court\u2019s examination of the expulsion matter, the applicant had been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to state his case. Likewise, in the asylum proceedings, although the courts had not been formally prevented from assessing the matter of the risk of ill-treatment, they had chosen to disregard the applicant\u2019s submissions in that respect and the information from independent sources provided by him. Moreover, in view of the expulsion of the applicant in the Muminov case despite pending asylum proceedings and also the insufficiently clear wording of the relevant provisions, it could not be argued with certainty that a pending application for asylum had a suspensive effect in the event of an expulsion being ordered. Lastly, the applicant alleged that his expulsion would be, in reality, a disguised and that the migration authorities and the courts had been influenced by the FSB, who wished to expel him from the country because of his presumed membership of HT."], "id": "b01897ac-e419-45bd-bb17-ae7db42c39db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant\u2019s representative argued that his allegations of a risk of ill-treatment had not been examined by the Russian authorities. She relied on several reports by United Nations agencies and international and regional organisations and argued that the applicant had run and continued to run a risk of torture in Uzbekistan on account of his religious beliefs. She gave examples of cases when Muslim detainees had been ill-treated, and in certain cases killed, because of their religious beliefs, or unjustifiably subjected to disciplinary penalties such as placement in punishment cells without food or water, in particular because of their attempts to pray. She also referred to recent reports on the allegedly appalling conditions of detention and the lack of monitoring of detention facilities in Uzbekistan. The applicant\u2019s representative also relied on the third-party interveners\u2019 submissions before the Court in the cases of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005\u2011I) and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008). According to the applicant\u2019s representative, the applicant\u2019s expulsion had been in fact \u201can in disguise\u201d, as a result of which the applicant had been convicted of the offences in respect of which the Russian authorities had refused extradition. The applicant had been expelled in flagrant violation of Russian law before his appeals against the expulsion order and the dismissal of his refugee application could be examined. Besides, no diplomatic assurances had been obtained from the Uzbek authorities in the present case and, even if they had been obtained, they could not have been effective in the context of an administrative expulsion formally unrelated to any pending criminal proceedings against an applicant. With reference to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia (no. 36378/02, ECHR 2005\u2011III), it was argued that the respondent Government\u2019s failure to comply with an indication under Rule 39 should not necessarily prevent the Court from examining on the merits a complaint under Article 3. Otherwise, it would be less burdensome for a respondent State to remove an applicant from its territory in cases in which Rule 39 was applied and to be held in violation of Article 34 of the Convention than to comply with Rule 39 and to be found to have breached Article 3 and/or Article 6."], "id": "a7990fdd-1b54-4816-b3ab-81bbd36c7203", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government submitted that the applicant's detention had been lawful and compatible with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. On the day of her arrest the Russian authorities had had in their possession a confirmation from the Belarus authorities that a request for would be sent shortly, an arrest warrant approved by the Minsk prosecutor and a decision on her inclusion on the list of fugitives from justice. The domestic courts had reviewed and confirmed the lawfulness of the custodial measure."], "id": "7b5147bc-8b29-4bc1-a00e-61543e432157", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicant complained that his to the United States of America exposed him to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. He contended that offences A and B, on the basis of which his extradition had been granted, carried a maximum life prison sentence which was irreducible de facto, and that if he were convicted he would have no prospect of ever being released."], "id": "a72441aa-4013-4e14-9908-23dca6323283", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["133. The Government maintained that the applicants had been detained pending to Uzbekistan pursuant to a court order issued in accordance with Article 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their detention had therefore been lawful. The Government further noted that on 4 April 2006 the Constitutional Court had issued a decision in which it declared that the general provisions of Chapter 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were to apply to all forms and stages of criminal proceedings, including proceedings for extradition (see paragraph 85 above). The Supreme Court had noted in that respect that not only initial placement in custody, but also extensions of detention were to be ordered by a court on application by a prosecutor. However, no application for extension of detention had been made by the prosecutor in the applicants' case."], "id": "636dada0-2fa8-4292-8102-921e6746668e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicant maintained that his detention between 4 and 30 January 2007 fell within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention. He considered that once the request for his had been received by the Ukrainian authorities on 30 January 2007, his detention fell within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f). For the Government, the detention fell within Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) throughout."], "id": "5c0e6ca7-6501-4496-89fa-91479047e2b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant asserted that the Government had not provided any detailed explanations regarding the alleged violation of this provision. He insisted that he had been deprived of \u201cspeedy\u201d judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention on account of the delays in examining his appeals against the extension orders of 25 December 2012 and 25 March 2013 of forty-seven and fifty-six days, respectively. Furthermore, he alleged that Article 125 of the CCrP did not provide a reviewing court with the competence to order the release of a detainee, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. Lastly, the applicant claimed that Articles 108-10 of the CCrP did not allow him to apply for release on his own initiative and pointed out that he had been detained for two-and-a-half months after the final decision upholding the order in his respect had been issued on 19 June 2013, which he asserted had amounted to a breach of his right to judicial review of his detention at \u201creasonable intervals\u201d."], "id": "92e278ce-09ba-49e1-addc-17c943d9d375", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government submitted that none of the material in the case could have led the Bulgarian authorities to suspect that the applicant would be in danger of ill-treatment if surrendered to Iran. In particular, in their extradition request the Iranian authorities had given assurances in that regard, and when describing the text of Article 656 \u00a7 4 of the Iranian Penal Code, had not mentioned that it also envisaged flogging. The Interpol red notice had not said anything of the sort either. The Bulgarian authorities could not be expected to know Iranian criminal law, especially since the information about it provided by the Iranian authorities had seemed complete and accurate. The applicant and his counsel had not raised the point either. His vague statement at the hearing on 21 December 2016 could not be taken into account, as at that stage the courts had only been deciding whether to keep the applicant in custody pending extradition, not whether to extradite him."], "id": "780ff1d6-3f26-4817-9d67-ef05c5b6c496", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations concerning the risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan had been subject to examination in the course of the refugee status and temporary asylum proceedings. Moreover, the Russian Prosecutor General\u2019s Office, the Moscow City Court and the Supreme Court of Russia had thoroughly examined the allegations in the course of the proceedings. For instance, in the course of the hearing before the Moscow City Court on 16 April 2013 the applicant and Ms Ryabinina, an expert on refugee law, had made submissions regarding possible ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan. However, the claims had been dismissed, as the applicant had only referred to the general human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan and had thus failed to demonstrate any individualised risk of ill-treatment. The courts\u2019 decisions upholding the extradition order had been fully and properly reasoned."], "id": "b79f2e1f-916b-49b5-832c-867dfd71708f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae. They submitted that the applicant had not been extradited by the Russian authorities to Uzbekistan, the impugned measure had not been applied to him, his had been suspended and therefore he could not claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 3."], "id": "1c8dba88-9159-40dc-bf12-a352ec360716", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant further argued that in examining his case the Russian authorities had disregarded his specific submissions concerning his religious and political persecution and relevant reports by independent NGOs, and had relied solely on \u201cofficial sources of information\u201d. The courts' conclusion that the applicant had voluntarily left Tajikistan was at variance with his consistent submissions that he had fled because of his persecution on religious grounds and the ill-treatment sustained in custody. Referring to other cases against Russia concerning expulsion and and pending before the Court, the applicant insisted that the Russian courts consistently adopted the same formalistic approach in dealing with such complaints, which showed that the remedies suggested by the Government were ineffective in practice."], "id": "6edd1a7e-2082-4f69-b4b2-86083afecad5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["79. The applicant claimed that the interval between the instances of \u201cautomatic periodic review\u201d of the lawfulness of his detention pending had been excessively long, as he had not been able to ask the domestic courts to reconsider the issue of custodial detention after 30 January 2014. Moreover, he disagreed with the Government\u2019s assertion that it had been open to him to initiate proceedings for release under Article 110 of the CCrP, as in his view it had been incumbent on the State agencies to initiate such proceedings of their own motion. He further claimed that the application procedure under Articles 119-122 of the CCrP could not be regarded as an effective remedy in his case as it was applicable only to parties to criminal proceedings instituted in Russia. Moreover, any prosecutor\u2019s decision taken on the basis of that procedure could only be challenged in court under Article 125 of the CCrP, which does not empower a court to order a detainee\u2019s release, even if it finds the impugned detention order unlawful or unjustified (see Zokhidov v. Russia, no. 67286/10, \u00a7 188, 5 February 2013)."], "id": "200d213a-a34b-46a6-87fd-3914e556868e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government further contended that the present case was also different from Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and Trabelsi (cited above) in that neither of those cases involved enforceable Sentencing Guidelines establishing ranges of in concreto punishment to be examined and assessed by the Court. In that regard, they further argued that the applicant in the instant case, unlike Trabelsi, faced only a potential conviction for criminal offences related to drug trafficking and not for terrorist offences. The Government also noted that notwithstanding the theoretical maximum penalty of life imprisonment, the US Criminal Code assigned an advisory sentencing range of 188 to 235 months of incarceration to the counts that were the basis of the request, which was far less than the possible life sentence provided for under the statutes under which the applicant had been charged."], "id": "744c1a61-0e08-49bb-b29c-f2b6d30d296b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["180. The Government confirmed that by the date of the applicant\u2019s arrest with a view to he was living in Moscow with his wife and three of their six minor children, while the other three children remained in Uzbekistan. They argued that the decision to extradite the applicant to his home country did not constitute an interference within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1. The decision was in accordance with law, namely Article 466 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and Article 61 \u00a7 1 of the 1993 Minsk Convention. It served a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society. First, it was justified by a pressing social need to ensure that the proceedings against the applicant in Uzbekistan were conducted with reasonable grounds to suspect him of having committed particularly serious crimes in Uzbekistan. It was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, because neither the applicant\u2019s wife nor their children held Russian nationality. They were Uzbek nationals. The applicant\u2019s wife and three children could follow him to Uzbekistan if the applicant was extradited."], "id": "0a0608c8-b46a-4cd0-95b3-1e860654d04f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["196. The applicant argued that, contrary to the Government\u2019s submission, the FMS officials who had carried out his deportation had been aware of the Court\u2019s application of Rule 39 because he and his lawyer had not only told them about it but he had also shown them the Court\u2019s letter to that effect when they had burst into his flat on 21 December 2011 and had taken him away. In any event, the FMS was a structural division of the Ministry of the Interior and thus part of the Government of the Russian Federation. From the information made available to the Government after notice of the applicant\u2019s case had been given to it, it was clear that the FMS had already been involved in the assessment of the issue of whether he was to be returned to Uzbekistan at the time when the proceedings were pending. Accordingly, it was for those State bodies, including the Russian GPO and the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, to ensure that the information on the Court\u2019s application of the interim measure was brought to the attention of all authorities involved."], "id": "3f52eef7-4edb-419c-9d5d-84dd73e52bad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["213. The Government noted that the applicant had provided a breakdown of the work performed by his representatives, but had submitted no agreement concerning legal assistance, or other documents setting out their hourly rates. Furthermore, as the applicants\u2019 representatives specialise in cases involving and expulsion to the CIS States, the Government expressed doubts as to whether the present case required research and preparation to the extent claimed by the applicant."], "id": "556c1c82-10fd-44cb-982a-01e402b8768c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant maintained her complaint. She considered that the interference with her right to have family visits while in detention had not been in accordance with law and that the applicable law had lacked clarity, certainty and foreseeability as regards the authorisation of family visits in respect of people detained pending . She further argued that the interference had not pursued a legitimate aim. It had placed a disproportionate burden on her and had not been necessary."], "id": "823c4170-3a57-4eba-8328-1e28e7e0878a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations that he risked ill-treatment in the event of his to Uzbekistan had been considered by the national authorities and dismissed on sufficient grounds. Referring to the decisions of the prosecution and immigration authorities and the domestic courts in the course of the extradition and expulsion proceedings, the Government asserted that his claims had been duly reviewed and found to be devoid of substance. In their opinion, the assurances presented to the Russian authorities by the Uzbekistani authorities were sufficient and compatible with the countries\u2019 international obligations and domestic legal developments. As regards the expulsion proceedings, the expulsion order did not specify that the applicant was to be taken to Uzbekistan, but merely stated that he was to be removed from the territory of the Russian Federation. The Government concluded that a risk of the applicant\u2019s treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention had not been convincingly established."], "id": "89332aa4-345d-4b2e-beb1-c8f792b7ff3d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government further claimed that while certain prejudices towards ethnic Uzbeks persisted in the requesting country, there was no \u201cflagrant denial of justice\u201d for the Uzbek minority in Kyrgyzstan. The diplomatic assurances given by the Kyrgyz authorities in the applicants\u2019 respective cases excluded the possibility of their ill-treatment upon . The Court had not yet allowed demonstrating the effectiveness of Russian authorities\u2019 diplomatic supervision mechanism for the protection of the rights of those extradited to Kyrgyzstan because it had indicated interim measures precluding such extraditions."], "id": "859ff7ff-2bb5-4749-af15-67ae25c2643a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government argued that the applicant did in fact have the opportunity after 30 January 2014 to initiate a review of the lawfulness of his detention and to apply for release, as is required by Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. They submitted, in particular, that the domestic legal system provided for an application for the release of individuals detained pending under Articles 119-122 of the CCrP. The Government claimed, furthermore, that the applicant could also have asked a prosecutor to reconsider the imposition of custodial detention under Article 110 of the CCrP after the interim measures had been applied by the Court. They illustrated the application of this legal provision by reference to the case of Kadirzhanov and Mamashev (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 34, 35, 111, 113 and 131), where Mr Kadirzhanov \u2013 who had been held in custody pending extradition and in respect of whom the Court had applied interim measures pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court \u2013 was released on the basis of a prosecutor\u2019s decision at the request of his lawyer. The Government further stated that, although the interim measure had been applied by the Court on 28 January 2014, the Supreme Court was not competent to take a decision on the applicant\u2019s release from custody during the court hearing of 30 January 2014 because the scope of that hearing had been limited to reviewing the decision of the Primorye Regional Court of 1 November 2013 and the latest extension order had been delivered by a different court."], "id": "18d5b073-4e18-475a-8eb5-6c0f89bd8c68", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["97. The applicant provided a different interpretation of the statistics cited by the Government. He pointed out that the average sentence length of 8.4 years excluded life sentences and took no account of the period of detention served by sentenced persons who were either released at the time of trial or placed on probation. Nor did these studies cover persons who had been arrested during the reference period but had not yet been tried. Furthermore, the US Department of Justice produced different figures: of the 403 persons already tried between 11 September 2001 and 18 March 2010, thirty-one had not yet been convicted, twelve had been given life sentences and five had been sentenced to sixty or more years\u2019 imprisonment. The applicant cited the case of Richard Reid, whose name had been mentioned on several occasions in the criminal file which had led to the applicant\u2019s conviction in Belgium, as well as during the proceedings. Richard Reid had been sentenced in 2003 to life imprisonment on the same charge B as the applicant, for planning to destroy an aircraft during flight by means of explosives hidden in his shoes."], "id": "0db080b1-3647-4c78-883a-53a69dd2beea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicant maintained that in the event of his he would face a strong risk of being denied a fair trial. He noted that the Government had failed to give any explanations about the domestic judicial system in Turkmenistan, probably because they considered this problem beyond their responsibilities. The applicant drew attention to the Government\u2019s acceptance that they could not consider the probability of a flagrant denial of a fair trial in Turkmenistan."], "id": "a7f2dc39-c830-4418-9bfa-bd3485ebc1d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant further submitted that there existed the administrative practice of substituting expulsion for which was based on an unpublished order of the Moscow Region prosecutor, no. 86/81 of 3 July 2009, which provided that in every case of release of a detained individual because his extradition was impossible, it was mandatory to decide on his administrative expulsion from Russia. The applicant therefore maintained that his expulsion had been ordered to secure his rendition to the Uzbekistani authorities, that is to prevent him from being released and to secure either expulsion or extradition, as the case might be, and that his allegations of the risk of ill-treatment had not been thoroughly examined in the administrative expulsion proceedings."], "id": "fbc99cb2-3a5b-4be5-a47b-ae4332f935bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant maintained that the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 did not dispense the State from fulfilling its international obligations regarding , since such a ground for detention was clearly provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f), which only required the detention to be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by the domestic legislation. The applicant submitted that the Minsk Convention did not provide for such a procedure. He further observed that the unlawfulness of his detention between 4 and 10 January 2007 had also been admitted by the State authorities themselves."], "id": "2429fa8e-0d30-45fc-83a9-4f624855ab88", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government pleaded that the applicant had failed to exhaust available effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that the applicant had failed to appeal against the refusal to grant him temporary asylum of 26 November 2013. If the applicant had been granted temporary asylum, his would have been suspended or even rescinded. The Government also submitted that the applicant had failed to lodge a cassation appeal under Chapter 48.1 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (\u201cthe CCrP\u201d) against the Supreme Court\u2019s appeal judgment of 25 February 2014 upholding the extradition order."], "id": "f58df584-2dd8-44fa-9b40-01d4bc53335b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["150. The Government disagreed, stating that such an effective procedure existed in the Ukrainian domestic law. They referred to Articles 106, 165-2 and 382 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which specified the procedure for examining appeals against preventive measures. They further maintained that on 8 October 2004 the Plenary Supreme Court had adopted a practice recommendation concerning review of complaints concerning matters."], "id": "96b654d7-4102-4d75-9596-d0c5bb206405", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["113. The applicant\u2019s was also permissible under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees which excludes the application of that Convention to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons to believe that he or she (i) has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee, or (ii) has been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 33 \u00a7 2 of that Convention does not extend the prohibition of expulsion to refugees whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country they are in, or who, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime by a final judgment, constitute a danger to the community of that country."], "id": "b2a8bf02-cded-459f-a49a-dcd05f24d0e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["156. The Government contested that argument. They stated that the first applicant\u2019s detention with a view to had been fully in accordance with domestic law. The first applicant had been present at all first-instance hearings on his detention, and when he had requested to participate in the appeal hearings, this had been ensured by means of a video-conference. The length of his detention had not exceeded that permitted by domestic law, and he had been released when the maximum duration was reached. Accordingly, the first applicant\u2019s detention had been fully in compliance with both domestic law and Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention."], "id": "6c9de23a-7b60-4238-acbc-f4b3769d9ec7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["147. The Government also submitted that, pursuant to the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Russia, the provisions of Chapter 13 of the CCrP, in particular Articles 108 and 109, were fully applicable to persons detained with a view to under Article 466 \u00a7 1 of the CCrP. The applicant\u2019s placement into custody had been ordered in accordance with Article 108 of the CCrP. His detention had been repeatedly extended under Article 109 of the CCrP. The domestic courts had referred to these provisions in their decisions. Upon the expiry of the maximum authorised detention term under Article 109 of the CCrP, the applicant had been released. Hence, the applicable legislation had enabled him to estimate the length of his detention."], "id": "148ba3d4-1d19-446f-b2e3-9930efcde651", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["122. The Government argued that the offences of which the applicant was accused in his home country were not punishable by the death penalty. The Court notes, however, that the thrust of the applicant\u2019s complaint concerns not a fear of receiving the death penalty but the risk that he would be subjected to ill-treatment or torture if he were expelled to Uzbekistan. The Court\u2019s task is now to establish whether there is a real risk of ill\u2011treatment in the event of the applicant\u2019s to Uzbekistan. Since he has not yet been extradited, owing to the application by the Court of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the material date for the assessment of that risk is that of the Court\u2019s consideration of the case (see, among others, Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, \u00a7 128, 21 October 2010)."], "id": "ccff7903-5062-4e86-a8c2-6a0efe73d495", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Government further pointed out that the first applicant had availed himself of the opportunity to appeal before a court, under Article 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Prosecutor\u2019s Office\u2019s decision to extradite him. Under that provision a court must examine an appeal within one month and either declare the decision unlawful and quash it or dismiss the appeal. In the latter case a cassation appeal could be lodged against the decision. The fact that the first applicant\u2019s appeal had eventually been dismissed did not mean that the remedy had been ineffective, as the requirement of effectiveness did not mean that the outcome of the proceedings should be favourable to the applicant (relying upon Kaijalainen v. Finland (dec.), no. 24671/94, 12 April 1996). The Government also noted that the effectiveness of the remedy was further corroborated by the fact that in the cases of Soliyev v. Russia, no. 62400/10, \u00a7 27, 5 June 2012; Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, \u00a7 19, 5 June 2012; and Abidov v. Russia, no. 52805/10, \u00a7\u00a7 26\u201127, 12 June 2012, the Russian court had annuled extradition orders issued by the Prosecutor\u2019s Office. Therefore, the first applicant had had an effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 3 as required by Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "1edb0611-3739-45cf-9826-1c60ac567afd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicant maintained that he had argued before the Russian courts that he faced a real risk of ill-treatment and political persecution in Uzbekistan. He had submitted reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and international NGOs confirming that torture was widespread in detention facilities and that this information had not received proper assessment from the Russian authorities. He further maintained that the authorities had failed to take into account the information from the Russian Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees confirming that the risk of his being ill\u2011treated in Uzbekistan was justified and substantiated. He pointed out that the courts had rejected his arguments without giving any reasons except a reference to the assurances given by the Uzbek authorities. Finally, he referred to a number of cases examined by the Court in which it had been established that to Uzbekistan of a person sought for political crimes would constitute a violation of Article 3."], "id": "095ed170-67c2-4317-9f67-f631c1d7319c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government argued that the applicant did not have victim status, as enforcement of the order had been and remained suspended due to the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, in the Government\u2019s view, the applicant had not made any detailed submissions about the risk of ill-treatment and, thus, had not exhausted domestic remedies. Finally, the Government submitted that Belarus had ratified and applied a large number of international treaties aimed at the protection of human rights. The Belarusian authorities had provided assurances that the applicant would not be prosecuted for offences other than those indicated in the extradition request and would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment or political persecution. The offences for which the applicant was being prosecuted did not entail the possibility of a sentence of capital punishment. The Russian courts had delved into the issue of the possible risk of the applicant\u2019s ill-treatment and had found it to be unsubstantiated. Thus, the applicant had no case to argue."], "id": "9c4a9aad-7ebb-48ee-8297-5c6a02819493", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to provide substantial evidence that he would risk ill-treatment if extradited to Kyrgyzstan. They submitted that the domestic authorities and courts had thoroughly examined his allegations concerning the risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan in the course of the refugee status and proceedings. The applicant had been able to attend those proceedings and to present his position, and had used his right of appeal against the judgments."], "id": "337f0a23-af3c-4d83-9301-fc54ac34c633", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["83. The applicant argued that there had been insufficient reasons for his detention since he had had no intention to abscond, and that the courts should have considered less stringent preventive measures such as house arrest. He also argued that the provisions of the CCrP on detention in cases were unclear and unforeseeable because they allowed arrest and detention without a detention order issued by a Russian court. Such provisions did not specify the circumstances in which detention could be replaced by house arrest, which remained an illusory option."], "id": "4cff2904-5095-422c-8f79-b9e9a17c8ad5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["99. The applicant argued that the detention order of 25 November 2009 had not set a limit on the duration of his detention and that there had been no extension orders. At the same time, the applicant also argued that subsequent detention orders had authorised his detention for long periods of time. The circumstances relating to his detention could have changed with the passage of time, while the detention orders had remained based on the gravity of the charges against him and the existence of pending proceedings. In any event, the applicable procedures and legislation had been insufficiently clear and precise."], "id": "d069f3e7-aa52-4f4b-ac38-d0efa1c726f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["131. The applicants further noted that the Russian courts had denied the applicability of Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to detention pending and had ruled that Russian law did not establish any time-limits for such detention or any procedure for its extension. The applicants argued that the absence of such a procedure had rendered their detention arbitrary and unlawful."], "id": "678c3239-4307-447d-ab02-852d68df90b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["145. The applicant also claimed that the domestic authorities had not displayed due diligence in conducting the proceedings, in particular from 3 February to 24 June 2010, when the said proceedings remained dormant. The domestic courts had failed to take into account the progress of the extradition proceedings. The Government had failed to provide reasons for the applicant\u2019s detention during this period."], "id": "9083cb2d-89a6-43fa-b392-e4bf279b1485", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["227. The Government contested this argument. They stated that the second applicant\u2019s detention with a view to had been fully in accordance with the procedure and time-limits provided in domestic law. The second applicant and her lawyer had been present at all court hearings concerning her detention. Accordingly, the second applicant\u2019s detention had been in compliance with both domestic law and Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention."], "id": "ec3a2004-88c8-42b9-b77a-0a96e898337f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["388. The applicants' representatives claimed that their clients had never officially been detained with a view to their and that their placement in custody on 6 and 7 August 2002 was a disguised form of detention for the purpose of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. Their transfer on those dates from the civilian hospital to prison (the prison infirmary in the case of Mr Margoshvili) was the result of a visit to Georgia on 6 August 2002 by the Russian Procurator-General, who had brought with him the request for the applicants' extradition (see paragraphs 58-60 and 62 above). Quite apart from the requirement of promptness set out in Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the applicants were not informed either during their transfer to prison or subsequently that they had been arrested with a view to being handed over to the Russian authorities. The applicants had thus been deprived of the possibility of challenging the lawfulness of that detention. Submitting the same complaints, Mr Khadjiev relied on Article 5 \u00a7 2 and Article 6 \u00a7 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 235 above). He also complained that he had been questioned without an interpreter at the civilian hospital and that he had not been informed of the accusations against him when he was brought before a judge on 6 August 2002 (see paragraph 58 above)."], "id": "e053ed3b-b6ed-405d-aa64-b86b7b2adecf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["141. The applicant submitted that his in contravention of the interim measure indicated by the Court had been decided without any regard to legal considerations and had stemmed from a deliberate political decision based on fallacious reasons. The Government provided no evidence to substantiate the applicant\u2019s so-called dangerousness; moreover, the applicant had not been the subject of any investigation consequent upon any attempted escape or acts of proselytising; on the contrary, all the opinions of the governors of the prisons in which the applicant had been held mentioned his irreproachable behaviour. The only reason for the Belgian Government\u2019s action had been a political determination to hand the applicant over to the US authorities as quickly as possible and to avoid a Court judgment finding a violation of Article 3 in the event of extradition. This determination had in fact long been in evidence, as could be seen by the repeated requests for the lifting of the interim measure while the appeal pending before the Conseil d\u2019Etat was not of suspensive effect vis-\u00e0-vis the decision to extradite. In so doing the Government had irreversibly infringed the applicant\u2019s right of individual petition, as he now found it legally impossible, because of his extradition, and materially impossible, because of his solitary confinement in a prison virtually cut off from the outside world, to usefully pursue his application to the Court."], "id": "2479d84e-10f9-4998-9710-5bf304d8e729", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["127. The applicant maintained that the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 did not dispense the State from fulfilling its international obligations regarding , since such a ground for detention was clearly provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 1(f), which only required the detention to be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by the domestic legislation. The applicant submitted that the Minsk Convention did not provide for such a procedure. He further stated that his detention, from the moment of his apprehension on 23 August 2004 until the present date, lacked a legal basis, had been groundless and in breach of the procedure prescribed by law. He stated that his detention until 16 September 2004 should fall within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1(c) of the Convention and after that date \u2013 it should be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 1(f)."], "id": "3c0803e0-e2c9-45b8-b371-0b83ed182831", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["106. The applicant complained under Article 3 and Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention that his detention from 2 February to 29 September 2006 had been unlawful and that the proceedings had not been conducted with due diligence. The Court will examine those complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "id": "df7ea226-c0a0-43d0-8b5c-1aa3914d827a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicant pointed out that the Minister of Internal Affairs of Tajikistan, in an interview given in the course of proceedings, had described him as the leader of a terrorist group and one of the perpetrators of the terrorist attack of 3 September 2010 who had been arrested during the criminal investigation of the attack. However, the only statements of charges accompanying the extradition request were dated 26 and 30 March 2009 and did not mention involvement in this attack. No additional charges were brought against him afterwards. The applicant argued that the Minister\u2019s statement had violated his presumption of innocence and called into question the credibility of the assurances that he would enjoy a fair trial in Tajikistan. He insisted that the accusations against him had been \u201cfabricated\u201d, which intensified the risk that he would be subjected to torture in Tajikistan in order to extract self-incriminating testimonies. Finally, the applicant referred to the conclusion reached by the UNHCR, namely that he faced a real risk of torture in Tajikistan."], "id": "0df31514-6c91-4c74-9aff-93628c94ae36", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant replied that diplomatic assurances by the Uzbek authorities did not refute his arguments about high risk of ill-treatment (he referred to the Court\u2019s established case-law: Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, \u00a7\u00a7 149-150, 2 October 2012, and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, \u00a7\u00a7 147-148, ECHR 2008). The Government\u2019s claim that they had no information about anyone being ill-treated in Uzbekistan appeared to be false in the light of the recent reports by Amnesty International about the destiny of Mr Khamidkariyev who had been abducted in Russia and forcibly returned to Uzbekistan where he faced an unfair trial based on his confessions obtained by torture (see paragraph 33 above and the facts of application no. 42332/14). The mere fact of ratification of international human rights treaties by Uzbekistan does not in itself provide sufficient safeguards against ill-treatment because of the absence of any control mechanisms in relation to the country\u2019s compliance with its commitments (here the applicant referred to the Court\u2019s findings in: Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, \u00a7 204, 7 November 2013, and Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, \u00a7 98, 12 May 2010). The applicant deemed illogical the Government\u2019s argument that his had been refused in respect of some of the charges. What is important is that it was authorised for the offence of participation in an extremist organisation which put him in a vulnerable group systematically subject to torture. In view of the recent publications by international human rights organisations, the applicant submitted that there were no improvements in the sphere of human rights in Uzbekistan and that torture of persons suspected of prohibited religious activities had remained a widespread practice. However, the applicant\u2019s allegations of an increased risk of torture were not examined at any stage of the domestic proceedings."], "id": "10801036-bbc7-4ba5-bd51-3e3947db30e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["161. The applicant submitted that the proceedings had lasted for more than eight years and the authorities had therefore had plenty of time to examine the extradition request and to fulfil all necessary formalities while he had been serving his prison term. By resuming the extradition proceedings only after the end of his prison term, the authorities had failed to exercise due diligence and had made him languish in detention for many additional months after he had finished serving his sentence."], "id": "5607da1a-05d4-460f-bf95-c1315c09ab7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant submitted in reply that he had consistently raised the grievance concerning the risk of ill-treatment at all stages of the , the expulsion and the refugee-status proceedings. He maintained that the administrative-removal proceedings had been used by the authorities in order to circumvent the guarantees available to the applicant in extradition proceedings. For instance, the CAO did not contain any provisions obliging the authorities concerned to consider the risk of ill-treatment allegations in a removal case. The refugee-status proceedings had not had any suspensive effect in relation to the administrative expulsion. He further argued that a supervisory-review appeal against the final administrative removal order would not have suspensive effect either, and therefore could not be regarded as an effective remedy."], "id": "0bef8286-e2fd-4241-8da4-416d973a1b29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["130. The applicants submitted that Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure set the initial time-limit for detention at two months. As no extension of the applicants' detention had been ordered after the expiry of the two-month time-limit, the applicants' subsequent detention had been unlawful. The applicants referred in that respect to the Government's submissions in which it had been confirmed that the detention pending was to be extended following the procedure established by Russian law for the extension of detention during the investigation and that that procedure had not been respected in the applicants' case (see paragraph 133 below)."], "id": "3657aeef-299d-43e9-9a5b-0456d6419758", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["157. The applicant argued that the Russian law on detention pending expulsion was not sufficiently clear and foreseeable. In particular, the applicant complained that his arrest for the purposes of expulsion had been ordered to circumvent the requirements of the domestic law, which established a maximum time-limit for detention pending . On the contrary, detention pending expulsion was not limited in time under Russian law. He noted that administrative removal proceedings had been initiated only when the authorities faced the need to release the applicant. In addition, since the application of Rule 39 by the Court, the applicant\u2019s detention pending expulsion had no legitimate purpose and was therefore arbitrary, since he could no longer be expelled."], "id": "23043516-c4ab-494e-bb64-7ed3143d885a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegation of politically motivated persecution had been assessed by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the order, and rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office of Uzbekistan to the effect that the applicant would face no risk of ill-treatment if he were to be extradited to Uzbekistan and on the fact that the Russian authorities did not have any information confirming his allegation. Referring to the assurances from the Uzbek authorities, the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "a5787d27-c71f-4ed7-a802-4d9c58be526a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations that he risked ill-treatment in the event of his to Uzbekistan had been duly considered by the national authorities. The Russian Prosecutor General had received the assurances from his Uzbekistani counterpart that the applicant would not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and that he would be given an opportunity to defend himself. The Russian authorities had no information about any extradited persons having been ill-treated or tortured in Uzbekistan. The Government pointed out that Uzbekistan was a party to international instruments prohibiting torture and ill-treatment and that the extradition was refused in respect of the offences of organising a criminal association, illegal crossing of the State border, terrorism and infringement of the constitutional order of the Republic of Uzbekistan."], "id": "25618070-2a48-4c3f-9691-6d0f133dcdad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government contested that argument. They stated that in the event of the applicant's to Kazakhstan he would not be liable to capital punishment as the indictment in his case related to a criminal act under Article 96(1) of the Criminal Code and involved the offence of murder, not punishable by capital punishment. Furthermore, they stated that there had been a moratorium on capital punishment in Kazakhstan, that capital punishment was applied only in exceptional circumstances and that this sentence could not be enforced, even if one assumed that such a sentence would be passed in relation to the applicant."], "id": "e72f1204-0d14-4fd4-b3a1-be0ed46d8aa4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["170. The applicant submitted in his observations dated 11 July 2011 that the available procedure for review of detention was not effective, for the following reasons. First, in the proceedings concerning the extension of the applicant\u2019s detention, the domestic courts at all levels of jurisdiction factually reproduced the same reasoning, that there had been no new circumstances warranting an application of a measure of restraint milder than detention. Furthermore, the proceedings for review were ineffective, since on 25 March 2010 the Perovskiy District Court ordered the applicant\u2019s detention in the absence of the guarantees from the Uzbek authorities that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment in case of his . Finally, the applicant or his representative had been unable to challenge the judgment of 25 March 2010, since during these proceedings the applicant had been represented by a State-appointed lawyer and not a lawyer of his own choosing."], "id": "8729dddd-f9af-45ff-b931-6f22e5eabd2f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the proceedings against the applicant had been discontinued because the Uzbek authorities had not produced a detention order or an extradition request in respect of the applicant. The domestic courts had then ordered his administrative removal to Uzbekistan because his residence in Russia had been unlawful. The Government drew the Court\u2019s attention to the fact that the applicant had not applied for refugee status immediately after his arrival in Russia. His application for refugee status had been lodged only after the administrative removal order had been issued against him. Moreover, the applicant had not referred to the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan either upon arrest or before the Serpukhov Town Court. It had not been until the appeal proceedings before the Moscow Regional Court that the applicant had for the first time mentioned the risk of ill-treatment. His allegations had been examined and rejected by the Regional Court as unsubstantiated."], "id": "b8aefc80-a455-48be-82f5-85a67c9c8165", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant maintained that in Turkmenistan there was a practice of torturing people during investigation to extract confessions. Furthermore, in Turkmenistan he would face a risk of appalling conditions of detention. The applicant made particular reference to the conditions in the SIZO of the Ministry of the Interior in Ashgabat, in which he was most likely to be held in the event of his . He referred to a number of international materials, which described the human rights situation in Turkmenistan as particularly worrying."], "id": "d07b63df-0636-47d5-ae45-3efcffe3fd1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government relied on the reasoning of the House of Lords in Wellington and the Canadian Supreme Court in Burns and Ferris (see paragraphs 34\u201342 and 44 and 45 above). On the basis of those cases, the Government submitted that, in the context, a distinction had to be drawn between torture and other forms of ill-treatment. A real risk of torture in the receiving State should be an absolute bar on extradition. However, for all other forms of ill-treatment, it was legitimate to consider the policy objectives pursued by extradition in determining whether the ill-treatment reached the minimum level of severity required by Article 3. This was the appropriate means of resolving the tension that existed between the Court\u2019s judgments in Soering, on the one hand, and Chahal and Saadi, on the other. Article 3 could not be interpreted as meaning that any form of ill-treatment in a non-Contracting State would be sufficient to prevent extradition."], "id": "c6a055fa-36f5-4cc5-a5f5-7364e0de5f98", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["136. The Government stressed that the applicant\u2019s detention had been subject to review by the courts and that on 14 March 2005 the Kuybyshevskiy district court of St. Petersburg had ordered his release, referring directly to the European Convention. The court noted the absence of legal grounds in the domestic legislation which could allow the extension or alteration of measures of restraint in relation to persons detained with a view to . The Government therefore argued that there had been no breach of the applicant\u2019s right to judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention."], "id": "809d08c6-349c-432e-a751-f675bf09a4e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention pending had been lawful within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f). The applicant was detained with a view to enforcement of the court order for his administrative removal from the country under Article 18.8 \u00a7 1 of the CAO. Referring to the reasons given by the courts for the applicant\u2019s expulsion and detention, the Government argued that the expulsion proceedings had nothing to do with the extradition proceedings. The law on detention pending expulsion was sufficiently clear and foreseeable. The applicant\u2019s detention was necessary to ensure the administrative removal, because he could have absconded from the authorities if released."], "id": "3bd03c3e-f259-4b41-a4da-07b926e592b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["226. The Government observed that the Chamber had referred to \u201crefoulement\u201d (refusal of entry) and to \u201cexpulsion\u201d (deportation), without pointing out the distinction between the two notions, which in reality corresponded to different procedures in domestic legislation, more specifically under Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 (see paragraph 33 above). In particular, \u201crefusal of entry at the border\u201d was a decision by the border guards to turn away aliens arriving at border crossings without papers and without meeting the requirements for admission to Italy. The \u201cdeferred refusal-of-entry\u201d procedure, ordered by the Chief of Police (questore), applied where an alien had entered the country illegally and had been allowed to stay temporarily to receive protection. Lastly, \u201cdeportation\u201d corresponded to a written and reasoned decision whereby the competent administrative or judicial authorities ordered the removal from the country of an alien who did not have, or no longer had, leave to remain in the country. The Italian legal system made no provision for collective and Article 19 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 prohibited the return of an alien to a State where he or she might be subjected to persecution. The Government explained that in the present case the applicants had been issued with \u201crefusal-of-entry and removal\u201d orders and had not been subjected to a measure of \u201cexpulsion\u201d (i.e., deportation). Therefore, in the Government\u2019s view, it could not have been a \u201ccollective expulsion\u201d."], "id": "54561143-8ac1-4996-97e4-6e86efca42e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicant argued that, in view of the case\u2011law of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, a further appeal to that body would not have stood any chance of success; hence, this did not constitute a domestic remedy which he was required to exhaust. With regard to the decision on his objection lodged on the basis of section 72(3) of the Aliens Act 2000 \u2013 which was in any event not capable of providing him with an effective remedy against \u2013, the applicant pointed out that he had appealed against that decision."], "id": "324510d4-c225-4cfc-8de5-0b2561f01cba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["129. The applicants listed the following elements as the basis for their complaint under this head: verbal abuse and physical violence by the detention centre staff, limited privacy, limited access to an interpreter and legal aid, lack of opportunity to take walks and have outdoor exercise, and a lack of medical treatment. They referred to their complaints and the affidavits made by themselves and to their representatives. They believed that the cumulative effect of these factors amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. They also referred to the Courts\u2019 previous findings of a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of confinement in detention centres for foreign nationals pending and argued that conditions there, as a rule, were substandard to the requirements of the Convention."], "id": "e76c9771-b988-4ae7-b347-4ef69eface81", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["113. The applicant\u2019s extradition was also permissible under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees which excludes the application of that Convention to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons to believe that he or she (i) has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee, or (ii) has been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 33 \u00a7 2 of that Convention does not extend the prohibition of to refugees whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country they are in, or who, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime by a final judgment, constitute a danger to the community of that country."], "id": "831e8301-f860-44f0-a629-8af2c151359b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant\u2019s representative argued that his allegations of a risk of ill-treatment had not been examined by the Russian authorities. She relied on several reports by United Nations agencies and international and regional organisations and argued that the applicant had run and continued to run a risk of torture in Uzbekistan on account of his religious beliefs. She gave examples of cases when Muslim detainees had been ill-treated, and in certain cases killed, because of their religious beliefs, or unjustifiably subjected to disciplinary penalties such as placement in punishment cells without food or water, in particular because of their attempts to pray. She also referred to recent reports on the allegedly appalling conditions of detention and the lack of monitoring of detention facilities in Uzbekistan. The applicant\u2019s representative also relied on the third-party interveners\u2019 submissions before the Court in the cases of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005\u2011I) and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008). According to the applicant\u2019s representative, the applicant\u2019s had been in fact \u201can extradition in disguise\u201d, as a result of which the applicant had been convicted of the offences in respect of which the Russian authorities had refused extradition. The applicant had been expelled in flagrant violation of Russian law before his appeals against the expulsion order and the dismissal of his refugee application could be examined. Besides, no diplomatic assurances had been obtained from the Uzbek authorities in the present case and, even if they had been obtained, they could not have been effective in the context of an administrative expulsion formally unrelated to any pending criminal proceedings against an applicant. With reference to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia (no. 36378/02, ECHR 2005\u2011III), it was argued that the respondent Government\u2019s failure to comply with an indication under Rule 39 should not necessarily prevent the Court from examining on the merits a complaint under Article 3. Otherwise, it would be less burdensome for a respondent State to remove an applicant from its territory in cases in which Rule 39 was applied and to be held in violation of Article 34 of the Convention than to comply with Rule 39 and to be found to have breached Article 3 and/or Article 6."], "id": "9965d3d1-0d25-4f6d-979d-b842926f9928", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant had subsequently been forced to get into a car which had no official designation and looked like a private vehicle. Fearing she was being abducted, the applicant had resisted and shouted for help. The officers had covered her mouth with their hands and started beating her on her arms and legs. Obliged to get into the vehicle, yet still unaware of the reasons for her abduction, she had been brought to a building which might have been a \u201cpolice\u201d station. Her bag had been forcibly taken from her and searched and when she complained she had again been physically abused. She had received repeated blows to her back, head and shoulders by an agent of the Turkish secret service. She had been taken for interrogation to another room, where she had been abused and mocked. After being taken back to the bus, she had asked to return to the unoccupied part of Cyprus. The response to that request had been further physical beating. The next day a female Turkish Cypriot doctor, fearing for her own safety, had refused to certify the existence of bruises on the applicant\u2019s body. During the following nights, stones had been thrown at the applicant\u2019s house with the purpose of intimidating her. She had been threatened with from the occupied area or death if she were to make any complaints."], "id": "cff51a54-d5b4-4cca-9433-b167ae33a356", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["133. The Government argued that, according to the information of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the FSB, there were no circumstances which would preclude the applicant\u2019s extradition to Uzbekistan. Whilst noting that the Government failed to elaborate on that point, the Court reiterates that in cases concerning aliens facing or extradition it is entitled to compare material referred to by the Government with information from other reliable and objective sources (see Salah Sheekh, cited above, \u00a7 136, and Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, \u00a7 129, 21 October 2010)."], "id": "a7bd0a42-00e1-4c3b-ad6f-41bec74322ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["126. The applicant submitted that there was no indication that the authorities had been actively pursuing his or that it was at all possible. The only thing that the authorities had done had been to contact the Lebanese embassy in Sofia with a view to obtaining travel documents for the applicant to allow him to enter Lebanon. They had not tried to contact the embassies of any safe third countries. In the applicant\u2019s view, detention pending deportation should be allowed to reach the maximum eighteen\u2011month period allowed by law only in exceptional cases."], "id": "ed1653f3-1844-447a-aef9-a69fdec32f63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["164. The applicant observed that he had a family life in Italy which would be disrupted by enforcement of his : he had been living with Mrs V. since 1998 and their child had been born the following year. At that time he had already requested a residence permit, which was not issued until 2001. When that permit expired he had tried unsuccessfully to regularise his situation in order to find work. The applicant\u2019s child attended school in Italy, which would not be possible in Tunisia, where the applicant himself was at risk of imprisonment or even death. Mrs V. had been out of work for about a year as she suffered from a serious form of ischaemia, which frequently made it necessary for her to be taken into hospital and also prevented her from travelling to Tunisia. The applicant was therefore the family\u2019s sole means of financial support."], "id": "10bdd7df-e621-4504-9985-0f00760b3ebb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["133. The applicant submitted that even if removal had in fact been possible in the circumstances of the case, the duration of her detention had been excessive. It had become possible for the immigration authorities to deport the applicant from 11 February 2011. She considered that the fact that she had been serving a sentence of imprisonment for part of the time after that date (from 17 February to 16 June 2011) should not, in itself, have been an obstacle to the initiation of removal proceedings. Indeed, Article 14 (2) of the Act allowed the Minister to order the from Malta of a person serving a prison sentence, prior to the completion of such sentence."], "id": "493a895c-f581-4f52-8421-e0696339bb66", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, the applicants\u2019 allegations about the existence of a risk of their being subjected to ill-treatment were hypothetical. They were not relevant to the issue of the legality of their stay in Russia and could not be considered in the course of proceedings. Besides, the applicants had not even referred to the existence of such a risk when challenging their expulsion. The applicants\u2019 allegations were thoroughly reviewed by the Russian migration authorities, which found them unfounded. The Government also noted that Uzbekistan had ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and was obliged to act in compliance with it. Accordingly, no issue would arise under Article 3 of the Convention if the applicants were to be deported to Uzbekistan."], "id": "afcec984-21cb-41a5-b4bf-c871d0909d12", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that the lawfulness of the period of detention from the date on which it had been ordered and until the date of ought to be presumed. Any alleged breaches of the requirements of good faith or due diligence were amenable to a judicial review in the proceedings under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure governing complaints about unlawful actions of State officials."], "id": "c1c3f1ce-0977-44ca-a4e9-50d7cd701d3d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["166. The applicant claimed an amount of EUR 15,000 or such amount as the Court deemed equitable in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage He submitted that the Government's failure to recognise that his would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention had led to tremendous anxiety and suffering on the part of the applicant and his family, which could not be compensated by a finding of a violation alone."], "id": "56fa52f8-d1cd-496e-89ce-c1d7666837a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["163. The applicant, however, argued that the real purpose of that last detention order had been to keep him detained after the maximum period of detention pending extradition had expired, and that the authorities had used proceedings as a pretext to circumvent the requirements of the law. The first question before the Court is therefore whether or not the authorities acted in good faith when detaining the applicant within the expulsion proceedings."], "id": "93ebf937-264a-4ec5-985d-23f80452907b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant maintained that the Czech legal system had not offered him any effective opportunity to contest his at the decisive points when he became aware of new relevant facts, in particular the Belarus extradition request and the decision by the Plze\u0148 Regional Court that his extradition was not allowed because of the risk of violations of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention."], "id": "4738c63a-a52d-40c4-9933-e382f6ed90df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that the lawfulness of the period of detention from the date on which it had been ordered and until the date of ought to be presumed. Any alleged breaches of the requirements of good faith or due diligence were amenable to a judicial review in the proceedings under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure governing complaints about unlawful actions of State officials."], "id": "4cf17a09-ad8c-4443-8c2f-5d906050f429", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government maintained that the applicants could have obtained a review of their claims in the asylum proceedings and that while lodging the request for a judicial review they could have asked that the legal force of the decisions be suspended. They held that the first applicant had withdrawn his action and that a judgment had been delivered prior to the of the second applicant. They also maintained that the applicants should have requested judicial review of the administrative expulsion decisions, notwithstanding that it had been ruled out by law at that time, and ultimately should have lodged constitutional appeals, which would have been successful as evidenced by the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 9 December 2008."], "id": "4e60507f-72e5-464b-a1dd-d59571b433d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["260. The applicants alleged that it had not been possible for them to submit to the Italian authorities a complaint about the degrading conditions to which they had been subjected during their deprivation of liberty. They added that the refusal-of-entry orders had provided for the possibility of an appeal, within a period of sixty days, to the Agrigento Justice of the Peace. However, such a remedy would not have stayed the execution of the removal. The applicants argued that it was clear from the Court\u2019s case-law (they referred in particular to Hirsi Jamaa and Others, cited above, \u00a7 206) that the suspensive nature of a remedy was, in such matters, a condition of its effectiveness. That was merely a logical consequence of the hermeneutic principle that, to be effective, Convention provisions must be interpreted in a manner which guaranteed rights that were practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory. In the applicants\u2019 view, the assessment of the lawfulness of the must therefore take place before the measure is enforced."], "id": "172315a7-f60f-41d5-aaa3-1bbbfab4ccb7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant contended that his to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment due to the high and visible profile of his father in Afghanistan as a result of his involvement with the PDPA Government until its overthrow in 1992. Whilst not disputing the findings of GS (set out at paragraph 26 above), he argued that the assessment of the risk to him required consideration of the level of violence in Afghanistan as well as his personal circumstances, having regard to the Court\u2019s case-law that even though a number of individual factors may not, when considered separately, constitute a real risk, they may do when taken cumulatively and when considered in a situation of general violence and heightened security (NA. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, \u00a7 130, 17 July 2008). He argued that his personal circumstances were such that he had established that there existed special distinguishing features that could or should have enabled the Secretary of State to foresee that he would be exposed to a very personal risk upon return to Afghanistan (Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, \u00a7 112, Series A no. 215)."], "id": "23945cbe-a82d-4e9c-83ce-a6b98eecd934", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["223. The Government alleged that no collective had taken place. They observed that the applicants had been returned according to the fast-track procedure provided for in the agreement with Tunisia (see paragraphs 36-40 above), which could be regarded as a \u201creadmission\u201d agreement within the meaning of the Return Directive (see paragraph 41 above). They argued that this agreement had contributed to the repression of migrant smuggling, as called for by the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime. Moreover, Tunisia was a safe country which respected human rights, this being shown by the fact that the applicants had not reported experiencing persecution or violations of their fundamental rights after their return."], "id": "ad65b1de-893e-4798-8c5e-78b33ea3660f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government provided several documents with regard to administrative proceedings concerning the applicant. These include an administrative offence report from the Leninskiy district dated 13 October 2006, indicating the applicant\u2019s arrest on the same day at 10 o\u2019clock and a decision of the Vidnoye Town Court of the Moscow Region, also dated 13 October 2006, fining the applicant (RUB 1,000) for not observing the applicable registration procedure, and ordering the applicant\u2019s . The Court decision also indicates that the applicant shall be held at the Reception Centre of Serpukhov until his expulsion. Furthermore, the judgment shows a stamp of Domodova airport, dated 17 October 2006."], "id": "b7d37336-74d5-4f04-b255-975c2e8e6d49", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government further held that if the Court were to find that there had been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their family life, it was evident that the orders against the first, second and fourth applicants were in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They further argued that the regulation in the Aliens Act served the legitimate aim of protecting the economic well-being of Sweden and preventing disorder."], "id": "c43f007c-8f5d-4751-9861-e1b373f42a7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant rejected the Government\u2019s argument that the decision on his administrative removal did not necessarily mean that he would be expelled to Uzbekistan. No other possibility had ever been discussed in the course of the administrative proceedings and, furthermore, there was no reason to believe that any other country would be willing to accept him. His placement in the detention facility foreclosed the possibility of his voluntary and independent departure from Russia and prevented him from choosing the country of destination. He disagreed with the Government\u2019s submission that his had been made necessary because of his failure to abide by the Russian migration laws and the absence of family ties in Russia. Article 3 prohibited ill-treatment in absolute terms and there could be no justification for imposing a sanction that would expose him to a real risk of torture."], "id": "f13a11a0-d58d-44fa-86e3-9cbd58603d9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["176. The applicant submitted that he was being prevented from exercising the rights listed in paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, whereas his could not be regarded as \u201cnecessary in the interests of public order\u201d or \u201cgrounded on reasons of national security\u201d. In that connection, he observed that the considerations of the Minister of the Interior were contradicted by the Milan Assize Court, which had acquitted him of international terrorism. In any event, the Government had not adduced any evidence of the existence of dangers to national security or public order, so that the decision to take him to a temporary holding centre with a view to his expulsion had been \u201cunlawful\u201d."], "id": "56dd8f1a-65fd-4dd3-a5a3-8d0e360ce932", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant submitted that, should the order against her be enforced, she would face a real risk of either being killed by her uncles because she had refused to agree to a forced marriage before fleeing Somalia or being forced to marry someone against her will again upon return. She also stated that the general situation in Somalia was very severe for women, in particularly for those who lacked a male network. As a consequence, she would risk having to live alone in a refugee camp, which would expose her to serious danger. In this respect, she referred to available country information which, she claimed, the Swedish authorities had ignored."], "id": "7729c11c-fc2b-47a0-9da4-2ab7e119e333", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["150. The Government submitted that, although it was acknowledged in the Court\u2019s case-law that the responsibility of a Contracting Party could be engaged under Article 3 on account of the of an alien and his exposure to a risk of a breach of his economic and social rights, it nevertheless had to be taken into consideration that, where the person concerned suffered from an illness, neither the returning State nor the receiving State could be held directly responsible for the shortcomings of the health-care system and the repercussions on the health of the individual concerned. The case-law demonstrated that in order for the threshold of severity required by Article 3 to be attained in such cases the extreme nature of the applicant\u2019s living conditions or his or her extreme vulnerability had to be established. The circumstances contrary to human dignity had to be exceptional to such a degree that the person concerned, owing to his or her critical condition prior to removal, would inevitably be placed in a situation of intense suffering solely on account of the removal procedure and the complete absence of care and treatment in the receiving country. Human rights were not synonymous with compelling humanitarian considerations and a general obligation to provide social welfare assistance could not be inferred from Article 3 even in the name of human dignity."], "id": "c05fe3c9-f570-47e0-bace-66475b3fe00a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant alleged that she had not had an effective remedy in respect of her complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention by which to challenge the order to leave the country. As her application to the Aliens Appeals Board to set aside that order, which was still pending, did not suspend her , she had lodged a request with that court under the extremely urgent procedure for a stay of execution of the order to leave the country, with a view to obtaining a ruling on the merits of her complaints before she was expelled. However, that procedure had proved fruitless because she had not been in detention and could therefore not establish the urgency of the situation. She stressed that the Aliens Appeals Board applied the same case-law when examining requests for interim measures as a matter of extreme urgency in the context of requests for a stay of execution under the ordinary procedure."], "id": "267c8060-50c4-4a8c-9f5a-ef4303db4f0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["122. The Government\u2019s case was that the issue of risk would be examined upon the enforcement of the order against the applicant and that the authorities would not remove him from Bulgaria without ensuring that this would not fall foul of the prohibition set out in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 (see paragraph 38 above). However, the Court has already found that there are no guarantees that before proceeding with the expulsion the authorities would subject the applicant\u2019s claims under Article 3 of the Convention to rigorous scrutiny (see paragraphs 105 and 106 above). More importantly, the Government did not point to any procedure whereby the applicant would be able to challenge their assessment of those claims. From the provisions of the Aliens Act 1998 and the regulations for its application it does not appear that it is possible to bring a separate legal challenge against the enforcement of the expulsion order, let alone that there exists an avenue of redress that meets the two requirements set out in paragraph 120 above. The Court would emphasise in that connection that the existence of remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, and that it falls to the respondent State to establish that (see, among other authorities, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, \u00a7 107, ECHR 2010\u2011...)."], "id": "ec5b7a12-3830-4e6e-80fb-06136b2d71c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["220. The applicants submitted that the key issue in the present case was whether an individual interview was necessary prior to their . They observed in this connection that only two aspects distinguished their case from Hirsi Jamaa and Others (cited above), namely the fact that they had actually been identified and that they had received identical \u201cdeferred refusal-of-entry\u201d orders. Even though the similarity between the orders did not, in itself, lead to the conclusion that there had been a collective expulsion, it was an indication to that effect. In addition, in Sharifi and Others (cited above) the Court had found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 in respect of one of the applicants who had been expelled (Mr Reza Karimi) even though he had been identified, because there was no evidence that, at the time of the identity check, an interpreter or independent legal adviser had been present, those being indications of an individual interview. Where there was evidence of such an interview, however, the Court had excluded any violation of that provision in the cases of M.A. v. Cyprus (no. 41872/10, ECHR 2013); Sultani v. France (no. 45223/05, ECHR 2007-IV); and Andric v. Sweden ((dec.) no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999). In the applicants\u2019 view, to exclude the need for an individual interview would render meaningless the procedural safeguard of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, because an expulsion could be justified purely on the basis that the alien\u2019s nationality \u2013 that is, the fact of belonging to a group \u2013 had been established."], "id": "362d818f-c6cb-4f4f-a178-ea57085ca2d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government, to dispel doubts as to this risk of ill-treatment (see Saadi, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 129-32, and F.G. v. Sweden, cited above, \u00a7 120), have argued that the Swedish authorities have made a careful examination of the applicant\u2019s case and found that, in view of the improved human rights situation in Morocco, he would not face a real risk of ill-treatment in his home country. They have also underlined that the Security Service reviews the situation regularly and would stop the should any factor emerge to show that the applicant would be at risk."], "id": "15c332ac-96c8-4859-a715-0d9c7909bb96", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant acknowledged the two main decisions rendered by the Court regarding Dublin transfers to Greece, namely K.R.S. v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 32733/08, 2 December 2008) and M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (cited above), and observed that it would be difficult for the Court to fix a point in time in which Greece had stopped adhering to the minimum standards foreseen for asylum proceedings and reception conditions. In the first-mentioned decision, the Court had still believed that Greece would abide by its obligations, whereas later, it had found that Greece could no longer cope with the number of asylum cases to be conducted or the reception of asylum-seekers in Greece. The applicant, relying on the principles established in the judgment in Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom (30 October 1991, \u00a7 107, Series A no. 215) concerning risk assessment under Article 3, observed that the Court would not be precluded from having regard to information which came to light subsequent to the . That might be of value in confirming or refuting the appreciation that has been made by the Contracting party or the well-foundedness or otherwise of an applicant\u2019s fears (ibid.). He emphasised that, under these circumstances, the Government\u2019s contention that he had been transferred before the Court\u2019s decision in K.R.S. v. the United Kingdom (cited above) was unimportant."], "id": "defde28d-c68a-445f-bf2f-08336c2668bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["107. The Government submitted that the applicant had been administratively expelled to Algeria on the basis of the Foreigners Police decision of 20 July 2006 as there had been no legal ground for his stay in Slovakia. The took place after the final effect of the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 30 March 2010 concerning his asylum request. The applicant had not shown any relevant ground to justify granting him asylum and his continued stay in Slovakia would have represented a security risk."], "id": "26fce812-c3b9-4d56-bd5c-8cd62c3c4783", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["141. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged breaches of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. He submitted that his impending to Lebanon, entailing a risk for his life, and the lack of procedural safeguards in that regard, had caused him stress, fear and a sense of helplessness. He claimed a further EUR 20,000 in respect of the alleged breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, emphasising the excessive duration of his detention in poor conditions. He claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of an alleged breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, submitting that he suffered frustration on account of the lack of speedy and effective judicial review of his detention. Lastly, he claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of the alleged breaches of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, submitting that the formal manner in which the courts had reviewed the order for his expulsion and the impossibility for him to lead a normal life in Bulgaria, even if released from detention, had given rise to feelings of injustice and humiliation."], "id": "a50ba0f9-3235-4e32-8d5d-405eb6879f0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["119. The Government further submitted that a thorough investigation was necessary not only to determine if the alien in question has adequately established that he can expect to be subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 3 upon returning to his country of origin but also because it was necessary to ensure that the State is not simply forced to resign itself to the alien's presence which may represent a threat to the fundamental rights of its citizens, particularly in cases like the present one where national security was at stake. Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom (30 October 1991, \u00a7 111, Series A no. 215), Pranjko v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 45925/99, 23 February 1999) and Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands ((dec.), nos. 6276/03 and 6122/04, 29 June 2004), the Government considered that the guiding principle here was that the \u201cmere possibility of ill-treatment\u201d is insufficient to assume that is incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "5a30e98f-df5f-4c72-b719-92ab5477830a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicants argued that their detention was not only arbitrary but did not serve the purpose of ensuring the applicants\u2019 . According to the applicants their detention was based on a xenophobic attitude towards Georgian nationals. Moreover, they submit that they had no practical opportunity to challenge the legality of the action taken against them, since they were denied the right to obtain legal advice and were deported without having the opportunity to challenge the court decisions, with which they were not provided and which were based on deeply flawed proceedings."], "id": "97b6a3a3-c154-4cdb-bc35-87c2ea4d8e9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["227. The Government did not accept that Article 5 could be relied in an case (the Court had doubted that it could be in Tomic v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 17837/03, 14 October 2003). Even if it could, no issue arose in the present case because the applicant would not be detained for a lengthy period before being brought before a court. SIAC had found that it was likely he would be brought before a \u201cjudicial authority\u201d within 48 hours, even if this were only a prosecutor with judicial status. The report of Mr Al-Khalili and Mr Najdawi confirmed that the Public Prosecutor was a judicial officer; they had also reported that the 48 hour period in which the police had to notify the legal authorities of any arrest had been reduced to 24 hours (see paragraphs 95 and 96 above). SIAC had also found that extensions of detention up to fifty days were unlikely to be sought (see paragraph 41 above). Both of SIAC\u2019s findings had been upheld by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. In the House of Lords, Lord Phillips had also found that 50 days\u2019 detention fell far short of a flagrant breach of Article 5 (see paragraph 58 above) and, although they did not accept that detention for fifty days was likely, the Government relied upon his conclusion."], "id": "59975224-6a27-4216-8d3d-6664d2eb9a40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicants maintained that their claims that they would be ill-treated if expelled to Guinea were arguable given the general situation in that country. They also noted that since no domestic authority had reviewed their claims, the Government could not maintain that they were not arguable. In response to the objection of the Government on the ground that they had not challenged the binding opinions of the Ministry of the Interior that there had been no obstacle to them leaving the country, they held that there had been no reason to do so, since those opinions had only dealt with their possible to Portugal, which would not have been a problem."], "id": "0b49333d-0a31-4907-bec4-c6726718299a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government submitted that the applicant was apprehended on 22 October 2006 by officers of the Department of the Interior of the Kuzminski district of Moscow and was brought before the Kuzminskiy District Court on 23 October 2006. The court fined the applicant for not observing the applicable registration procedure and ordered the applicant\u2019s . The Government also stated that neither the Federal Migration Service nor the Department of the Ministry of the Interior had any records or information about any subsequent detention of the applicant and that the applicant was not forcibly removed from the Russian Federation, but left on his own on 24 October 2006."], "id": "1811e757-912a-4d76-aebf-73959cc05b3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government submitted that the circumstances of Y.C.\u2019s death had also been the subject of ensuing administrative proceedings, namely to examine the question of whether Y.C.\u2019s death had been caused by a lack of adequate medical treatment while in detention pending . The IAP had based its decision on findings which had relied on the results of two oral hearings during which the police officers concerned, a further medical expert and the detainee sharing a cell with Y.C. had been questioned extensively about the course of Y.C.\u2019s hunger strike and his medical treatment. Moreover, the Human Rights Advisory Board had carried out an independent review of the police investigation and published the results in a report (see paragraph 27 above)."], "id": "44c4f573-a443-460d-bd78-6f9737d76f7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicants Vaja Berdzenishvili (application no. 14594/07), Tengiz Kbilashvili (application no. 14597/07), Abram Givishvili (application no. 14976/07), Liana Nachkebia (application no. 14978/07), Eka Chkaidze, David Jaoshvili (application no. 15221/07) and Inga Gigashvili (application no. 16706/07) further complained that their decisions were based on unfair trials, not complying with the guarantees of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "bdcf9f72-be68-4c2d-8d70-fa4e343a630b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["117. The applicants contended that they had not been notified that they were to be deported and that the Government had not provided any evidence to the contrary. Nor had the Government submitted any evidence that they had contacted the Ukrainian Consul following their refusal to depart from Cyprus. Lastly, the applicants stated that they had not been given sufficient information about the reasons for their arrest and detention. In this connection, they submitted that they had not been served with any document justifying their arrest and ."], "id": "ce47645a-6733-4338-a014-8e6e5923aaa5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["115. The Government submitted that the applicant had been able to challenge the order for his in judicial review proceedings, in the course of which he had been able to acquaint himself with all documents in the case file and seek to rebut the assertions of the authorities. In judicial review proceedings, the courts reviewed whether the administrative decision had been issued by a competent authority, in due form, and in compliance with the rules of administrative procedure and substantive law. In the applicant\u2019s case, the Supreme Administrative Court had done just that. It had examined the arguments of the parties and had given reasons for finding against the applicant. It is true that the question whether the applicant faced a risk of ill\u2011treatment upon expulsion had been raised before that court. However, since the proceedings concerned the lawfulness of the expulsion order, the court had deemed that question to be irrelevant. Domestic courts could review only specific administrative decisions. The applicant did not claim that there existed a tacit or an express refusal to stay the enforcement of the order for his expulsion by reference to section 44a."], "id": "8a34985a-d5e4-4918-9f72-655c5cc0f494", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant submitted that he was not questioning before the Court the lawfulness of his detention in the extradition proceedings, from 22 February to 23 May 2013, or that in the criminal proceedings, from 6 June to 17 September 2013. As regards the detention imposed in the proceedings, he claimed that the authorities had become aware of the fact that he was using a false passport when he was arrested, on 22 February 2013. However, it was not until three months later that the prosecutor instituted expulsion proceedings against him. The applicant claimed that the real purpose of the expulsion proceedings was to keep him under the authorities\u2019 control for two more years without a possibility of periodic review. Such a long stay in detention significantly exceeded the maximum custodial sentence under the Code of Administrative Offences and his detention pending expulsion was of a punitive, rather than preventive, nature."], "id": "c2d3caea-37f0-4bc4-8408-c67bb83801b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant further argued that in examining his case the Russian authorities had disregarded his specific submissions concerning his religious and political persecution and relevant reports by independent NGOs, and had relied solely on \u201cofficial sources of information\u201d. The courts' conclusion that the applicant had voluntarily left Tajikistan was at variance with his consistent submissions that he had fled because of his persecution on religious grounds and the ill-treatment sustained in custody. Referring to other cases against Russia concerning and extradition and pending before the Court, the applicant insisted that the Russian courts consistently adopted the same formalistic approach in dealing with such complaints, which showed that the remedies suggested by the Government were ineffective in practice."], "id": "452e48f4-615f-4ec8-92d5-e645853b763d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government pointed out, as stressed by the Aliens Appeals Board in its judgment of 27 November 2010 (see paragraph 46 above), that a stay of execution could also be obtained by means of a different combination of remedies. This involved first an application to set aside and a request for a stay of execution under the ordinary procedure to be lodged within thirty days of notification of the impugned decision, followed by a request for interim measures as a matter of extreme urgency once the alien concerned was made the subject of a coercive measure. The Aliens Appeals Board then had a statutory duty to examine simultaneously, within seventy\u2011two hours, the request for extremely urgent interim measures and the ordinary request for a stay of execution that had already been lodged. The request for extremely urgent interim measures, once lodged, automatically suspended enforcement of the measure."], "id": "d0d50105-8533-4ac8-ad8c-d4d037b1653f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government further claimed that the use by the French authorities of specific flights to transport a number of aliens to their countries of origin was based on practical considerations and could not be analysed as a practice of collective within the meaning of that provision. The introduction of such flights had been made necessary by the difficulty, and even impossibility, of obtaining seats on scheduled flights towards certain destinations, especially to countries to which there were few scheduled services from French airports."], "id": "bd77ab21-bf92-40c0-9ec9-1b52570186b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government argued that the applicant had first complained about his fear of being subjected to ill-treatment in his appeal against the decision ordering his . However, he had failed to furnish \u201cindisputable and objective evidence\u201d to support those allegations. In any event, the appellate court had had no realistic opportunity to examine those submissions because a complaint against an administrative expulsion order was to be examined within twenty-four hours of its submission. Moreover, the alleged risk of ill-treatment in case of expulsion was not a legally relevant fact and the court examining such a complaint was under no obligation to ascertain it. At the same time, the domestic authorities had carefully examined and correctly dismissed that argument in the asylum proceedings initiated by the applicant. They had arrived at the reasoned conclusion that his application for asylum had been motivated in reality by his fear of criminal prosecution and eventual punishment in Uzbekistan because he had not sought refugee status immediately after his arrival in Russia."], "id": "3e44550f-9861-4d80-8da0-bd3161a5b82f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["126. The Governments observed in that connection that whilst Contracting States could obtain diplomatic assurances that an applicant would not be subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention, the Court had held in the above-mentioned Chahal case that Article 3 required examination of whether such assurances would achieve sufficient practical protection. As had been shown by the opinions of the majority and the minority of the Court in that case, identical assurances could be interpreted differently. Furthermore, it was unlikely that any State other than the one of which the applicant was a national would be prepared to receive into its territory a person suspected of terrorist activities. In addition, the possibility of having recourse to criminal sanctions against the suspect did not provide sufficient protection for the community. The individual concerned might not commit any offence (or else, before a terrorist attack, only minor ones) and it could prove difficult to establish his involvement in terrorism beyond reasonable doubt, since it was frequently impossible to use confidential sources or information supplied by intelligence services. Other measures, such as detention pending , placing the suspect under surveillance or restricting his freedom of movement provided only partial protection."], "id": "7dc238df-8ecc-4d06-a8fa-05544e893feb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant disagreed with the Government\u2019s assertion that the domestic authorities had given due consideration to his arguments about the high risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan. As regards the removal proceedings, the Code of Administrative Offences contained no provision that would require the decision-making body to consider allegations of a serious risk of ill-treatment and that remedy was therefore ineffective, even in theory. Contrary to the Government\u2019s claim, nothing in the order of 23 May 2013 had indicated that the risk of ill-treatment had somehow been taken into account. Nor had the appeal judgment of the Omsk Regional Court mentioned any arguments relating to that risk. In the refugee-status proceedings, neither the FMS nor the courts had addressed the applicant\u2019s arguments about the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan. The authorities had thus failed to consider the Article 3 issues."], "id": "17409c02-f767-4e9d-986d-b42e8de7f781", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["196. The Government submitted that the present case had to be distinguished from the cases cited by the applicants. Firstly, the applicants had never been removed since they had themselves decided to return to Serbia. Secondly, the decision taken by the authorities following their asylum application, even if it only concerned the determination of the responsible State and accordingly ruled out any examination of the application on the merits, aimed to ensure their transfer to France, a country in which they had not presented an arguable claim that they would be victims of treatment contrary to Article 3 and not be provided with the conditions necessary to have their fears examined. Where foreign nationals did not show that their return would have potentially irreversible consequences, it was not imperative, in order for a remedy to be effective, that it should have automatic suspensive effect but only that they should have an effective possibility of challenging the order and of having the relevant issues examined with sufficient procedural safeguards and thoroughness by an appropriate domestic forum offering adequate guarantees of independence and impartiality (see De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, \u00a7 83, ECHR 2012), which was not disputed by the applicants in the present case."], "id": "6aa88520-0001-4d49-a52f-79b0724da3a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Governments of Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia and the United Kingdom observed that in the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment (15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V) the Court had stated the principle that in view of the absolute nature of the prohibition of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, the risk of such treatment could not be weighed against the reasons (including the protection of national security) put forward by the respondent State to justify . Yet because of its rigidity that principle had caused many difficulties for the Contracting States by preventing them in practice from enforcing expulsion measures."], "id": "3e791334-91fa-490a-a903-759e27ba9b28", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government submitted that the detention pending had been lawful, as it had been ordered by a court, and that even though no time-limit for the applicants\u2019 detention had been set, the maximum duration of an administrative penalty was two years. The applicants could seek supervisory review of the expulsion and ensuing detention orders in the event of a significant change in their circumstances."], "id": "9d3948a5-df86-4817-813a-11302a5acb08", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants alleged a breached of Article 3 of the Convention on account of their forced from their village. They had mentally suffered as a result of the actions of the members of security forces, who had burned their family houses. Under Article 8 of the Convention, they complained about the destruction of their property. Furthermore, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they maintained that the destruction of their houses and their forced eviction from the village had violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The provisions of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention are set out above at paragraph 59, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "50ebd9e8-4bb8-4ea3-a5f7-153d1f4e1959", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["213. The Government noted that the applicant had provided a breakdown of the work performed by his representatives, but had submitted no agreement concerning legal assistance, or other documents setting out their hourly rates. Furthermore, as the applicants\u2019 representatives specialise in cases involving extradition and to the CIS States, the Government expressed doubts as to whether the present case required research and preparation to the extent claimed by the applicant."], "id": "f7557be2-3910-4b5b-9972-7d423dfe9dd2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant complained under Article 6 that he did not understand the charges against him during his deportation. The Court notes that there were no judicial proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s removal from the territory of Ukraine and that any such proceedings would fall outside the scope of Article 6 of the Convention (see Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, \u00a7 40, ECHR 2000\u2011X). Despite its findings that the applicant\u2019s has appearances of extradition in disguise (see paragraph 58 above), the Court considers that this does not preclude it from examining the question of whether the removal of the applicant from the territory of Ukraine, which was formally presented as expulsion, complied with the Convention requirements. Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, the Court decides to examine the problem raised by the applicant under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, which reads as follows:"], "id": "b5bacc6a-6c7f-4d2e-8f9d-d468e5fa2a0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicants complained that their to Syria, if carried out, would be in breach of their right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, as provided in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. They also stressed that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of these violations, in breach of Article 13. The provisions read as follows, in so far as relevant:"], "id": "a67e6ac8-00d5-4949-ab42-7d3361fc4294", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government attached crucial importance to the judgment by the Supreme Court of 25 August 2006 convicting the applicant of twenty-six counts of drugs-related offences involving 2.68 kg of heroin and cocaine, for which he was sentenced to seven years\u2019 imprisonment. Hence the offences were extremely serious, a fact which had led the Court in numerous cases to find an justified by weighty interests of public order (see, inter alia, Lagergren v. Denmark (dec.), no. 18668/03, 16 October 2006, and Mccalla v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30673/04, 31 May 2005)."], "id": "27bf9b53-3631-4159-bb0e-7b9c6f28d44a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government stressed the fact that the decision of the Ruzskiy District Court of the Moscow Region had only concerned the first applicant and that no decision had been delivered in regard to the second, third, fourth and fifth applicant. Beyond that the Government referred to the findings of the Court in its judgment Georgia v. Russia (I) (cited above, \u00a7 178) finding a violation of inter alia Article 4 of Protocol No. 4."], "id": "d398de93-e7b2-48be-b528-963895332fad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant submitted that Russian law does not provide for any possibility to obtain a meaningful judicial review of the detention of an individual who is detained pending administrative (he referred, by way of comparison, to Tabesh v. Greece, no. 8256/07, \u00a7 62, 26 November 2009). Such detention may last up to two years but there is no periodic judicial review of it. His applications for review were dismissed in a summary fashion first by the Sestroretsk Town Court and later by the Krasnoselskiy District Court. In both cases, the St Petersburg City Court upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions."], "id": "a24d23d9-2bca-4659-8cc2-dfde24ac3c6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["156. The Government asserted that because the file did not contain the original or a certified copy of the judgment against the applicant given in Tunisia it was impossible to check whether the information he had supplied was correct. They further submitted that an could engage the responsibility of the Contracting State under Article 6 only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it was apparent that any conviction in the receiving country would amount to a \u201cflagrant\u201d denial of justice, which was not the position in the present case. On the other hand, a Contracting State was not required to establish whether proceedings conducted outside its territory satisfied each of the conditions laid down in Article 6. To rule otherwise would run counter to the current trend, encouraged by the Court itself, of strengthening international mutual assistance in the judicial field."], "id": "2b6d2842-00ea-49e8-8743-671b4cea49a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["160. The Government submitted that Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 was not applicable in the instant case. They argued that the guarantee provided by that provision came into play only in the event of the of persons on the territory of a State or who had crossed the national border illegally. In the instant case, the measure in issue was a refusal to authorise entry into national territory rather than \u201cexpulsion\u201d."], "id": "5b7600a8-3bc7-47bc-9856-d11d0d7e3b68", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["171. The Government recalled that in March 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court had found that no family life within the meaning of Article 8 had existed between the applicant and E. Any interference with such family life on account of the applicant\u2019s order and the enforcement thereof was, and would be, grounded on the Aliens Act and further a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2."], "id": "192fb89f-7988-4537-8689-775306690337", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["129. The applicant did not claim that the general circumstances obtaining in Iran would on their own preclude his return to that country. Moreover, the Court notes that a general situation of violence will not normally in itself entail a violation of Article 3 in the event of an to the country in question (see H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, \u00a741, Reports 1997\u2011III). However, the Court has never excluded the possibility that the general situation of violence in a country of destination may be of a sufficient level of intensity as to entail that any removal to it would necessarily breach Article 3 of the Convention. Nevertheless, the Court would adopt such an approach only in the most extreme cases of general violence, where there is a real risk of ill-treatment simply because the individual concerned will be exposed to such violence in that country (see Sufi and Elmi, cited above, \u00a7 218 and NA. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, \u00a7 115)."], "id": "c7806474-2f08-4026-96fe-76438ba8c88f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant submitted that the Russian authorities had not conducted the proceedings with due diligence. This lack of due diligence on their part was exemplified in several ways. Firstly, no effort had been made to contact the Uzbek authorities in the first four months and eleven days of his detention. Secondly, the Russian authorities had sent no fewer than four letters to the Embassy of Uzbekistan in Moscow, but a first reply was received more than one year and two months after the despatch of the first letter. Thirdly, there had been no justification for the applicant\u2019s detention after 5 February 2013, when the Russian authorities had become aware that he was not an Uzbek national. Finally, the applicant pointed out that he had been kept in detention pending expulsion: thus, there had been no complex extradition proceedings and the only issue to be determined had been whether at least one State was willing and able to receive him."], "id": "4a301419-7e69-480d-abd2-39169dee36c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["279. The Government averred in their oral observations before the Grand Chamber that even in the present circumstances the applicant ran no risk of to Afghanistan at any time as the policy at the moment was not to send anyone back to that country by force. The forced returns by charter flight that had taken place in 2009 concerned Pakistani nationals who had not applied for asylum in Greece. The only Afghans who had been sent back to Afghanistan \u2013 468 in 2009 and 296 in 2010 \u2013 had been sent back on a voluntary basis as part of the programme financed by the European Return Fund. Nor was there any danger of the applicant being sent to Turkey because, as he had been transferred to Greece by another European Union member State, he did not fall within the scope of the readmission agreement concluded between Greece and Turkey."], "id": "900537b4-b680-4116-94ba-ec1e89befbb7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant emphasised that the Austrian authorities, when examining the decision to lift his asylum status and to expel him, in respect of a possible interference with his right to respect for family life overlooked the fact that his wife and the two children, born in 2004 and 2007, had independent asylum status in Austria. In those asylum decisions, the Independent Asylum Panel explicitly stated that the applicant\u2019s wife had a well-founded fear of independent persecution if she returned to the Russian Federation. It followed that the applicant\u2019s wife and children could not reasonably be expected to follow the applicant to the Russian Federation to maintain family life; in fact, an of the applicant to the Russian Federation would render any effective family relations impossible."], "id": "87ea8cdf-5d8d-4026-8f76-3184bc6c2331", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s would amount to an interference with his right to respect for his family life. However, such an interference was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society. During the period of his residence in the Russian Federation, the applicant had been convicted twice of criminal offences. In particular, on 18 November 1999 the Shuya Town Court of the Ivanovo Region had found him guilty of extortion committed by a group of persons (a serious crime) and theft of a passport (a minor offence) and sentenced him to three years and one month\u2019s imprisonment. On 26 April 2005 the Town Court had found him guilty of theft (an offence of medium gravity) and sentenced him to three years\u2019 imprisonment. The Government stressed that the fact that the applicant committed the theft shortly after having served his first prison sentence should not be overlooked, as it showed his firm propensity to commit crimes against property. Furthermore, on 19 June 2007 and 8 July 2010 the applicant had been held administratively liable for failing to have his residency in Russia duly authorised. According to the information from the police, the applicant was a member of an organised criminal gang, was actively involved in drug dealing and was a drug addict himself. He was unemployed and did not support his wife and children. Accordingly, his expulsion would not have any bearing on his family\u2019s financial situation. His wife had been aware of his convictions prior to marrying him. She had never met her parents-in-law in person. She maintained contact with them by telephone or via the internet."], "id": "dddbc68f-c1f9-426e-9aa5-6d3239b0035f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["97. The applicant contended under Article 2 of the Convention that his deportation to Iran had exposed him to various deadly hazards, such as being kidnapped by people smugglers and being shot by border guards. The applicant further complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by security forces during his deportation to Iran on 12 September 2008. He claimed under Article 8 of the Convention that his deportation had infringed his right to respect for private and family life. He complained under Article 14 that he had been discriminated against by the State authorities because of his nationality. Lastly, he contended under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 that he and the other Uzbek asylum seekers had been deported collectively and in breach of the procedural safeguards relating to the of aliens."], "id": "e63e1d54-1c66-4347-8c89-f8fd3e24aea3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant\u2019s detention had also been necessary for the speedy examination of his asylum request, and because he had posed a danger to public order and security under Article 13 \u00a7 2 (b) and (c) and Article 13 \u00a7 4 of Presidential Decree no. 114/2010. The Government drew the Court\u2019s attention to the fact that, in accordance with the national law, lodging an asylum request suspends the enforcement of an decision but not the enforcement of a detention decision. They referred to a series of judgments against Greece in which the Court had considered that lodging an asylum request did not render detention arbitrary. In any event, the applicant had been released on 13 November 2013, twenty-six days after filing an asylum request. In view of the factors mentioned above, the Government submitted that the domestic authorities\u2019 good faith in relation to the issuance of the decisions on the basis of which the applicant had been detained could not be disputed."], "id": "ea7ae6da-adc7-4955-bdec-0ae7640f0576", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted that whilst they considered that the applicant indeed had a family life with his son, the envisaged of the applicant would not constitute an interference with that family life. The Government stated that after the applicant's residence permit had been revoked, the dependent residence permits held by his ex-wife and son were revoked as well. As a result, the applicant's ex-wife and son did not have lawful residence status in the Netherlands either and were also obliged to leave the country. As all three were nationals of the DRC, the Government concluded, there were no reasons why they should not return to the DRC to continue their family life there."], "id": "224ef27c-54cb-4f37-9c81-175f497c5168", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant claimed that his detention, which commenced on 28 January 2015, had been arbitrary and thus unlawful from the outset. In any event, it would have ceased to be lawful once the proceedings had been suspended. The CAO did not establish any time-limits for detention of persons awaiting administrative removal; the domestic courts had failed to specify any time-limits in their judgments; accordingly, the applicant could not foresee the length of his detention. Noting that his detention had largely exceeded the maximum penalty in the form of deprivation of liberty under the CAO and referring to the case of Azimov v. Russia (no. 67474/11, \u00a7\u00a7 172-73, 18 April 2013), the applicant claimed that his detention pending expulsion was of a punitive nature rather than of a preventive one. The applicant also noted that the Appeal Court had failed to analyse his allegations of the breach of his right to liberty. Lastly, the applicant reiterated that he had had no possibility to initiate judicial review of the lawfulness of his prolonged detention as required by Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "803e21c2-f11a-451a-98df-1d5394038305", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government submitted that the applicant had been residing in Russia illegally since 1 September 2013, using his brother\u2019s passport, and he had not taken any steps to legalise his status in the country for several years. His complaint under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention should be dismissed for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In particular, he had not appealed against the removal decision issued by the court on 12 May 2015, even though his right to appeal had been explicitly noted in the text of the decision. Furthermore, the applicant\u2019s arguments concerning his poor knowledge of the Russian language and his lack of understanding of the proceedings were inaccurate and contradictory, since he had been assisted by an interpreter during the expulsion hearing, had resided and worked in Russia since 2013, and his application for temporary asylum had been submitted in Russian. Moreover, even assuming that a lawyer had assisted him in submitting his request for temporary asylum, that lawyer could also have asked to restore the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the expulsion decision at that time. However, he had only done so on 12 February 2016 and the appeal court had refused his request, stating that the expulsion decision had been served on the applicant on the day when it had been issued, and the lack of any action on the part of the applicant was unjustified. Moreover, the applicant had not appealed against the immigration authorities\u2019 refusal to grant him temporary asylum. Lastly, his request for refugee status had been ongoing at the time of his application to the Court."], "id": "cb1863ff-a4da-45c9-ad54-f896f7ae70db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant argued that his detention had been unlawful for a number of reasons: firstly, the domestic authorities had showed bad faith when they had put him in detention, as his removal to Syria had been and remained impracticable; therefore there had been no purpose to be achieved. The domestic authorities had been aware of this fact, as proved also by the circular order issued by the Hellenic Police earlier that year stating that Syrians should not be detained and that those who were already in detention should be released. On the contrary, in his case, the domestic authorities had applied their practice of almost automatic detention, even though his had not been feasible, therefore rendering his detention arbitrary. That practice of the domestic authorities had been noted and criticised by many national and international organisations. The applicant had reiterated those arguments on many occasions, before the head of the police station in which he had been detained and before the administrative courts with which he had lodged his objections against his detention. In addition, even though initially he had not had his identity documents with him so as to prove his nationality, the domestic authorities had never doubted that he came from Syria. The applicant relied on the Court\u2019s judgment in Tabesh, cited above, whose conclusions he considered directly applicable to his case. He also argued that, in accordance with the detention order, he had been detained on public order grounds that had not been specified, which was a further element of arbitrariness."], "id": "17b08026-f6c9-47c0-98fc-3d25d763e724", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government of Georgia reiterated the arguments submitted in Georgia v. Russia (I) (cited above) and referred to the reports of international organisations referred to in the judgment. It further maintained that the of Georgian nationals at that time had been based on their national and ethnic origin and not on their situation under the immigration rules of the Russian Federation."], "id": "98ed1311-8efc-474d-a5d3-7822bc48d2b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant emphasised that the domestic authorities had failed to properly examine his allegations of the risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan. He noted that the Code of Administrative Offences did not stipulate an obligation to assess a risk of ill-treatment in the course of proceedings. The Appeal Court had refused to examine in detail the allegations made in the appeal statement referring to territorial jurisdiction; thus, the applicant\u2019s serious claims of risk of the proscribed treatment had been left unscrutinised. Nor had these claims been analysed in the course of the proceedings relating to the application for refugee status."], "id": "1628909a-feb6-4a8e-a83b-a3431d50968a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicant emphasised that his wife had been a recognised refugee in Austria since 2004 and that his two children, who were both born in Austria, also had resident status under the asylum law. He claimed that removal to Russia would mean de facto permanent separation from his core family in Austria, and alleged that the Austrian authorities had not sufficiently balanced the conflicting interests involved in the decision. With regard to his criminal convictions, the applicant contended that since his last conviction in 2008 he had not been implicated in any other criminal or police investigations and had a very good future prognosis. would therefore be at variance with his right to respect for his family life."], "id": "b120ec08-a7be-439a-83c4-a9c17eb01cf8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["117. The applicant agreed with the Government in so far as the periods from 24 to 30 July 2013 and from 31 July to 5 August 2013 were concerned. He maintained, in respect of the entire period of his detention pending administrative removal as from 31 July 2013, that administrative\u2011removal proceedings had been initiated only when the authorities had faced the need to release him. He argued that the authorities had abused their powers by ordering his detention within the framework of administrative proceedings solely with a view to ensuring his return to Uzbekistan, notwithstanding the refusal of the extradition request. The applicant considered that his detention pending administrative removal had in any event been unlawful, as the Code of Administrative Offences set no time-limit for such detention, and no such time-limit was given by the domestic courts. He argued that the Russian law on detention pending was not sufficiently clear and foreseeable. Referring to Azimov (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 172-73), the applicant argued that detention pending expulsion must not exceed the maximum term for detention as an administrative penalty, as otherwise it constituted a punitive rather than a preventive measure."], "id": "f10123c9-d744-4111-8182-60efd2850d5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained that his detention pending had been in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention on account of its excessive length and the obvious impossibility to enforce the order for his expulsion to Uzbekistan. He further complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention that he had been unable to obtain a judicial review of his detention. The relevant parts of Article 5 provide as follows:"], "id": "a70ac297-cb2d-43e5-a0dd-5545a1f18bac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government argued that the applicant's claim appeared to be connected with the parts of the application relating to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, which had already been declared inadmissible by the Court. As the applicant's had not yet taken place, the Government further found it difficult to understand how damage resulting from a potential violation of Article 2 or 3 could already have been sustained by the applicant."], "id": "0ffeba8a-3fca-4991-a127-877458920aa7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicant finally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 that she had not been allowed to exercise the procedural safeguards against her extradition. The Court notes that, according to Explanatory Report on Protocol No. 7, this provision uses the concept of \u201cin a generic sense as meaning any measure compelling the departure of an alien from the territory but does not include extradition\u201d (ETS no. 117, \u00a7 10). Since in the present case the applicant was subject to extradition proceedings, Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 finds no application. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4."], "id": "5a8f930b-600f-4bb5-9cf3-7142c0b60ba0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant maintained that he was still a victim because the had been enforceable and had only been prevented by his unsuccessful suicide attempt and then the Court\u2019s interim measure. That violation of Article 3, which had already occurred, had not been recognised by the domestic authorities. Furthermore, he had not been granted asylum but only temporary subsidiary protection."], "id": "02ef79c1-149a-4464-9c96-c4a31130a00a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government of Georgia reiterated the arguments submitted in Georgia v. Russia (I) (cited above) and referred to the reports of international organisations mentioned in the judgment. It further maintained that the of the present applicants had been based on their national and ethnic origin and not on their situation under the immigration rules of the Russian Federation."], "id": "a2ee72d8-c049-48ab-821a-c84e00ad418f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicants maintained in reply that they had not been notified of the decision to deport them prior to their . They further contended that, even if they had been served with deportation orders, application to the administrative courts for the annulment of a deportation decision did not automatically have a suspensive effect and therefore did not constitute an effective remedy."], "id": "bbdbd708-2b18-41e6-a2d3-21bed11669fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["110. The applicants further complained that because of their hasty they had been denied the possibility of claiming damages from the authorities for the latter's unlawful actions. In this connection, they complained under Article 6 and, with the exception of the third applicant, Ms Stankova, Article 13 of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention, this being the lex specialis in the case of proceedings for compensation for unlawful detention. It reiterates in this connection that once a case has been duly referred to it, it is entitled to examine every question of law arising in the course of the proceedings and concerning facts submitted to its examination in the light of the Convention and the Protocols as a whole (see, inter alia, Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, \u00a7 44, Reports 1998-I, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24). Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "58a60eab-7275-4008-824f-36a5d125866d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["173. The Government submitted, with a reference to Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, \u00a7 54, 27 September 2011, that administrative removal constituted \u201cexpulsion\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. They further pointed out that under Article 3.10 \u00a7 5 of the Code of Administrative Procedure a judge could place a person subject to administrative removal in custody in a special detention centre, where the person was detained pursuant to section 34 \u00a7 5 of the Foreigners Act until the execution of the decision on administrative removal. The Government also noted that according to the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision no. 6-R of 17 February 1998, a person subject to administrative-removal proceedings could be detained without a court order for up to forty-eight hours. As on 17 September 2012 the applicant had been arrested on the ground of having committed an administrative offence punishable by administrative removal, and on 19 September 2012 the Meshchanskiy District of Moscow had found him guilty of that offence and ordered his administrative removal and detention in a special facility pending the execution of the decision, the applicant\u2019s detention had fully complied with the domestic law. Moreover, when the Court had applied Rule 39, instructing the Russian Federation to suspend the applicant\u2019s to Uzbekistan, the competent authorities had taken measures to comply with the Court\u2019s request."], "id": "686e15c2-ca2c-487c-806f-1832108cd956", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant emphasised that both the Zyuzinskiy District Court and the Moscow City Court had failed to consider his arguments relating to Article 5 of the Convention and that no time-limit for his detention had been stipulated in the order. With reference to the Court\u2019s previous findings (in particular, in the case of Azimov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 153\u201154), he maintained that Russian law did not provide for a periodic review of the lawfulness of detention following a decision on administrative expulsion."], "id": "4339dfe8-2153-4937-b246-3fa2e77a099d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["157. The applicant argued that the Russian law on detention pending was not sufficiently clear and foreseeable. In particular, the applicant complained that his arrest for the purposes of expulsion had been ordered to circumvent the requirements of the domestic law, which established a maximum time-limit for detention pending extradition. On the contrary, detention pending expulsion was not limited in time under Russian law. He noted that administrative removal proceedings had been initiated only when the authorities faced the need to release the applicant. In addition, since the application of Rule 39 by the Court, the applicant\u2019s detention pending expulsion had no legitimate purpose and was therefore arbitrary, since he could no longer be expelled."], "id": "2174f522-5905-4ec8-aacf-1b3fd08087dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["119. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Firstly, he had failed to lodge a further appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State in the proceedings on his application for asylum. Secondly, an appeal lay against the dismissal of his objection against the manner of his which, as far as the Government were aware, the applicant had not used."], "id": "b723e7c6-4eb2-4e2d-af25-1add9a030c25", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government submitted that the decision on the applicant\u2019s administrative removal from Russia was well-reasoned and proportionate. The courts took into account that he had used false identity documents, had minor children in Uzbekistan and had no family members, place of residence or stable income in Russia. The order did not specify that the applicant was to be taken to Uzbekistan, but merely stated that he was to be removed from the territory of the Russian Federation. As to the applicant\u2019s allegation that he risked ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, the Government pointed out that Uzbekistan had ratified various international human-rights treaties, that it was making democratic improvements, and that the habeas corpus procedure had been implemented in January 2008. They further argued that the case-law of the Court gave no examples of individuals who had been ill-treated in Uzbekistan following their extradition from Russia. The Government were sceptical about the NGO reports concerning the situation in Uzbekistan referred to by the applicant; in the Government\u2019s view, they contained general allegations that were uncorroborated by specific factual information. The applicant\u2019s allegations that he risked ill-treatment were too generic and insufficient to demonstrate that the human-rights situation in Uzbekistan was so poor that all extraditions to that State should be stopped."], "id": "f1456304-be6d-499f-80fa-9b05d8ac3e39", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant further submitted that there existed the administrative practice of substituting for extradition which was based on an unpublished order of the Moscow Region prosecutor, no. 86/81 of 3 July 2009, which provided that in every case of release of a detained individual because his extradition was impossible, it was mandatory to decide on his administrative expulsion from Russia. The applicant therefore maintained that his expulsion had been ordered to secure his rendition to the Uzbekistani authorities, that is to prevent him from being released and to secure either expulsion or extradition, as the case might be, and that his allegations of the risk of ill-treatment had not been thoroughly examined in the administrative expulsion proceedings."], "id": "9a3b6f18-f476-430e-9787-726c96ba81c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants maintained their complaint. They submitted that the proceedings had been instituted by Russian authorities in order to circumvent the effect of the refusal to extradite them. They asserted that torture and ill-treatment of prisoners were a common practice of Uzbek law-enforcement and security forces. In this connection they relied on the data published by international human rights NGOs and the US Department of State about the situation in Uzbekistan. They further referred to the Court\u2019s earlier findings in a number of extradition cases against Russia that the ill\u2011treatment of prisoners who, like themselves, were charged with membership of an extremist religious organisation, was a pervasive and enduring problem in Uzbekistan. As regards the Government\u2019s referral to Uzbekistan\u2019s ratification of the UN Convention against Torture, they referred to the Court\u2019s earlier finding that the existence of domestic laws and accession to international treaties guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights in principle were not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment where reliable sources have reported practices resorted to or tolerated by the authorities which are manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, \u00a7 147, ECHR 2008)."], "id": "e34ef25c-9054-41ff-b0b5-ec6fea5b90f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["96. The applicant further maintained that the three-day time-limit for lodging an appeal against the Prague 10 District Court\u2019s decision of 25 October 2010 cancelling the suspension of his (see paragraph 39 above) had been too short and made that legal avenue ineffective. He had been detained while awaiting his expulsion on Friday 5 November 2010 when he received the decision, written in what was for him a foreign language. The deadline for appeal had expired on Monday 8 November 2010. Owing to the restrictions on making a phone call (it was necessary to make a special written request in order to use the telephone), he had been unable to contact his lawyer in due time. Moreover, a return call could not be directly transferred to the applicant without a prior written request. He had therefore forwarded the decision to his lawyer by regular post, but the lawyer had received it only on 9 November 2010. Even though the lawyer had lodged the appeal on the same day, it had been considered belated."], "id": "ba8f88a2-37c4-48c8-b359-66f9dc43e9a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["158. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention pending had been lawful within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f). The applicant was detained with a view to enforcement of the court order for his administrative removal from the country under Article 18.8 \u00a7 1 of the CAO. Referring to the reasons given by the courts for the applicant\u2019s expulsion and detention, the Government argued that the expulsion proceedings had nothing to do with the extradition proceedings. The law on detention pending expulsion was sufficiently clear and foreseeable."], "id": "03d38dd4-64ca-4fd7-a73a-c297e967a02f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant averred that his submissions concerning the risk of ill\u2011treatment had not been properly, if at all, considered by the domestic authorities either in the or the asylum proceedings. In the former proceedings the courts had had no obligation to consider the issue of the risk of ill-treatment and, given the expedited nature of the court\u2019s examination of the expulsion matter, the applicant had been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to state his case. Likewise, in the asylum proceedings, although the courts had not been formally prevented from assessing the matter of the risk of ill-treatment, they had chosen to disregard the applicant\u2019s submissions in that respect and the information from independent sources provided by him. Moreover, in view of the expulsion of the applicant in the Muminov case despite pending asylum proceedings and also the insufficiently clear wording of the relevant provisions, it could not be argued with certainty that a pending application for asylum had a suspensive effect in the event of an expulsion being ordered. Lastly, the applicant alleged that his expulsion would be, in reality, a disguised extradition and that the migration authorities and the courts had been influenced by the FSB, who wished to expel him from the country because of his presumed membership of HT."], "id": "47c0d0d1-a2a8-4208-ab5e-73398acaab5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government objected that the second applicant had not submitted a power of attorney for the representative that had lodged the present application on his behalf which, consequently, had to be declared inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae. Alternatively, they maintained that since the applicant had not contacted his counsel at any time after his , he must be deemed to have lost interest in pursuing his application, which thus had to be struck out of the list of cases under Article 37 \u00a7 1 (a) or (c) of the Convention."], "id": "91fbfedf-faf0-4709-bdaf-b2acc6740859", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["331. The Government of the United Kingdom emphasised that the Dublin Regulation afforded a fundamental advantage in speeding up the examination of applications, so that the persons concerned did not have time to develop undue social and cultural ties in a State. That being so, it should be borne in mind that calling to account under Article 3 the State responsible for the asylum application prior to the transfer, as in the present case, was bound to slow down the whole process no end. The Government of the United Kingdom were convinced that such complaints, which were understandable in cases of to a State not bound by the Convention, should be avoided when the State responsible for handling the asylum application was a party to the Convention. In such cases, as the Court had found in K.R.S. v. the United Kingdom (cited above), the normal interpretation of the Convention would mean the interested parties lodging their complaints with the courts in the State responsible for processing the asylum application and subsequently, perhaps, to the Court. According to the United Kingdom Government, this did not absolve the transferring States of their responsibility for potential violations of the Convention, but it meant that their responsibility could be engaged only in wholly exceptional circumstances where it was demonstrated that the persons concerned would not have access to the Court in the State responsible for dealing with the asylum application. No such circumstances were present in the instant case, however."], "id": "6245fbaa-a9b6-495a-9fb0-3a268b426815", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicant maintained that on 12-13 March 2013 he had not in fact been released from detention, and that his detention had constituted an uninterrupted period from 13 September 2012. He argued that administrative\u2011removal proceedings had been initiated only when the authorities had faced the need to release him and the administrative detention had been aimed solely at keeping him under the authorities\u2019 exclusive control after the expiry of the term of his detention pending extradition. Further, after 9 April 2013, the date of the formal refusal of his extradition to Uzbekistan, he had been kept in detention so that the authorities could organise his removal to the requesting country. He further argued that the Russian law on detention pending was not sufficiently clear and foreseeable. In particular, he submitted that his arrest for the purpose of expulsion had been ordered in order to circumvent the requirements of the domestic law, which prescribed a maximum time\u2011limit for detention pending extradition. In contrast, detention pending expulsion was not limited in time under Russian law."], "id": "e68cbdae-e838-4802-b89e-e89945beef4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["144. The applicants stressed that the court decisions did not stipulate the maximum length of this detention. Other than the requirement that the order be executed within the two-year time-limit, the Code of Administrative Offences did not contain any provisions governing the length of detention pending expulsion, and therefore lacked legal certainty. Moreover, there was a conflict between the position of the Federal Bailiff Service, which was of the opinion that the expulsion could not be carried out and sought to amend the relevant court decisions, and the court decisions confirming the validity of the measure ordered (see paragraphs 15-17 above). Lastly, the applicants claimed that such a long stay in detention significantly exceeded the maximum custodial sentence permissible under the Code of Administrative Offences, and that their detention pending expulsion was of a punitive rather than preventive nature."], "id": "79c8222a-b6d8-4a58-a31b-698d6d6a3472", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicant replied that the Government failed to say anything about the risk that he faced in Lebanon. As for their reliance on section 44a, there existed no mechanism to ensure its effective application. The only opportunity for him to invoke that provision to prevent his to Lebanon had been in the proceedings for judicial review of the expulsion order. However, the Supreme Administrative Court had held that the point was irrelevant. In any event, the only procedure in which the applicant could prove that he risked death or ill\u2011treatment were asylum proceedings. When examining his asylum request, the State Refugees Agency had found that risk to be real, based as it was on the applicant\u2019s personal circumstances and the general situation in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. On that account it had granted him humanitarian protection. The risk could therefore be regarded as established. However, he could not benefit from such protection, as he fell within the exclusion clauses of sections 4(4) and 67(3) of the Asylum and Refugees Act of 2002."], "id": "615bbeb1-17d6-4a5e-8018-e95ef1af8ec9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["85. The Government emphasised that the disappointments suffered by the applicant did not amount to a violation of Article 3. They could not be described as (they cited Kot\u00e4lla v. the Netherlands, no. 7994/77, Commission decision of 6 May 1978, Decisions and Reports 14, p. 238). Although the applicant might have cherished the hope of being released, particularly following the entry into force of the Law of 15 June 2000, the disappointment caused by the refusal of his application for release on licence could not constitute a violation of Article 3. Unless there were special circumstances attributable to the authorities, which had not been established in the instant case, the applicant\u2019s anguish did not amount to suffering beyond the threshold required for Article 3 to apply."], "id": "6307b12e-e303-47cb-ab23-2aa3ba6a56df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government submitted that the complaint under Article 2 was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, because that Article could not be construed as requiring the State to allow access to unauthorised medicinal products. The same was true for the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. The refusal to allow the applicants access to the experimental product MBVax Coley Fluid, whose safety and efficacy had not been established, could not be regarded as ."], "id": "e7d925a4-93d4-4e20-95d8-49b2729268ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["117. The Government maintained that the investigation had been effective in that the factual circumstances of the case had been clarified to the maximum extent possible and all possible investigative steps had been taken. It was only logical that the complaint had been investigated as the criminal offence of causing bodily harm and not because there had been no intentional offence and the offender, if any, could only have been someone from the medical staff and not a State authority, local self-governing authority or a court."], "id": "f730504e-5a64-4831-ab91-a0e8f9355193", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government argued non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that for the 21 June 2001 incident the applicant should have used the appeal introduced by Article 2781 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, effective since 1 January 2004. Furthermore, for the complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment in detention, the conditions of detention and the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment the applicant could have lodged a criminal complaint for abusive behaviour, illegal arrest, abusive investigation and and torture, crimes prohibited by the Criminal Code, or a complaint under the provisions of the Emergency Ordinance no. 56/2003."], "id": "71adfdd5-1c62-4b24-9e90-0176db255456", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government acknowledged that the applicant had been detained in a cell for smokers even though she had informed the detention centre medical service that she was a non-smoker. They also acknowledged that the treatment she had been subjected to should have been avoided. However, they argued that she had not been subjected to a level of stress that had gone beyond what had been inherent to detention. She had been detained in a cell for smokers for only twenty-four hours. Furthermore, the domestic authorities had not been aware of her condition, which would have rendered her detention in a room for non-smokers mandatory. In addition, the applicant had not provided any evidence in support of her allegations that the she had allegedly been subjected to had affected her health or the development of her pregnancy."], "id": "f3a14ff6-eb87-464e-be95-ebc483190802", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["119. The applicants complained that they had serious grounds to believe that Amkhad Gekhayev and Zalina Mezhidova had been subjected to torture and before having been murdered and that no effective investigation had been conducted in that respect. They also submitted that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with the killing of their relatives and on account of the State\u2019s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the events concerned. The applicants referred to Article 3 of the Convention, which states as follows:"], "id": "0dfb98c0-d3fa-4cf9-84e2-de7e5a3e948f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["122. The Government also submitted global arguments as regards the overall period of the applicant's detention. They argued that the conditions of the applicant's detention had not amounted to within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. They maintained that he had had adequate cell space and that he had been able to have at least two hours' fresh air daily. As regards the working opportunities and leisure activities, the Government submitted that during his detention after conviction the applicant had had a possibility to work and it had depended on him to benefit from it. He had also been able to undergo computer training, watch television or read."], "id": "be5f645d-c241-47bb-9d28-68f68313baf6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government considered that the mere fact of detention in one cell of a number of inmates exceeding the designed capacity of that cell was not in itself a ground for finding a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 3 of the Convention, since other aspects of his detention had been in compliance with the requirements of the Convention. In particular, during his detention the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding. Moreover, overcrowding in remand prisons was a common problem for many member States of the Council of Europe. In the Russian Federation the overcrowding was due to a high level of criminality and limited capacity of remand prisons. The remand prison administration had not had any intention to humiliate the applicant. The Government considered that the overcrowding of the cells in which the applicant had been detained could not in itself be a ground for drawing a conclusion about of the applicant. In sum, the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand prisons nos. 52/1 and 77/3 had complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "5c3d6493-e0bd-4ac7-824e-b6feae65f32f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant pointed out that the Russian authorities had failed to assess the risks of ill-treatment in the course of the extradition and refugee status proceedings. In the domestic proceedings he had relied on reports by UN bodies and reputable international NGOs, which had demonstrated that in Kyrgyzstan ethnic Uzbeks who, like him, were suspected of involvement in the violence of June 2010 in Osh, were at increased risk of ill-treatment while detained, and that it was common practice not to investigate instances of torture or in the requesting country. The applicant claimed that the migration authorities and domestic courts either examined such reports only formally or failed to address them at all."], "id": "d8cfd9b8-9f00-4ef3-beb6-0e4eec2be009", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["182. The Government recalled that the applicants were suspected of terrorism and the Council of Europe Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism had recognised that such persons could be subjected to more severe restrictions than those applied to other prisoners (see paragraph 114 above). The Court had also recognised that prohibitions on contact and communication for security reasons did not of themselves amount to or punishment. The Government accepted that such restrictions could not amount to complete sensory isolation and could not be imposed indefinitely. However, in assessing the nature of solitary confinement, factors to be taken into account included the physical conditions of confinement and the possibility of visits."], "id": "1333485d-6fc3-470c-8f2c-54e2f1af7218", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government submitted that the applicant had actively resisted his arrest on 20 August 2003. The police had lawfully used physical force against him, which thus could not have amounted to a form of degrading or . Later on, the applicant had been interviewed in the presence of a lawyer and had made no complaints about his health. All circumstances relating to the arrest had been subject to a through inquiry, which had included the collection of depositions (from the police officers, other public officials, the lawyer and others) and medical evidence such as a forensic examination."], "id": "894ce8e5-0fda-45b8-be6b-2a4c76deae4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicants referred to the prison\u2019s disconnection from the utilities as causing standards to drop to a level which should be considered , notably due to the lack of hygiene, the poor quality of the food and their inability to have their diseases properly treated (both applicants were ill with tuberculosis at the relevant time). They submitted that in total they had spent twenty-four and seventeen months respectively in inhuman conditions in prison no. 8."], "id": "114495fa-19fb-4306-9326-ab3f79e9c228", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government submitted that the first applicant could not claim to be the victim of the alleged violation of the Convention since the authorities had never intended and did not intend to deport him to Afghanistan. The authorities were conscious of the requirements of the Convention and other international instruments and would not expose Mr M. to any risk, however slight, of ."], "id": "70dbbc22-2886-4827-9442-a04132485239", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant maintained his claims, arguing that he had been subjected to on both occasions. Despite the fact that there had been witnesses to the ill-treatment among the inmates and that his injuries had been observed by the human rights activists and had been recorded in his medical history, the authorities had turned a blind eye on his complaints, dismissing his claims as unreliable and fully accepting the warders\u2019 version of events. He further stated that the investigators had delayed his expert medical examination and only performed it at the request of his counsel and almost three months after the events, by which time it had been virtually impossible to establish the facts. The investigators\u2019 indifference towards his complaints had been demonstrated in their decisions not to institute criminal proceedings against the warders."], "id": "a43ba455-7ae6-467a-965c-8c824f1c0193", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant further submitted that the Russian authorities had failed to assess the risks of ill-treatment in the course of the extradition and refugee status proceedings. In the domestic proceedings he had relied on reports by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and respected international NGOs, which had demonstrated that, in Kyrgyzstan, ethnic Uzbeks who, like him, were suspected of involvement in the violence of June 2010 in the Jalal-Abad area, were at an increased risk of ill-treatment while detained and that it was common practice not to investigate instances of torture or in the requesting country. The applicant claimed that the migration authorities and domestic courts either examined such reports formally or failed to address them at all. He argued that the migration authorities and domestic courts had placed on him a disproportionate burden to prove with indisputable evidence that he would be persecuted if extradited to Kyrgyzstan."], "id": "a1701e06-1b7c-4660-a14d-0e4420bf9609", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant submitted that from 11 December 2007 and, at least, until 19 September 2008 he had been constantly handcuffed to his bed while in the hospital \u2013 with one hand during the day and with both hands during the night. He further noted that he had been constantly guarded by three SIZO officers and had been in a ward with a barred window, which significantly reduced the likelihood of his escaping. Moreover, neither in the SIZO nor in the hospital had the applicant attempted to escape or behaved aggressively. Therefore, in the applicant's opinion his handcuffing to the bed had not been justified and constituted in breach of Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "b1bb073b-825c-434f-8fb7-ee376f4b904b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant complained that, taking into account the conditions created in the punishment cell in Gr\u012bva Prison while he was under the disciplinary penalty imposed on him on 5 September 2000, he had been subjected to and torture. He furthermore alleged that there had been no effective investigation in that respect. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "0bd44e44-0f6f-4906-a74c-720014b4dab7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants complained that the treatment to which they were subjected by the prison authorities and gendarmes on 20 July 1995 in Buca Prison amounted to torture and , in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In their observations dated 11 May 2006 the applicants further complained, without any elaboration, that the incident at Buca prison and subsequent developments also violated their rights under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention."], "id": "3567c9e8-63f1-486a-ab6e-5a75169a9cf6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government submitted that the domestic courts had examined the applicant\u2019s argument that his deportation to China would expose him to the risk of being subjected to the death penalty and receiving . Those arguments had been rejected because the aim of the domestic proceedings against him had been to declare his presence in Russia undesirable rather than to extradite or deport him to China. The exclusion order would not automatically entail his deportation to China; the applicant could still leave Russia for another country using his Chinese passport."], "id": "ba634759-872c-434e-a257-57f5152ce30e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government submitted that the award made by the Skopje Court of Appeal had been appropriate and sufficient redress for the wrongful detention and incorrect treatment of Mr S. Selami at the hands of the police. Referring to the relevant parts of the Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment, they maintained that \u201cthe domestic courts had not disregarded the physical injuries and emotional suffering of Mr S. Selami due to his treatment in police custody when calculating the award of non-pecuniary damages ... Notwithstanding that the award had been made in respect of the unjustified deprivation of liberty, in substance, it had included an award of non\u2011pecuniary damage for the physical, that is to say to which Mr S. Selami had been subjected while in police custody.\u201d"], "id": "34f25b71-d7cf-4bce-9f16-028e5af44c73", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["146. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that, as a result of their relative\u2019s disappearance and the State\u2019s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also argued that they had serious grounds to believe that Mr Ali Khadayev had been subjected to torture and when in detention and complained that no effective investigation had been conducted in this respect. Article 3 reads:"], "id": "34c064e6-0575-4377-92f8-a86307f9f87a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["128. The applicant claimed USD 50,000 (EUR 40,923.20) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He maintained that he had been subjected to physical and mental suffering as a result of deliberately cruel and . He also submitted that his normal way of life had been disrupted and his career opportunities had been affected by his sentence and that it was not possible for him to support his elderly parents. The applicant mentioned that the failure to provide him with the necessary medical treatment during his detention had led to a deterioration in his health. He also alleged that his suffering while in detention had had negative effects on his parents, wife and son."], "id": "b94cc325-2650-473d-ad9b-c9356e6b6be9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["128. The applicant argued that if he were deported to northern Somalia there was a real risk that he would be subjected to torture or to cruel and because he belonged to the Reer Hamar minority group. Not having any clan or family ties in the \u201crelatively safe\u201d areas, there was every possibility that he would be forced to live in a camp for IDPs; conditions in these camps had been described as inhumane. In the applicant's opinion, national policy based on the country reports prepared by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs paid only lip service to the position paper issued by UNHCR (see paragraph 100 above). An analysis of the November 2004 country report carried out by the Dutch Refugee Council (see paragraphs 81-83 above) had undermined that report's validity and highlighted its inadequacies. Nevertheless, from an anthropological point of view it gave a useful insight into the position of the Reer Hamar in Somalia, a position with which the applicant's personal circumstances were completely in line."], "id": "5a501a35-1f62-4998-8c44-8eb3eead53d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["83. The applicant referred to the fact that she had been unable to find out what happened to her husband. She complained that having to live with his disappearance constituted . She referred to the lack of information given to her by the authorities in answer to her enquiries and to the prolonged period of uncertainty over A.T.'s fate, which kept her imprisoned in a cycle of unfounded hope and despair."], "id": "467c337d-bbf7-4545-810c-9316a9b2504c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant submitted that there was no remedy available to him in this regard. He argued that, although the domestic law expressly prohibited torture and by prison officials and provided avenues for redress against such ill-treatment, there was no specific legal regulation of other types of ill-treatment such as the general conditions of detention. The applicant also noted that, in any event, in the light of the apparent ineffectiveness of the official investigation into his claims of torture in custody, any attempt to seek redress for the conditions of his detention would also be ineffective."], "id": "2131b7d0-7d2a-47fe-91ea-77733643f7d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants complained that it was very likely that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had been subjected to torture and and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this connection. They also submitted that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relative\u2019s disappearance and on account of the State\u2019s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The applicants referred to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "4ab8f989-7e66-4912-a0f6-32dfc208105d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["153. The applicant further submitted that, regardless of whether the method of interrogation was to be classified as torture or as , the Convention (he referred, in particular, to the Court\u2019s judgment in Jalloh, cited above) and provisions of public international law (in particular, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 15 and 16 of the United Nations Convention against Torture) warranted the exclusion of all evidence obtained by means of a violation of the absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment. Contrary to the view taken by the domestic courts and by the Chamber, protection of the absolute right under Article 3 could not and should not be weighed against other interests, such as the satisfaction of securing a conviction. As a matter of principle, the exclusion of the evidence in question was essential for removing all incentives for engaging in torture or ill-treatment and thus for preventing such conduct in practice."], "id": "a7fe1758-ae18-4c0b-9b56-f12406d8f447", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention at the Armavir Temporary Detention Facility amounted to within the meaning of Article 3. The Government's account of the conditions of his detention lacked detail and contained only general assertions. As to the alleged improvements introduced in the penitentiary system, it was not clear whether these had taken place before or after the applicant's detention."], "id": "58c284e6-1f29-403a-a9d6-7553de4243e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant complained that the refusal to grant him drug substitution therapy in prison, which had made him suffer considerable pain and had caused damage to his health, and the refusal to have the necessity of drug substitution therapy examined by an external medical expert amounted to . He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "afab73d5-1c18-4dfc-b22d-69efcebb174f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant maintained that her initial detention in a cell with adult inmates for about two months constituted . She further complained of the material conditions of detention in her cell in the juvenile female offenders\u2019 section, including the lack of personal space, prison overcrowding, the absence of daily walks, a malfunctioning water tap causing humidity, and poor ventilation. The applicant maintained that her detention in the section for juvenile female offenders, in the absence of a separate detention facility for juvenile female offenders, constituted inhuman treatment."], "id": "44e6f2fe-7e05-4cee-a3f8-44237ac55e21", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["113. The applicants rather claim that the refusal by the authorities to allow them access to an experimental product which, according to them, was potentially life\u2011saving, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment for which the State was responsible, as it thereby failed to protect them from the suffering resulting from the final stages of their illness. However, as in Pretty (cited above, \u00a7 54), the Court considers that this claim puts an extended construction on the concept of inhuman or degrading treatment that it cannot accept. It cannot be said that by refusing the applicants access to a product \u2013 even if potentially life\u2011saving \u2013 whose safety and efficacy are still in doubt, the authorities directly added to the applicants\u2019 physical suffering. It is true that the refusals, inasmuch as they prevented the applicants from resorting to a product which they believed might improve their chances of healing and survival, caused them mental suffering, especially in view of the fact that the product appears to be available on an exceptional basis in other countries. However, the Court does not consider that the authorities\u2019 refusal reached a sufficient level of severity to be characterised as (see, mutatis mutandis, A, B and C v. Ireland, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 163\u201164). It notes in this connection that Article 3 does not place an obligation on the Contracting States to alleviate the disparities between the levels of health care available in various countries (see, mutatis mutandis, N. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, \u00a7 44). Lastly, the Court does not consider that the refusals can be regarded as humiliating or debasing the applicants."], "id": "3be701d5-83ce-4b50-ba4f-ee442db0bf01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["154. The applicant further submitted that the force used by the escorts had in any event been excessive. Firstly, the defendants had been handcuffed in twos, their hands fastened behind their backs. They did not therefore present any danger for the escorts, who had been armed with rubber truncheons and who had moreover outnumbered the defendants (eight escorts to five defendants). Secondly, force had been used against the applicant despite the fact that he was seriously ill. The escorts had administered numerous and random blows to the applicant, who had shown no resistance, those blows provoking an epileptic fit and causing a head injury. Accordingly, the applicant maintained that he had been subjected to contrary to Article 3."], "id": "e24be024-59dd-4e25-81fd-4ce25d8caf99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["114. The applicant referred to Article 3 of the Convention, claiming that her son had been beaten when being apprehended and that she had serious grounds to believe that he had been subjected to torture and in detention. She further complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into the matter. Under this heading the applicant also submitted that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with her son\u2019s disappearance and on account of the State\u2019s failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The respective Article reads as follows:"], "id": "a469fb99-9e83-4d96-8641-d1fe1a6c27cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant, first, complained under Article 3 of the Convention that she had been subjected to torture and during her detention. In this respect the applicant stated, particularly, that she had been threatened with death, kept standing for long periods of time and blindfolded. She further claimed that the area of the cell in which she had been detained was six square metres, that there was no ventilation and that the lights were on twenty-four hours a day. Secondly, the applicant claimed that the circumstances in which she had been subjected to a gynaecological examination on 24 October 1997 constituted a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In this connection the applicant claimed that the examination had been performed by a male doctor during which the gendarmes took her clothes off, made her lie down and touched every part of her body and that she had not consented to it."], "id": "65b9a8ef-fb93-460b-a18e-2bb4201b894a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant further argued that neither the Interior Ministry which had issued the exclusion order nor the domestic courts which had carried out the judicial review thereof had assessed the risks of being subjected to the death penalty and receiving which his forcible return to China would entail. He disputed the Government\u2019s assertion that the exclusion order would not entail automatic deportation to China. He pointed out that the exclusion order mentioned explicitly that if he did not leave Russia before the stated deadline he would be deported. Indeed, the Entry and Exit Procedures Act provided for an automatic deportation of any foreign national who failed to leave Russia as required (see paragraph 49 above). Given that his passport had been seized by the authorities and he did not have any other identity documents, he could not leave Russia for another country. The only option open to him was therefore forcible removal to China by the Russian authorities."], "id": "af738c82-12ab-44f2-9696-58bc8c706710", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant complains that the searches of her house on 10 April 2001 and 30 May 2002 and the related incidents, in particular that involving the spray-inhaler, amounted to in breach of Article 3 of the Convention and/or an infringement of her right to respect for her private life, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "870ed70b-3250-44d9-9d17-0c0993a3b679", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant submitted that the interference with his right to peaceful assembly had been unjustified. He noted that the police had unlawfully prevented the reading out of the press release prepared by the Human Rights Association and had used disproportionate force to arrest him and a fellow demonstrator. In this connection, the applicant maintained that he had been beaten by the police because he had taken part in a demonstration and had intervened when a fellow demonstrator was being arrested. He further claimed that, despite a cursory examination, the medical report still noted his head injury, which demonstrated in itself that he had been subjected to torture and ."], "id": "560525d0-8801-4d47-98b2-24900a717f00", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicants complained that Isa Zaurbekov had been subjected to torture and while being apprehended. The applicants further claimed that they had serious grounds to believe that he had also been ill-treated in custody. They also complained that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relative\u2019s disappearance. The applicants referred to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "add7bbe5-ce2d-4028-aaf2-6c896eb6db64", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicant, referring to the chronology of the attacks against pro\u2011Kurdish politicians submitted by him (see paragraph 93 above), further argued that there was overwhelming and compelling evidence that in the mid-1990s acts of torture and , disappearances and extra\u2011judicial killings were widespread and systematic. His brother, who had been an active local politician, had also been subjected to ill-treatment during his detention and had been the victim of continuous harassment and intimidation by State officials, in particular by the Governor and the Mayor of Elbistan. He had constantly been followed by plain-clothes police officers."], "id": "b73ead0a-0467-4f17-803a-09a9edd111ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["116. The applicant complained that the investigation had not been initiated on the authorities\u2019 own motion. He had complained to the hospital authorities but they had not forwarded his complaint to the prosecuting authorities. Furthermore, it had not been effective either in law or in practice as the prosecuting authorities had not made a serious attempt to find out what happened and base their decision on established facts. The investigation had concerned only the crime of causing bodily harm and not , and the investigating authorities had failed to establish the person responsible for his injuries even though the police had found out that the restraints had been used unlawfully. He had been unable to be present when the witnesses had been questioned or to suggest gathering additional evidence. The investigation had not been independent or speedy, as the investigating authorities had heavily relied on the explanations of the hospital staff, the police had taken twenty-two days to question the applicant and it had commissioned a forensic report only three months and nineteen days after the receipt of the criminal complaint."], "id": "cc650e06-d1e8-4c60-80ee-d2140a5b6e51", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government argued that it had not been demonstrated that the applicant was known to the Sri Lankan authorities as an opponent of the regime or that he was regarded with suspicion by those authorities. The killing of his father by the Sri Lankan army in 1991 because he was suspected of assisting the LTTE, did not adequately justify the applicant's fear of . The Government also considered it improbable that, because of his brother's membership of the LTTE, the Sri Lankan authorities were likely to assume that the applicant himself had links with that organisation and would therefore detain him for longer than 48 to 72 hours. The fact that, after his alleged arrest in January 1991, the applicant had been released after only two weeks \u2013 albeit with an obligation to report to the authorities regularly \u2013 strongly suggested that he was not regarded as being involved in the LTTE. In addition, the applicant had not decided to leave his country of origin as a direct result of the killing of his father in 1990 or of his arrest in 1991. Instead, he had left Sri Lanka in 1994."], "id": "d0495e39-c937-4a3b-98e3-aaadd78ed7f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in both prison no. 3 and no. 15 had amounted to . In particular, the food served had been inedible and he had been denied his normal quota of fish, meat and dairy products. He had been held in poor sanitary conditions, the cell having been infested with vermin. Furthermore, the toilet had been situated only 1.5 metres from the dining table and had given off a foul odour because there had been no products to clean it with."], "id": "6f4eba20-786e-4545-805c-6527e678455c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["177. The applicant said that he had been \u201cabducted\u201d in Kenya by Turkish officials and that his abduction necessarily constituted a violation of his right to respect for his physical integrity. He added that the circumstances in which the arrest had been effected also amounted to degrading and . In his submission, the fact that he had been abducted for political reasons was in itself capable of constituting a breach of Article 3."], "id": "c3f59274-67f9-4f0b-aecb-3ef63105046a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government argued that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by its Article 13, but he had not availed himself of those remedies. In particular, they contended that he could have challenged the decisions of 11 September 2003 and 1 March 2004 before a court, in accordance with Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, but he had never used that remedy. They also argued that the applicant would be able to receive compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in criminal or civil proceedings if the guilt of those responsible for in his respect was established by a final and binding court decision."], "id": "cdcf933d-7f51-4616-8b16-c78fa840015f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 because the decisions of the domestic courts had acknowledged a violation of his personal rights and awarded him appropriate compensation. In particular, in its judgment of 14 December 2010 (upheld on 5 April 2011 by the Koszalin Regional Court) the Koszalin District Court had expressly held that the applicant\u2019s placement in overcrowded cells for a period of 309 days of his detention had constituted degrading and within the meaning of domestic law and the Convention and had awarded the applicant PLN 5,000 in compensation."], "id": "b367d083-746f-42e4-9b8b-8e7cccbe7426", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant maintained that the response of the investigative authorities to the death of her son constituted degrading treatment on account of the one-sided and perfunctory nature of the investigations. In particular, the unwillingness of the authorities to start a criminal investigation had been groundless, as the courts\u2019 and prosecutors\u2019 decisions indicated. Furthermore, she was appalled by the unfounded conclusion that her son had committed suicide because of his family problems, which discredited the applicant and her family. Additionally, the prosecutors, depriving her of any possibility to defend her rights, had unlawfully made the materials of the inquiry confidential. Hence, the applicant despaired of ever finding the circumstances of her son\u2019s death and suffered from as an aggrieved party in the proceedings."], "id": "9436f549-dbce-4119-bdc7-0084d21e0e36", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant submitted that the Russian authorities had failed to assess the risks of ill-treatment in the course of the extradition and refugee status proceedings. He further claimed that the general human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan had not improved since the examination of the Makhmudzhan Ergashev case (cited above). In the domestic proceedings he had relied on reports by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and respected international NGOs which had demonstrated that, in Kyrgyzstan, ethnic Uzbeks who, like him, were suspected of involvement in the violence of June 2010 in the Jalal-Abad area, were at an increased risk of ill-treatment while detained and that it was a common practice not to investigate instances of torture or in the requesting country."], "id": "b669c48c-5d5c-49a0-b0b1-8e6db537b87d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["83. The applicants disputed the Government\u2019s initial allegation that they had not had any health problems until 15 September 2003. The applicants contended that on 15 September 2003 the second applicant had received insufficient medical assistance, whereas on 17 September 2003 she had not received any medical assistance. Finally, their representative emphasised that given the second applicant\u2019s health complaints, transporting her to the border in an old minivan should be held to amount to ."], "id": "179849a1-e1a5-4d4d-8d12-bad7d4fcfd4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government contested the first applicant\u2019s arguments. They noted that, in the first place, the extradition request of 29 December 2010 had contained assurances that in Tajikistan the first applicant would not be subjected to or punishment or persecuted on political or religious grounds and that he would only be prosecuted for the offences in respect of which the extradition request was granted. The Russian courts had examined the first applicant at the hearing and had studied the relevant materials; the first applicant\u2019s lawyer had also been given an opportunity to present his position in the case. Furthermore, the first applicant had been living in Russia illegally for a long period of time. He had never applied for either a resident permit or a work permit, had not been in gainful employment, had not registered as a taxpayer and had only applied for temporary asylum on 15 December 2011. According to the Government, when deciding on the applicant\u2019s extradition to Tajikistan all his arguments concerning the risk of ill-treatment had been duly examined by the Russian authorities and courts and found to be unsubstantiated. Therefore, his extradition would not be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "1d0d6106-aab1-44fa-bf3b-e55244af33bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government drew attention to the minimum threshold bringing Article 3 of the Convention into play, which in their view had not been reached, and to the limited extent of the State\u2019s positive obligations under that Article. They pointed out that there had been no intention to deny the applicants access to safe medicinal products. The experimental product that they wished to use had not been authorised in any country, and had not undergone clinical trials. Its safety and efficacy had not been established. Not being given the opportunity to use it could not therefore be regarded as . On the contrary, its use, which would have amounted to a medical experiment, might have resulted in a breach of Article 3."], "id": "6a1db3d0-cfca-4446-be52-290b72ac0a44", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that the applicant had received the special treatment his health and his violent and antisocial personality warranted. He had been admitted to the RPU and to a psychiatric hospital as often and for as long as the medical corps deemed necessary. On seven occasions he had been admitted to the Edouard Toulouse Hospital Centre in Marseilles. And when in prison he had been admitted on numerous occasions to the RPUs of the various prisons he was in, as well as to a secure interregional hospital unit. The Government disputed the idea that alternating periods in the various psychiatric and prison establishments might be considered as . On the contrary, it was proof of how seriously the doctors took the applicant's mental condition. The Government added that on a somatic level the applicant had been given the necessary medical treatment: consultation with a lung specialist and an ophthalmologist in 2007, dental extractions and consultation with a dermatologist in June 2008. Together these elements showed, in the Government's submission, that the medical treatment the applicant had received was in keeping with the European Prison Rules (paragraphs 43.1, 43.3 and 46.1)."], "id": "174d05a7-dd03-4144-9529-b4138d633e8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman treatment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["132. The applicant submitted that the failure to provide him with adequate medical care, such as proper examination and treatment of his diseases, concealment of his true state of health, as well as his arbitrary discharge from the hospital and forced attendance at the court hearings despite his poor state of health, all proved that there had been a breach of the Government\u2019s positive obligation to prevent prisoners\u2019 suffering which exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. The failure of the Government to provide him with adequate medical care proved that he had received and the intention of the Government was to create feelings of despair and inferiority in him and to humiliate and belittle him, as well as to prove his vulnerability. Such treatment of the applicant is in breach of Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "e9303485-f1d3-4a74-bb14-7202a059f2ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["139. The applicant complained that on 23 October and 7 November 2001 and 21 January 2002 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of those events, amounting to a breach of Article 13. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State's negative and flowing from Article 3."], "id": "b0130a97-540b-4cb7-a631-ed0cfd0735e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant argued that in view of the severity of the attack against him and the injuries he had sustained, Article 3 was applicable to the present case. As to the compliance of the State with its under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant argued that real and effective protection from the act of ill-treatment required effective investigation and prosecution. In this connection he stressed that the State\u2019s positive obligation could not be limited to merely conducting an investigation. An investigation did not serve any purpose on its own, nor, alone, did it provide any protection against and redress for ill-treatment where it was not accompanied by effective follow-up. He maintained that the State authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his case and that they had also failed to apply the relevant criminal-law mechanisms in an adequate manner. The investigating authorities had failed to act effectively and numerous mistakes and delays had occurred, causing the prosecution to become time-barred. In the applicant\u2019s view, the time-barring itself amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Although the assailants had admitted in their interviews with the police that they had hit the applicant, the State Attorney\u2019s Office had brought a criminal prosecution against only one of them, B.B."], "id": "3b93bcaf-aebf-44b8-8846-ea25c3632208", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government submitted that the respondent State had fully complied with its under Article 3 of the Convention, as the relevant authorities had not spared any effort to provide the applicant with due care in prison. In support, they stated that the applicant had been provided with comprehensive in-patient medical treatment in the prison hospital, which included various relevant medical tests, repeated consultations with medical specialists, the necessary medication and so on, on three occasions, between 8 July and 4 November 2006, 11 August and 18 August 2007 and 29 January and 3 April 2008 (see paragraphs 14-16, 18-21, 25-26 and 28-31 above). As regards the periods the applicant spent, between those dates, in Rustavi prison, the Government, relying on excerpts from his medical file, submitted that he continued to receive the prescribed medication on an out-patient basis, under the supervision of a doctor, a general practitioner, attached to that prison. The Government also emphasised that the applicant was continuing to be treated in the prison hospital since his fourth admission there on 30 October 2008 and to date. They further underlined that all the necessary medication and other types of medical treatment were being provided to the applicant exclusively at the expense of the prison authority; the State duly ensured that the necessary drugs were always in sufficient quantity in its pharmaceutical stock."], "id": "d1fd3d3a-d48c-4e7b-9039-0ef93dea4f5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["166. The Government further submitted that they strongly disagreed with the reasoning adopted by the Court in its judgment in the case of Tysi\u0105c v. Poland, concerning the potential threat to the pregnant woman\u2019s health caused by pregnancy and by the refusal of termination. However, even if the present case were to be assessed from the point of view of the principles developed in that judgment, no support could be found therein for the applicant\u2019s position. The question of voluntary termination of pregnancy for eugenic reasons, concerned in the present case, could not be derived from the State\u2019s to provide adequate medical care."], "id": "41da4ce9-96b7-48c8-8361-16d0b1feb8a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government firstly submitted that the under Article 3 of the Convention did not encompass an obligation on States to conduct compulsory screening for the presence of tuberculosis. They claimed in this connection that the first time the applicant had voiced his grievances concerning possible infection with TB was in January 2010, and by February 2010 he had been provided with all the required medical examinations and treatment. Hence, the examination for TB was not belated."], "id": "8963bc26-46f9-4a80-bab7-c82815677ec0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government argued that in a situation such as the present one, where the applicant claimed, on the basis of the same circumstances, a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time before the domestic authorities and a violation of the State\u2019s under Article 3 of the Convention, it was necessary to examine whether the complaint had already been appropriately addressed by the competent domestic authorities and whether the applicant had already been granted just satisfaction. Recalling that the applicant had been awarded and paid compensation for non-pecuniary damage before the domestic courts, the Government emphasised that in deciding the applicant\u2019s claim, the domestic courts had taken account of the particular circumstances of the criminal proceedings, emphasising that the applicant, then a minor, had been a victim of a series of offences over a long period of time, and that during the criminal proceedings she had been required to repeatedly testify and relive the abuse she had suffered. In its judgment, the competent local court had considered the whole duration of the proceedings and the way in which their particular circumstances had affected the applicant. The court had evaluated all these circumstances in relation to the activity expected of the competent authorities."], "id": "dbcdc141-7794-4a75-b930-f5f0dde509b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government further addressed the applicant's argument of ineffective investigation into the events on 22 September 2001. They asserted that the Russian investigating authorities had done everything possible to effectively respond to the applicant's complaints of ill-treatment. They instituted criminal proceedings against the police officer and prepared his case for trial, having collected necessary evidence for the charges to be upheld in court. In the Government's view, those efforts, despite the officer's acquittal, corroborate the fact that the Russian authorities had fulfilled their under Article 3 of the Convention in the applicant's case."], "id": "19b0ea22-6030-4f52-9011-d0ee55df013d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained, citing Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, of a lack of proper assessment of his state of health before conscription, which he considered had been in breach of the State\u2019s ; and about his conscription into military service with the resulting training he had had to undergo and punishments that had been inflicted on him, which he considered had been in breach of the State\u2019s negative obligations."], "id": "1dcc3b10-e17b-4e65-8a57-b13543e1a144", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["122. The applicants submitted that the situation they had experienced had been contrary to Article 3 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above (\u00a7 263). The state of extreme poverty and material and psychological want in which the authorities had placed them, in full knowledge of their vulnerability as asylum-seekers and as a family with young children including a severely disabled young daughter, had reached the threshold required by Article 3. The obligation to provide for the applicants\u2019 basic needs as asylum-seekers had also been one of the of the Belgian State under European law and more particularly the Reception Directive, which provided that Dublin asylum-seekers had to continue being provided with reception facilities until they were actually transferred to the responsible State, as had been confirmed by the CJEU in Cimade and Gisti, cited above (\u00a7 58) (see paragraph 105 above), and the revised European Social Charter (see paragraphs 108-09 above)."], "id": "5cb23ec2-99d7-46ff-ab3a-58d776908137", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicants complained that the failure of the domestic authorities to provide adequate protection of the second applicant from alleged acts of sexual aggression perpetrated by his father, the first applicant\u2019s separation from her child by the second applicant\u2019s placement in a residential institution and her limited contact rights, as well as the lack of an effective remedy in respect of these issues, had amounted to a violation of the State\u2019s to protect the individuals\u2019 physical integrity, private and family life and to provide effective remedies in this respect."], "id": "7f80b5c8-6f2e-45c0-8334-58aa26be2e7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["126. The applicants reiterated their view (see paragraph 104 above) that prosecuting the first applicant\u2019s father (only) for the criminal offence of inflicting bodily injury was not sufficient for the domestic authorities to meet their under Articles 3 and/or 8 of the Convention. Rather, he should have been prosecuted for the criminal offence of child abuse (see paragraph 86 above). By charging the first applicant\u2019s father with the less serious offence of bodily injury entailing a modest penalty the prosecuting authorities had acted in his favour. Besides, even those criminal proceedings had already been pending for more than four years, and there was no indication that they would be over soon and that he would be punished."], "id": "d61ae1bd-f0f1-444a-9fc3-13dc016b54f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant complained that the facts of the case had given rise to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. Her right to due respect for her private life and her physical and moral integrity had been violated both substantively, by failing to provide her with a legal therapeutic abortion, and as regards the State\u2019s , by the absence of a comprehensive legal framework to guarantee her rights."], "id": "ba80ae74-0317-46ed-9af5-6674d3e0fb67", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicants disagreed with the Government. They claimed that the case file contained sufficient evidence that their injuries had been inflicted by the prison officers and that the Government had failed to provide a credible alternative explanation as to how they had sustained them. They further argued that the investigation conducted by the authorities into their allegation of ill-treatment had not been thorough, effective and independent and that the Government had therefore failed to meet their under Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "92fb812e-647c-42b2-848a-32e6a6e882bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicants contended that where there are two irreconcilable versions of events, as in the present case, the State\u2019s under Articles 3 and 8 include a context-sensitive assessment of the credibility of the statements made and verification of all the surrounding circumstances. In the present case, however, the authorities fell short of Convention standards in this respect. According to them, not all relevant evidence was gathered in the criminal proceedings against Y.S., and the latter\u2019s explanations were accepted as true without criticism. In the decision to discontinue the proceedings of 5 October 2009 the prosecutor wrongly interpreted the evidence and credited expert opinions carried out later in time rather than those of the time immediately following the events; he also did not discuss the findings of some of the expert opinions and the statements of certain witnesses, and relied on expert opinions provided by several experts, one of whom was V.D.\u2019s private therapist. This cast doubts on the independence of the experts and the veracity of the conclusions."], "id": "6c1c07a8-5421-4747-a030-15591ca93ef4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant submitted that the authorities should have taken urgent action in accordance with the arising out of Article 8 of the Convention. On the contrary, they had left her in a vulnerable situation despite being aware of the danger she faced. The initial inaction of the authorities and the subsequent inaction of the social services had thus deprived her of the protection she needed."], "id": "86d13bc2-4a5f-4212-985b-e3a3a81679dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the domestic authorities had conducted an inquiry and a subsequent official investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations in strict compliance with the domestic law. The applicant had unlimited access to court and availed herself of all remedies to protect her rights and interests. She had brought her grievances to the attention of the competent court, which had assessed the lawfulness and compliance of the investigation. The investigators had carried out a wide range of actions aimed at identifying the alleged perpetrators. Numerous witnesses had been questioned. Forensic evidence had been collected and analysed. The fact that the perpetrators had not been established could not be interpreted as the authorities\u2019 failure to comply with their set out in Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention."], "id": "552090f5-7b49-4a1c-b380-cdc416ecef59", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant complained that on 15 June 2001 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into those events. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "id": "b0143a5e-8130-4e16-9026-24e0ece4fb26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s view that he had lost his victim status in connection with the Warsaw Regional Court\u2019s judgment. He stressed that it was impossible to answer the question of whether he had lost his initial status of a victim of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention without having first established how the applicant\u2019s case had been treated by the authorities in the context of their under Article 3 (cf. G\u00e4fgen v. Germany [GC], \u00a7 116). In his view, these positive obligations were not respected. Defects of the investigation were not rectified in the course of the private prosecution proceedings or civil proceedings against the State Treasury and against P.O. and T.G. Accordingly, he could still claim to be a victim of the alleged violation. He found it incomprehensible that in the private prosecution proceedings the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the decisions of the lower court four times, yet the lower court eventually decided that the private prosecution was time-barred."], "id": "6c518b69-73d5-4bab-9bad-4631279e01ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government contested that statement. They pointed out that, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, damage to personal integrity did not necessarily require a criminal-law remedy, especially where the harm had been inflicted as a result of negligence. Hence, a lack of criminal-law remedies in itself could not constitute a breach of the State\u2019s under Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "af5be8ee-a327-4b63-bd2e-524a4356ecaf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant argued that, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, the under Article 2 of the Convention imposed a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person and backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. She submitted that this could also imply in certain circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (she referred to Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, \u00a7 115, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VIII, cited in Kontrov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, \u00a7 49, 31 May 2007). She concluded that in the present case the Italian State had not taken the necessary measures to protect her life and that of her son."], "id": "fec4670a-95cc-4b61-afb5-222c8cd33803", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government also argued that the shortcomings in the criminal proceedings had been remedied by the compensation awarded to the applicant from the alleged perpetrators in subsequent civil proceedings, and cited the Court\u2019s case-law under Article 2 of the Convention in which civil\u2011law remedies had been considered sufficient (see paragraph 38 above). However, the Court observes that the cases invoked by the Government (Calvelli and Ciglio, Vo and \u0160ilih, all mentioned above) concerned injuries caused by the negligent acts of private individuals. In contrast, in cases such as the present one, where the applicants were injured by the deliberate, violent acts of other individuals, the Court has repeatedly held that compensation awarded in civil proceedings could not be considered sufficient for the fulfilment of the State\u2019s under Article 3 of the Convention, as it is aimed at awarding damages rather than identifying and punishing those responsible (see Biser Kostov v. Bulgaria, no. 32662/06, \u00a7 72, 10 January 2012; Dimitar Shopov v. Bulgaria, no. 17253/07, \u00a7 39, 16 April 2013; Aleksandr Nikonenko v. Ukraine, no. 54755/08, \u00a7 41, 14 November 2013; and Stoev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 41717/09, \u00a7 50, 11 March 2014). The Court sees no reason to depart from that approach in the present case."], "id": "b4ac9afc-c767-4cf3-a0eb-79a595592bde", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant argued that the existing domestic legal framework concerning racially motivated acts of violence, as interpreted by the relevant State Attorney\u2019s Office, was deficient and that the manner in which the relevant domestic authorities had responded to her complaint of racially motivated violence had been defective to the point of constituting a violation of the State\u2019s under the Convention. The Court will therefore first assess the existence and adequacy of the legal mechanisms for the protection of people from violence motivated by discriminatory attitudes in the domestic legal order and then the manner of their application in practice (see Beganovi\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 72 and 74; Valiulien\u0117 v. Lithuania, no. 33234/07, \u00a7\u00a7 78-79, 26 March 2013; and Abdu, cited above, \u00a7 47)."], "id": "d1643486-f472-4a40-9416-0d344b884b72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant complained that on 22 June 2001 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of that incident, which amounted to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "id": "a143cbf4-a9d2-4b58-bc5f-d18cdef2b1b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicants complained that on 14 September 2000 they had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of the incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "id": "afd00c2e-3e25-4e63-a7ed-3924093dad50", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained that the Moldovan authorities had not investigated her allegations of rape effectively. In her view, that had amounted to a violation of the State\u2019s to protect the individual\u2019s physical integrity and private life and to provide effective remedies in this respect. She also argued that the requirement of corroborative evidence of resistance had violated her right to non-discrimination on the basis of her sex. Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, on which the applicant relied, read as follows:"], "id": "0217e0f8-4186-4d2c-8922-99dff787673b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicant believed that the time wasted on 7 July 2009, immediately after she had alerted the district prosecutor to her son\u2019s detention in the hospital, had resulted in a missed opportunity to immediately confront the captors and obtain the release of Mr Apti Zaynalov. The Government admitted that the reaction of the prosecutor\u2019s office had been inadequate and contributed to the criminals\u2019 escape (see paragraph 84 above). The Court will consider this allegation as a complaint that the State had failed in its to protect Mr Apti Zaynalov\u2019s life."], "id": "aead9e49-4a54-4d18-b92f-73e296a5a2ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicants argued that the State had failed to discharge its under Article 3 of the Convention to protect them from domestic violence and to prevent the recurrence of such violence. The authorities had been informed of M. M.\u2019s actions, but had only fined him, which had had no effect on his behaviour. The failure to immediately remove M. M. from the common residence had resulted in the applicants being put at a constant risk of further ill-treatment."], "id": "d2668013-f34a-4546-9dff-721d4495e629", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated on 19 July 2002 whilst in State custody and that the investigation into his complaint had not been effective. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "id": "224dd802-8ee7-4c6d-a962-526816867a9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant maintained his complaint. In particular, he submitted that he had been attacked because of articles he had written criticising the activities of the Ministry of Defence. He pointed out that the domestic authorities\u2019 failure to investigate the attack on him had amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression. Relying on the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of \u00d6zg\u00fcr G\u00fcndem v. Turkey (no. 23144/93, 16 March 2000), the applicant also argued that the Government had failed to comply with their under Article 10 of the Convention."], "id": "8f28c212-4505-43eb-b62b-de290b33c0c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["164. The Government claimed that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants' relatives met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the perpetrators. They argued that the decisions to adjourn and to reopen the investigation signified that the authorities had continued to take steps in order to resolve the crime. They also noted that the investigation had been opened on the same day as the kidnapping, and that on that day a large number of witnesses had been questioned, that the prosecutor's office had forwarded numerous information requests to various bodies, trying to check the applicants' version of the events. The absence of results could not be treated as a breach of the under Article 2, which entailed an obligation to use particular means."], "id": "8167fc71-9020-46c5-ae3f-a186c1248424", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government, agreeing that the delays in the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s rape had been excessive, argued that the situation had been appropriately redressed by the competent domestic authorities, which had awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time. Taking the view that in the specific circumstances of the present case the remedy in question had constituted appropriate and sufficient redress with regard to both the alleged violations of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement under Article 6 of the Convention and of the applicant\u2019s procedural rights under Article 3 of the Convention, the Government argued that she had lost her victim status. They pointed out that in the proceedings for compensation under the 2006 Act, the domestic courts had taken account of the particular circumstances of the criminal proceedings, emphasising that the applicant\u2019s case had not been handled in a careful, resolute and rapid manner, as required by the serious nature of the criminal acts involved, and that during the lengthy proceedings the applicant had had to relive the abuse she had suffered, which had caused her severe mental distress. Consequently, the applicant had been awarded a considerably higher amount than would normally have been granted under the 2006 Act. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the domestic courts had therefore appropriately examined the substantial deficiencies in the criminal proceedings on which the applicant had based her allegations concerning a violation of the State\u2019s under Article 3."], "id": "3c2bc99b-d5cf-43e9-a5c2-320a302bd8e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government drew attention to the minimum threshold bringing Article 3 of the Convention into play, which in their view had not been reached, and to the limited extent of the State\u2019s under that Article. They pointed out that there had been no intention to deny the applicants access to safe medicinal products. The experimental product that they wished to use had not been authorised in any country, and had not undergone clinical trials. Its safety and efficacy had not been established. Not being given the opportunity to use it could not therefore be regarded as inhuman treatment. On the contrary, its use, which would have amounted to a medical experiment, might have resulted in a breach of Article 3."], "id": "691519bd-68c7-4679-9618-ef8512bae2e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicants considered that the verbal and physical abuse to which they had been subjected amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. They further claimed that the Georgian authorities were responsible, via the conduct of their agents, for the violent dispersal of several large religious gatherings of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses in 2000-2001. On a wider scale, the Georgian authorities failed to fulfil their under Article 3 of the Convention, as they had taken no measures capable of preventing the widespread extension of religious violence against Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses in the country and had refused to conduct prompt and efficient investigations into acts of violence of which they were fully aware and which had been perpetrated not only by private individuals but also by representatives of the State."], "id": "80039759-2aa9-4adf-adc6-8eb914bf3ff6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government denied that the State authorities bore any responsibility for the destruction of the applicants' houses. Therefore, the State had only under Article 8, obligations which had been fulfilled in this case by granting aid to the applicants to rebuild their homes. In any event, the Government considered that there was no obligation under the Convention to provide a home to persons who were in difficulties. They relied in this connection on the cases of Buckley v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011IV), and Chapman v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 27238/95, \u00a7 99, ECHR 2001\u2011I)."], "id": "c3bc2205-fed6-434a-9d70-b627cf9cca63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicants claimed that State officials had been involved in the destruction of their homes, including police officers and a deputy mayor, the latter having been convicted of a criminal offence in the case. They pointed out that the State had under Article 8, and relied in that connection on a number of cases, for instance Burton v. the United Kingdom (no. 31600/96, Commission decision of 10 September 1996), Marzari v. Italy (decision, no. 36448/97, 4 May 1999) and Fadele v. the United Kingdom (no. 13078/87, Commission decision of 12 February 1990). The applicants alleged that the State also had positive obligations under Article 3, and claimed that it was incumbent on the Romanian Government to provide sufficient compensation to restore the applicants to their previous living conditions. Moreover, local officials were responsible for the management or mismanagement of the reconstruction funds and efforts, and had made decisions not to rebuild particular homes in retaliation for perceived \u201cbehavioural problems\u201d. The applicants also claimed that the houses rebuilt by the State had been badly constructed and were largely uninhabitable."], "id": "7847a56c-68eb-48ae-be08-fe679c06099a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicant complained that Bulgarian law and practice did not provide effective protection against rape and sexual abuse, as only cases where the victim had resisted actively were prosecuted, and that the authorities had not investigated the events of 31 July and 1 August 1995 effectively. In her view, the above amounted to a violation of the State's to protect the individual's physical integrity and private life and to provide effective remedies in this respect."], "id": "cbb5150c-3f24-4b74-bdb2-5c62cc1ba5bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government pointed out that Bulgarian law made provision for \u201ccompassionate use\u201d of unauthorised medicinal products. However, they emphasised that such products carried serious risks, which required them to be carefully regulated. The State was entitled to refuse permission for the use of an unauthorised medicinal product, and this did not breach the right to life, but safeguarded it. The under Article 2 of the Convention had limits, and could not exceed what was reasonable. The applicants had been given conventional medical treatment. There was no further duty to allow them to use a product which was not authorised in any member State of the European Union or had not been subjected to a clinical trial. A State could not be obliged to make available all possible drugs, let alone products whose contents and origins were not clearly known, and which had not been authorised in developed countries with strong health care systems. The product at issue did not comply with the requirements for \u201ccompassionate use\u201d under Article 83 of Regulation (EC) no. 726/2004. If its producer met the applicable requirements, the authorities could envisage allowing its use in the future. In that sense, the applicants were not left with no hope at all."], "id": "e06662dc-e5bd-47c1-adda-247d5eefc572", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant complained that on 29 October 2000 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of that incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "id": "42a98a38-5945-4e05-8399-5c240494cdc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government argued that, while there had been a delay between the lodging of the indictment and the first trial hearing, in general the authorities had conducted the proceedings rapidly and effectively. From the moment the applicant had told the school social worker about the sexual abuse, the police, investigating judge and public prosecutor had all acted with promptness. They had taken statements from the victims, suspect and possible witnesses, obtained expert opinions on the psychological states of the victims and J.D., and an indictment had been lodged only a few days after the investigation had been concluded. In addition, once the competent court had commenced the trial on 14 April 2008, the proceedings had again been conducted conscientiously and effectively; J.D.\u2019s appeal against conviction and sentence had been decided in six months. The offender had therefore been identified and appropriately punished, and so the fundamental purpose of the criminal proceedings had been fulfilled. In view of this, the Government asserted that the only point in relation to which they could be considered as not having complied with their under Article 3 was the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. In this connection, however, they argued that the situation had resulted from a systemic problem of court backlogs, which had, however, been effectively addressed as part of the \u201cLukenda\u201d project created specifically to deal with considerable delays in processing cases. One of the measures adopted within this project was the 2006 Act, under which the applicant had been awarded compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings."], "id": "dab3372a-8dc6-44e1-928e-4414d6563ec0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained that on 5 December 1999 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into those events, amounting to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "id": "6b932604-92b8-47c9-9fa3-e310be8c51e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicants submitted that they could still be considered victims of the ill-treatment, despite the conviction of the three police officers. Given the intensity and the aim of the ill-treatment to which they had been subjected (namely, to extract confessions), it had to be recognised as torture, within the meaning of Article 3. They argued that the investigation into their ill-treatment had been slow (having lasted for almost four years), contrary to the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. They also submitted that the authorities had not complied with their under Article 3 of the Convention, namely to ensure the preventive effect of legislation prohibiting ill-treatment. In particular, the officers had been sentenced to the minimum penalty provided for by law and even that penalty had been suspended, so that they had never been deprived of their liberty. Moreover, the officers had not been convicted of torture, but of the less stigmatising offence of abuse of power."], "id": "34dfa917-c741-453f-a51a-e67df06a1dc0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government referred to the Court\u2019s case-law to the effect that there were certain under the Convention which required States to draw up regulations compelling hospitals to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients\u2019 lives. They also required an effective independent judicial system to be set up so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession could be determined and those responsible made accountable (see Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000\u2011V). That positive obligation did not necessarily require the provision of a criminal\u2011law remedy in every case. In the specific sphere of medical negligence the obligation could, for instance, also be satisfied if the legal system afforded victims a remedy in the civil courts, either alone or in conjunction with a remedy in the criminal courts, enabling any liability of the doctors concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, \u00a7 51, ECHR 2002\u2011I)."], "id": "a40dfa76-b8c1-4db9-802d-81060887cb6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant disputed this, emphasising that the remedies under the 2006 Act did not constitute effective remedies in respect of complaints made under provisions of the Convention which create of the State, such as Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention. In support of her submissions, she referred to \u0160ilih v. Slovenia (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 169-170) and Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia (no. 8673/05 and 9733/05, \u00a7 105, 1 December 2009). The applicant further asserted that the judgment in her favour adopted pursuant to the 2006 Act had only acknowledged a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time, and not a violation of the State\u2019s procedural requirements under other Convention provisions. In conclusion, the applicant pointed out that in order for a measure favourable to an applicant to deprive him or her of his or her victim status, a violation had to be acknowledged expressly or at least in substance, and subsequently redressed."], "id": "fcdedffe-e782-43f1-bf0b-8c353896d9e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["9. The Government\u2019s first defence is encapsulated in the form of a rhetorical question: \u201cis it reasonable to measure the State\u2019s behaviour since 1980 to a standard that was introduced by the Court for the first time in 2013?\u201d The Government\u2019s argument is that the obligation to promote resocialisation and set a review mechanism stems from Vinter and Others and therefore cannot be imposed in the present case. The Grand Chamber firmly rebuts this argument and finds explicitly that these were binding on the respondent State already in 1980. From the imposition of his life sentence the applicant was entitled to have a prospect of release and the possibility of a review mechanism fulfilling the requirements flowing from the Convention. Paragraph 116 of the present judgment does not leave a shadow of doubt about the Grand Chamber\u2019s intention to assess the respondent State\u2019s conduct taking into account the entire period of Mr Murray\u2019s incarceration. Thus the Court does apply the obligation to promote resocialisation and set up a review mechanism to a period of incarceration starting in 1980. In so doing, the Grand Chamber\u2019s judgment does not proceed with a retroactive application of international legal standards, since these standards have been clear at European level since 1973 (see Resolution of the Committee of Ministers (73) 5 on Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners), and even earlier than that at a global level (see United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, of 1955). To put it in a straightforward way, the Grand Chamber considers that Vinter and Others only restated penological standards that had been binding on member States of the Council of Europe since at least the nineteen-eighties."], "id": "47b86422-3bee-4c33-9672-001e45e09722", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["102. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been beaten up on 28 October 2007 and 14 February 2008 while in State custody and that there had been no effective investigation into these incidents. The Court will examine the applicant\u2019s complaints from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "id": "ed7fb0ff-9021-4015-8692-ed15b0364b46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government considered that the preliminary inquiry and the ensuing investigation conducted by domestic authorities had been in compliance with the standards established in the Court\u2019s case-law. The investigators had identified and arrested eight alleged perpetrators. When questioned, all of them had denied the applicant\u2019s allegations. They had maintained their innocence in the applicant\u2019s presence. Neither the results of the genetic forensic examination nor the relevant mobile-telephone communications history had confirmed the applicant\u2019s allegations and the suspects had been released. In 2014, after the applicant had identified A.P. as another perpetrator, he had been questioned and had undergone a polygraph test, which had confirmed that A.P. had had sexual relations with the applicant. He had been charged with rape. However, once the genetic forensic expert examination had excluded the possibility of the sperm found on the wipe towels being A.P.\u2019s, the investigator had rightfully discontinued the criminal investigation against him. The Government furthermore pointed out that the applicant\u2019s behaviour had had an impact on the effectiveness of the investigation. She had only belatedly reported the alleged rape to the authorities. As a result, it had been impossible to find, collect and preserve traces of the crime. Nevertheless, the investigators had carried out a complete range of actions aimed at establishing the circumstances of the crime: they had (1) commissioned a forensic medical examination to determine any possible traces of violence on the applicant\u2019s body; (2) inspected the crime scenes in the applicant\u2019s presence; (3) taken all necessary measures to collect physical evidence, (4) carried out other forensic examinations; (5) held a confrontation between the applicant and the alleged perpetrators; and (6) obtained information concerning the history of mobile-telephone communications between the applicant and the alleged perpetrators. In the Government\u2019s opinion, there was nothing in the material contained in the case file to substantiate the applicant\u2019s allegation that the authorities had failed to comply with their , as set out in Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention."], "id": "510f390c-9dc5-4b27-abb0-d98d11c56a8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants complained, in respect of each incident described above, that they had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into those events, which amounted to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State\u2019s negative and flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:"], "id": "efc07964-f566-4f1e-ade3-6ce55d387557", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the authorities had taken all reasonable measures to protect the first applicant from the risk of violence and to prevent such violence from recurring. In particular, M. M. had been ordered on more than one occasion to pay a fine of MDL 500. The Government claimed that there had been no real and imminent risk to the applicants\u2019 health prior to their formal complaint of 11 April 2011, and thus there had been no on them to offer specific protection prior to that date."], "id": "21e9aa51-0f5e-4ad1-9dc4-b6271f8cbaed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicants complained of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, which includes protection of a person\u2019s physical and psychological well-being. By not protecting them from domestic violence, the authorities had failed to discharge their under that provision. They also submitted that they had not had effective remedies at their disposal in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention."], "id": "3476f8da-a1b9-40e4-ab1a-64ee50f0b771", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government argued that the applicant had been detained in conditions compliant with Article 3 requirements. In particular, they submitted a copy of the applicant's note in which he mentioned that on 30 November 2004 he had been moved to another cell, in which the conditions of detention were acceptable. Moreover, he was offered medical assistance on a number of occasions and was fully treated for tuberculosis after DOTS treatment in the prison hospital. The fact that he had refused to have X-ray examinations in early 2005 (see paragraph 13 above) meant that he was responsible for the failure to discover his illness at an earlier stage. Therefore, the applicant could not claim that the authorities had failed to fulfil their to prevent and treat illnesses such as tuberculosis."], "id": "f712afd0-6a07-4597-9513-07f2a73bf314", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant challenged the Government\u2019s arguments, observing that non-pecuniary damages could only be claimed under Article 179 of the Code of Obligations in cases falling under one of the categories listed therein, and that there was no indication that the domestic courts considered the of the State as belonging to one of these categories or, specifically, as personality rights. The applicant pointed out that the case-law submitted by the Government was not relevant to her case, and concluded that the remedy proposed by the Government was not established in practice. Moreover, the applicant took the view that in cases such as hers the protection afforded by civil law was insufficient, since an award of compensation could not satisfy the procedural requirements of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention."], "id": "aab73cab-b148-4014-9be5-3c0093b9d0ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant complained that the Moldovan authorities had not investigated her allegations of rape effectively. In her view, that had amounted to a violation of the State\u2019s to protect the individual\u2019s physical integrity and private life and to provide effective remedies in this respect. Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention, on which the applicant relied, read as follows:"], "id": "94d9fc94-d988-4608-8c94-495fa267fb2c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicants argued that, after they were hindered from continuing their travels to Baku, they were under the direct control of the Russian authorities and therefore in a comparable situation to persons in detention. The applicants further submitted that by not providing adequate care and protection to the applicants, as vulnerable members of society, the Russian authorities violated their under Article 3 of the Convention, since the conditions during their stay in Derbent led to physical suffering, feelings of humiliation and subsequent negative effects on the applicants\u2019 health."], "id": "9fc3c4ba-b5e1-4933-accd-fea6e10d6f6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant argued that there was no public interest whatsoever militating against the interests of medically recognised transsexuals in completing their gender change and having it legally entrenched. Furthermore, the absence of necessary legislation was disproportionate to the protection of any purported countervailing interest of the community as a whole. Accordingly, the State had failed in its under Article 8 to complete the measures it had already envisaged to protect the applicant\u2019s human dignity and prevent intrusion into his private life."], "id": "b3c23ba0-1714-4761-8a0a-1f1a32d35ba2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government submitted that the first applicant\u2019s allegation of ill-treatment at the hands of the police on 13 May 2004 at Tbilisi police headquarters had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt owing to the absence of relevant medical certificates or other evidence that confirmed with certainty the existence of marks of the purported physical violence on the applicant. They continued by saying that it was the first applicant\u2019s own fault that he had not requested a medical examination in the immediate aftermath of the alleged ill-treatment. He had also not reported the ill\u2011treatment to the public defence lawyer appointed for him on 13 May 2004 or to the doctor at Prison no. 7 upon his transfer there on 16 May 2004. As regards the domestic authorities\u2019 under Article 3 of the Convention, the Government submitted that as soon as the applicant\u2019s wife had complained for the first time to the prosecution authority about her husband\u2019s ill-treatment on 8 October 2004, the investigation had been launched immediately. They referred to the comprehensive investigative actions the authority had undertaken (see paragraph 52 above). The results of the latter examination had led to the decision of 17 November 2004 to close the case for lack of established facts that were arguably constitutive of a criminal offence. It was in the light of those findings that the relevant investigative authority had not deemed it necessary to involve the applicant in the investigation by granting him victim status."], "id": "e47a30dc-8919-4751-afd3-1c3aa19fad0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant challenged the Government\u2019s arguments, observing that non-pecuniary damage could only be claimed under Article 179 of the Code of Obligations in cases falling under one of the categories listed therein, and that there was no indication that the domestic courts considered the of the State as belonging to one of these categories. The applicant asserted that the case-law submitted by the Government was not relevant to her case and added that non-pecuniary damage resulting from the excessive length of proceedings was not considered by the domestic courts to interfere with any of the rights secured by the Code of Obligations and was, accordingly, actionable under a different legal provision. The applicant therefore concluded that she could not have been required to exhaust a remedy which, in the particular circumstances of her case, was not established in law or practice."], "id": "927de851-5707-4dc7-a2d0-0348d13e7ccc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government inferred from the fact that the complaint fell to be examined from the standpoint of that \u201cit [was] unnecessary to examine whether the interference [had been] in accordance with the law\u201d. The refusal of the applicants\u2019 requests had pursued a legitimate aim as it had been guided by the French principle of the inalienability of civil status, according to which the decision to amend a birth certificate could not be a matter for the individual\u2019s choice alone, even though that choice fell within the sphere of respect for private life. It was because the reliability and consistency of French civil-status records were at stake, and in the interests of the necessary structural role of sexual identity within the country\u2019s social and legal arrangements, that a change of gender in civil-status documents could be permitted only when the irreversible nature of the gender reassignment process had been objectively established."], "id": "e77fac4c-ed6a-4ded-9d73-76e63a0d7258", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to apply relevant, in particular criminal-law, measures against the participants of the anti-Roma rallies so as to discourage them from the racist harassment that eventually took place. She also maintained that by failing to properly investigate this incidence of racist verbal abuse, the authorities had neglected their . She relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "id": "faca1296-8146-4898-8f9a-f419c4366016", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["127. The applicants complained that, as they had been victims of aggression in relation to their participation in a peaceful assembly, by failing to conduct effective investigations the State had breached its under Article 11 of the Convention, taken alone or together with Article 14. They further complained that they had had no effective remedy at their disposal to complain either about the fact that the crimes against them had been motivated by their sexual orientation, or that the criminal investigation had lasted too long and had been inefficient, thus hindering their access to civil redress. The complaints were communicated to the respondent Government under Articles 11, 13 and 14, which read as follows:"], "id": "adf81862-85c5-4ce4-8e56-c4d571c2fecd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prohibition of torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["153. The applicant further submitted that, regardless of whether the method of interrogation was to be classified as torture or as inhuman treatment, the Convention (he referred, in particular, to the Court\u2019s judgment in Jalloh, cited above) and provisions of public international law (in particular, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 15 and 16 of the United Nations Convention against Torture) warranted the exclusion of all evidence obtained by means of a violation of the absolute and inhuman treatment. Contrary to the view taken by the domestic courts and by the Chamber, protection of the absolute right under Article 3 could not and should not be weighed against other interests, such as the satisfaction of securing a conviction. As a matter of principle, the exclusion of the evidence in question was essential for removing all incentives for engaging in torture or ill-treatment and thus for preventing such conduct in practice."], "id": "f93142a6-4e85-4a38-96ce-5c6e645a8f55", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prohibition of torture", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant submitted that the restriction on his right of access to a court did not serve a legitimate aim and was disproportionate. The House of Lords in ex parte Pinochet (No. 3) (see paragraph 34 above) had accepted that the had acquired the status of a jus cogens norm in international law and that torture had become an international crime. In these circumstances there could be no rational basis for allowing sovereign immunity in a civil action when immunity would not be a defence in criminal proceedings arising from the same facts."], "id": "a0e64703-ac86-4736-bda0-71306bada062", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman punishment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["103. The applicant considered that his confinement to the restraint bed on 22 October 2009 and the use of force and handcuffs on him on the following day amounted to torture and in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. He argued that the measures of restraint had been used for punitive purposes. He had posed no danger to the officers since he had been in a locked cell and could only communicate with the prison officers through a hatch. He argued that in these circumstances the use of force against him had also been unlawful under the domestic law."], "id": "87ac05f5-2129-4acc-a254-fd45478feb8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "inhuman punishment", "echr_article": "3", "masked_sentences": ["190. The applicant submitted that his life sentence without parole, in conjunction with the social isolation imposed on him, constituted a violation of Article 3 or Article 8 of the Convention. He also stated that a life sentence which took no account of the prisoner\u2019s possible good conduct or rehabilitation, associated with a strict prison regime, attained the level of severity required by Article 3 of the Convention to constitute ."], "id": "a749723c-3c97-4231-b7f9-a1028ffec130", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government raised an objection of non- . They maintained that the applicant had not requested release in the judicial review proceedings and neither had he complained that the domestic law contradicted the Convention. Nor had he lodged an appeal on points of law when he was not released by the Municipal Court, which had quashed the decision not to release him. Furthermore, the applicant had not lodged a constitutional appeal, even though the Constitutional Court had the power to repeal a law that violated the Convention, and proceedings brought before it could also have indirectly led to his release."], "id": "c77c6c52-b5d7-4115-920d-cdbdb4e087cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government also objected that, as far as the Hague Convention proceedings were concerned, the applicant had failed to comply with the requirement of under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, especially in so far as he was complaining under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of those proceedings and their alleged unfairness and under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of his right to respect for his private and family life in those proceedings."], "id": "a2893c4f-f448-41de-a7c3-c3755279152a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["85. The Government raised the objection of non- by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "3362f9af-ff8e-4b30-b68c-e57fa5fd9420", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to comply with the rule in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In this connection, they submitted that the death of Mehmet Emin Ayhan was still being investigated by the authorities and that the criminal proceedings against the culprits were still pending before the Diyarbak\u0131r Assize Court. Furthermore, the applicants at no stage alleged to the authorities that agents of the State were behind the killing and their complaints to the Court were completely at variance with the first applicant's statement to the police on 30 June 1992 and her letter to the public prosecutor of 16 September 1992. The Government submitted in addition that the first applicant had never made a claim for compensation in respect of her husband's death."], "id": "57807a47-82ec-40d5-ab50-e56eaeb7e85b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government asked the Court to dismiss these complaints for failure to comply with the requirement of under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In this regard, they stated that the Kars public prosecutor\u2019s decision of 11 August 2007 had been served on the applicant and that she should have lodged an objection against that decision. The Government submitted, in the alternative, that the applicant should have lodged her application with the Court within six months of the date of the Kars public prosecutor\u2019s decision."], "id": "26131287-0fe7-483e-9174-b89367ea7dcd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government contended that the complaint concerning the alleged violation of the right to life guaranteed by Article 2 should be declared inadmissible for non- . They considered that the applicants should have challenged the respective decisions to dispense with a criminal investigation into the catastrophe. In the first applicant's case, this was the decision taken by the Prosecutor's Office of the Elbrus District of 3 August 2000, which specifically concerned her husband's death and stated that it did not call for a criminal investigation. As regards the other applicants, the Government referred to the general ruling of the same Prosecutor's Office, allegedly taken on the same date, that no criminal investigation into the natural disaster of 8-25 July 2000 was needed. Moreover, the applicants did not rely on the violation of the right to life in the civil proceedings for damages."], "id": "813dfce9-e059-4147-9f52-fb978e2c5353", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in that he had omitted to raise in substance his grievance under Article 3 before the district judge on 17 October 2006. The Court considers that the issue of is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. This complaint must therefore be declared admissible."], "id": "53187e97-78ad-49b9-b1b1-5a4e7e36d168", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non- . They submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Musa Gaytayev had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge any acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court and that their complaint had been granted in part by the town court. They also argued that the applicants could have pursued civil complaints but had failed to do so."], "id": "4b7cb63d-8efc-49f4-ab40-1919657d6645", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government contended that the applicant\u2019s complaint under this head should be declared inadmissible for non- , since the investigation into the killing of her husband was still pending. They further denied their responsibility for the death of the applicant\u2019s husband, stating that he had been murdered by a private individual and that the authorities had never been notified of the existence of any danger to the life of the applicant\u2019s husband."], "id": "38f89a25-fd7a-4cd2-b323-4ee2b9b894c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government pleaded non-compliance with the six-month rule and non- . They stated that the final decision in the criminal case against the applicant was given by the Desniansky Court on 21 December 2000 (i.e. more than six months before the application was lodged with the Court), which decision the applicant had failed to challenge in ordinary appeal proceedings. The Government maintained that the subsequent reversal of this decision could not be taken into account as it was effected in the course of the supervisory review. The applicant disagreed."], "id": "4ef08684-88cc-4b11-a08c-86c2714ddba0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["174. The Government raised the possibility for the applicants to make use of judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of . The Court observes that the applicants, having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged actions or omissions of investigating authorities before a court. Furthermore, the investigation was resumed by the prosecuting authorities themselves a number of times owing to the need to take additional investigative steps. However, they still failed to investigate the applicants' allegations properly. Moreover, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative measures that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer usefully be conducted. Accordingly, the Court finds that the remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances and dismisses their preliminary objection as regards the applicant's failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the context of the criminal investigation."], "id": "38ac9b31-ef22-4df1-8c87-9f03caf5a10a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicant contested this view. In particular, he submitted that he had complained about his unlawful detention and extradition to the domestic courts. The applicant further stressed that the GPO of Ukraine decision of 27 September 2004 to extradite him had constituted a final decision for the purpose of . It was not amenable to appeal as to its lawfulness, as the domestic courts were allowed to review only the existence of the formal grounds for extradition and not the compliance of a decision to extradite with the obligations set out in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In that respect, he referred in particular to Resolution no. 8 of the Plenary Supreme Court of 8 October 2004 on issues related to the application of legislation governing the procedure and length of detention (arrest) of persons awaiting extradition, which summarised the domestic courts' practice on extradition issues."], "id": "a7193e8d-f370-43eb-b712-980365e9545d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non- . They submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Ayub Takhayev had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to lodge court complaints about the allegedly unlawful detention of their relative or to challenge in court any actions or omissions of the investigating or other law enforcement authorities, but that the applicants had not availed themselves of that remedy. They also argued that it had been open to the applicants to bring civil claims for damages pursuant to Article 1069 of the Civil Code which theybut they had failed to do so."], "id": "1a3f5b97-cf67-424b-8a63-f50a1cab4db2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government asked the Court to dismiss the application as inadmissible for failure to comply with the requirement of under Article 35 of the Convention. In this connection, they maintained that the applicant had to complain before the national authorities prior to his application to the Court. They stated that at no stage of the domestic proceedings did the applicant question the length of the proceedings."], "id": "593de268-2a0f-4fa5-8b10-6728c2ea110d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government, for the first time before the Grand Chamber, raised the issue of non- owing to the fact that the Chamber judgments had been based on facts and legal arguments which had not been part of the applicants\u2019 case before the domestic courts. However, there had been nothing to prevent the Government from raising a non-exhaustion objection in due time."], "id": "3c1c8c1f-605e-4738-8368-26bcf831aebc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["156. The Government requested the Court to declare the complaints raised under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention inadmissible on grounds of non- , as the applicant had not raised them in compliance with the procedural requirements of domestic law before the Constitutional Court. They pointed out that in accordance with its established case-law, the Constitutional Court was bound not by the reasoning of a constitutional appeal but only by the final plea in the appeal (they referred to the domestic judgments in I. \u00daS 89/09 of 29 November 1994 and Pl. \u00daS 16/93 of 24 May 1994). In addition, the Constitutional Court could only decide on an interference which the appellant had explicitly specified in the final plea in his constitutional appeal (see \u00daS 3336/09 of 18 February 2010). They maintained that it appeared from the final plea in both the applicant\u2019s constitutional appeals that he had properly raised only his complaint under Article 5 of the Convention. The Government emphasised that the Constitutional Court had constantly allowed legally incapacitated persons to resort to it independently and had not dismissed their constitutional appeals on the grounds that they had not been entitled to lodge them (they referred to \u00daS 412/04 of 7 December 2003; II. \u00daS 303/05 of 13 September 2007; II. \u00daS 2630/07 of 13 December 2007; and II. \u00daS 1191/08 of 14 April 2009)."], "id": "2ce70e2f-f8f5-496a-bee2-06dbe2f65993", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government argued that the complaint should be rejected on the ground of non- because the applicant had failed to pursue his compensation claim before the domestic courts. On 10 November 2004 the Sabail District Court discontinued the proceedings due to the applicant's or his lawyer's failure to appear before the court without a good reason."], "id": "96e051a4-51d1-4982-885f-312e1d348bee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["160. The Government observed that the applicant had been free to receive all the visits he wished in Campione d\u2019Italia, in particular from his grandchildren. The applicant had not alleged that it would have been impossible or particularly difficult for his family or friends to go to Campione d\u2019Italia, where he could have carried on his family and social life as he saw fit, without any restriction whatsoever. As regards exceptional events, such as the marriage of a friend or relative, he could have sought an exemption from the applicable rules. In addition, as shown in connection with the , the applicant could have requested to move to another part of Italy. Lastly, the Convention did not protect the right of a foreign national to visit a State that had prohibited him from entering it simply so that he could maintain his residence in an enclave which he could not leave without crossing that State. For all those reasons the Government were of the opinion that the disputed measures did not constitute interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 8."], "id": "8a07bc7a-d76e-4048-969d-086ad7eb4692", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government further submitted that the Court\u2019s findings in Borb\u00e1la Kiss v. Hungary (no. 59214/11, \u00a7\u00a7 25-26, 26 June 2012) and Gubacsi v. Hungary (no. 44686/07, \u00a7\u00a7 31-32, 28 June 2011) were not applicable in the present case, since in those cases the reason for dismissing the Government\u2019s preliminary objection of non- was the apparent legal uncertainty concerning the substitute private prosecution proceedings. In the present case, however, the applicant had been informed by means of the decision of 21 March 2012 of the Gy\u00f6ngy\u00f6s Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office about the possibility of instituting private prosecution proceedings (see paragraph 27 above). She had availed herself of that remedy, but had subsequently dropped the charges. Furthermore, a court judgment in such proceedings could have also opened the way for a constitutional complaint. The Government suggested that the Court should take the same approach as it had in the case of Horv\u00e1th and Vad\u00e1szi v. Hungary ((dec.) no. 2351/06, 9 November 2010), which was declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the ground that the applicants had not raised the issue of the racist motives of the alleged criminal offence in the substitute private prosecution proceedings."], "id": "27655b2d-e4cd-4ca9-8ae8-b4c2438496cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicant submitted, reiterating her arguments concerning the (see paragraph 68 above), that the State institutions in Croatia did not function properly, which was one of the reasons why no measures had been taken concerning her complaints of ill-treatment in the hospital. Moreover, the applicant pointed out that there was a questionnaire which every patient should have the possibility to submit on his or her release from hospital but which had never been given to her because the hospital had been afraid of what she might reveal. She stressed that the State institutions had been ignoring her complaints about her various other problems for years, and that she had lost any hope of their protecting her rights. She contended that in a situation in which she had been forcefully admitted to hospital and tied to a bed with restraining belts, and then involuntary retained for a further thirty days, the onus had been on the domestic authorities to examine her complaints properly. She had submitted the complaints in a handwritten letter because that was all she could have done in such circumstances."], "id": "3e9dca87-c0be-4c3a-afec-1c3954c3754c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government argued that the application should be declared inadmissible for non- . They submitted that the investigation into the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev had not yet been completed. They further claimed that the applicants had not brought any civil claims for compensation for damage under Article 1069 of the Civil Code or challenged the investigators' decisions in court under Article 125 of the CCP."], "id": "6d9a9714-160b-48d8-a9df-7d89efbe57bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government submitted that the application must be rejected for failure to comply with the requirement of under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They contended that the applicant had failed to avail himself of the remedy provided by domestic law. They claimed that the proceedings would continue if the charges that had not been paid by the responsible party were paid by the applicant. They referred to the Court's decision on the case of Poghosyan v. Armenia (no. 36211/03, 5 October 2006) by which it declared the application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They maintained that, in that case, the Court had examined whether the failure of the applicant to institute proceedings had been a result of a State omission or the applicant's own actions, and had concluded that the applicant had failed to take all possible and accessible measures to advance the enforcement of the judgment. They maintained that, in the instant case, regard should also be had to the fact that the debt arising from the judgment was not owed by a State enterprise but by a private limited company."], "id": "5090e32c-f990-4563-80d5-26a8e7d4cfd0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible for non- and accordingly to reconsider the Chamber's decision that an appeal to the Court of Cassation on points of law was not a remedy that had to be exhausted. In the Government's submission, the Court had erred in its decision Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, ECHR 2003\u2011IV) in finding that, as the Court of Cassation had always held that complaints about the amount of compensation related to questions of fact, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower courts, an appeal on points of law was not a remedy that had to be exhausted Admittedly, the Court of Cassation, which examined points of law, could not superimpose its own assessment of questions relating to the merits or the assessment of the facts and evidence on those of the lower courts. It did, however, have power to find that a decision of the lower courts was inconsistent with the correct interpretation of the law or contained grounds that were illogical or contradictory. In such a case it could set out the applicable legal principle or mark out the broad lines of the correct interpretation and remit the case to the lower court for a fresh assessment of the evidence on the basis of those directions. That submission had, moreover, been confirmed by the four judgments (nos. 1338, 1339, 1340 and 1341) delivered by the plenary Court of Cassation on 26 January 2004 (see paragraphs 22 and 23 above)."], "id": "b33d7fad-775b-4e7d-ae9a-ac114ae0f5de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government argued under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that this part of the application must be rejected for non- or, alternatively, for failure to comply with the six-month rule. In this regard, they maintained that the applicant had neither raised this complaint during the proceedings nor lodged an official complaint with the public prosecutor. They further submitted that the applicant should have lodged his application within six months following the date on which his house was searched, i.e. on 28 November 1995."], "id": "38172828-8e7c-4027-8de4-3121becea526", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government argued non- . They submitted that for the 21 June 2001 incident the applicant should have used the appeal introduced by Article 2781 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, effective since 1 January 2004. Furthermore, for the complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment in detention, the conditions of detention and the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment the applicant could have lodged a criminal complaint for abusive behaviour, illegal arrest, abusive investigation and inhuman treatment and torture, crimes prohibited by the Criminal Code, or a complaint under the provisions of the Emergency Ordinance no. 56/2003."], "id": "c9286063-18a3-4e4e-a177-1ca40633a4c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non- . They submitted that the investigation of the disappearance of Lecha and Ibragim Betayev had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to lodge court complaints about the allegedly unlawful detention of their sons or to challenge in court any actions or omissions of the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities, but that the applicants had not availed themselves of that remedy."], "id": "09a47594-b056-4276-ad17-aadf4388c560", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government invited the Court to reject the applicant\u2019s complaint for non- . It maintained that the applicant could have filed another constitutional complaint, after the Constitutional Court had dismissed his first one. Bearing in mind that the Constitutional Court changed its practice in this respect, so as to comply with the Court\u2019s case-law, the Government claimed that a complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act would have been an effective remedy for the applicant\u2019s length complaint."], "id": "869f8469-dd97-48f7-b0dc-a9417ede4914", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention was inadmissible for non- . In particular, they referred to Article 18 \u00a7 2 of the Civil Code of Georgia, which stipulated that \u201ca person is entitled to demand in court the retraction of information that defames his honour, dignity, privacy, personal inviolability or business reputation.\u201d Apart from failing to use the above-mentioned remedy, the applicants, according to the Government, had raised the issue of the alleged violation of the principle of presumption of innocence for the first time only before the Court. Therefore, according to the Court\u2019s well-established practice, the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention should be declared inadmissible."], "id": "4ca64971-a08f-4af1-aff9-a0a08b1e8de4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government requested the Court to dismiss the complaint as being inadmissible for failure to comply with the requirement of under Article 35 of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant did not file a complaint against the trial judge with the domestic authorities, such as the Ministry of Justice or a public prosecutor\u2019s office."], "id": "d67ff7b4-da6a-47e3-b70a-d6e5f727789c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant disagreed. He insisted that the domestic investigation in his case was ineffective, having lasted for over seven years without any meaningful result, and that he could not be reproached for not waiting for a final outcome. In any event, the applicant considered that the issue of the was to be joined to the merits of his complaint about the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation."], "id": "985c35f8-0be0-4bb3-ba3b-dfba53096d61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant disagreed, noting that all the complaints he had raised with the relevant national authorities, including the domestic courts, were, in substance, the same as those lodged with the Court. The rule of did not imply that the applicant should have specifically referred to the Convention provisions in his complaints to the domestic authorities."], "id": "9eed3538-7983-4f20-8300-2b99a13bdae6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government pointed out that the proceedings in the applicants' case were still pending and that consequently they could lodge a constitutional complaint in line with the new case-law. Since the latter permitted the Constitutional Court not only to award compensation but also to set a time-limit for the competent court to decide the case, the Government contended that it was an effective remedy and that the Court should make an exception to the general rule of (according to which an applicant is required to exhaust only the remedies available at the moment of the introduction of an application with the Court)."], "id": "a10f05a4-c3b9-4169-8753-e398f9569e43", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government submitted, in the alternative, that the applicant\u2019s complaint about the period of his pre-trial detention between 10 March and 3 April 2003 should be declared inadmissible for non- since the applicant had raised before the domestic authorities only the issue of the unlawfulness of his detention between 20 and 27 May 2002, but not the period from 10 March to 3 April 2003."], "id": "94917c9e-a0b3-4941-b656-46d7f69b911b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government raised an objection of non- . They argued that the applicant could have challenged the K\u00faria\u2019s judgment before the Constitutional Court under Article XXVIII of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, which guaranteed the right to a fair trial. They referred to decision no. 7/2013 (see paragraph 33 above) in which the Constitutional Court examined, in the light of both Article XXVIII of the Fundamental Law and Article 6 of the Convention, the fairness of a high court\u2019s final judgment, with particular regard to the question of whether the high court had observed its obligation to give appropriate reasons for its decision. In the Government\u2019s view, the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision demonstrated that the applicant could have brought his complaint relating to the unfairness of the proceedings and, in particular, the lack of appropriate reasoning, before the Constitutional Court \u2013 a legal avenue of which he had not availed himself."], "id": "6e34dd6c-19bc-4fac-bdd0-43ddfd46afb1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["13. The Government asked the Court to dismiss the complaint as being inadmissible for failure to comply with the requirement of under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Government argued that the applicants could have challenged the length of their detention in police custody by invoking Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."], "id": "f13f2030-ab90-4d27-ad6b-a788b769e3c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government invited the Court to reject the application for non- . They submitted that the applicant could have lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. In support of their argument, the Government produced a copy of the Constitutional Court decision of 2 February 2005 (see paragraph 66 above) in which that court had found a violation of the complainant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time on account of lengthy enforcement proceedings."], "id": "387bc6d1-38df-4763-857e-0ba32b1ecee7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government also pleads non- by the applicants. They confirm that the three acts established the situation of which the applicants complain, namely, the decision of the Ministers of Education and Finances, of 25 January 2008, creating the 12th school, the decision of the head of the Regional Department of Education defining the zone of recruitment of this school, of 8 April 2008, and the prefectural judgment of 24 June 2008 having permitted the provisional establishment of the 12th school in the prefabricated annex of the 10th school, constituting administrative enforceable acts susceptible to be the subject of an action for annulment before the Council of State, pursuant to Articles 45 and 48 of Decree No. 18/1989."], "id": "16fae45f-7c2b-46f1-b71b-8a3177da22b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government also mentioned that the applicants had the opportunity to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the investigating authorities in the context of . The Court observes that, owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain investigative steps that ought to have been carried out much earlier could no longer be usefully conducted. The Court finds therefore that it is highly doubtful that the remedies relied on by the Government would have had any prospects of success and considers that they were ineffective in the circumstances of the case. It thus rejects the Government's objection in this part as well."], "id": "cd8dafe4-7381-4906-b079-c7473b9bd65b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government invited the Court to reject the applicant\u2019s complaint for non- . It maintained that the applicant could have filed another constitutional complaint, after the Constitutional Court had dismissed his first one. Stressing that the Constitutional Court changed its practice in this respect, so as to comply with the Court\u2019s case-law, the Government claimed that a complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act would have been an effective remedy for the applicant\u2019s length complaint."], "id": "dc5496a6-e3dc-4009-a4fc-00e3cc97ad98", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government asked the Court to dismiss the complaint as being inadmissible for failure to comply with the requirement of under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Government argued that the applicant could have, pursuant to Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenged the length of his detention in police custody. They maintained that the applicant could also have sought compensation pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained."], "id": "bf1d1616-1830-4564-be23-54cafc38a7eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to fulfil the requirement of pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in that he had failed to challenge the length of these proceedings by means of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, lodged in accordance with the Constitutional Court\u2019s established practice while the proceedings were still pending."], "id": "86d2093b-ab7b-496c-867e-d27c0e7f76f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that the application should be declared inadmissible for non- . They noted that following the rejection of the applicant\u2019s claim by the Chancellor of Justice on 15 October 2012, the applicant had not initiated proceedings before the general courts regarding compensation for the alleged violation of the Convention. This option still remained open to him and, in the Government\u2019s view, should be used before lodging an application before the Court."], "id": "e573a019-6870-4a49-9a9d-d041276e87e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government submitted that this complaint should be rejected for non- . In particular, they maintained that the applicant did not raise the issue of a lack of legal representation in the course of the appeal proceedings, and failed to contest an alleged lack of questioning of particular witnesses or other alleged violations of his defence rights. Instead, the applicant only requested the mitigation of the punishment to be imposed on him."], "id": "dbc741e0-f63d-43fb-89e5-2b48987f2925", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["79. The applicants argued that there were no formal requirements under domestic law for a defendant to plead an argument before the domestic courts. In this respect they referred to Section 171 (2) of the CPA which stated that an argument is admissible at any time during criminal proceedings and in both written and verbal form. Therefore, their oral submissions should be taken into account for the purpose of the rule of ."], "id": "b518c784-0767-4de2-807f-9d9f9634e1ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s complaint of police torture must be rejected for non\u2011 pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, as he had not challenged the decision of 26 January 2001 either before the higher prosecutorial authorities or the courts. Relying on the Court\u2019s judgments in Naumenko v. Ukraine (no. 42023/98, 10 February 2004) and Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 15825/06, 25 October 2007), the Government stated that an appeal to prosecutors and the courts had to be regarded as an effective remedy in the applicant\u2019s situation. In reply to the Court\u2019s question concerning the practice of the domestic authorities dealing with similar complaints of ill-treatment, the Government submitted copies of several decisions concerning two individual complainants issued by the prosecutors and the courts (see paragraphs 61-62 above)."], "id": "884a51fd-3b85-4547-9db1-191cf171fe03", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government made four preliminary objections. They first argued that the complaint was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention because the applicant could not claim to be a victim for the purposes of Article 34. Second, they maintained that he had not complied with the six-month rule laid down in Article 35 \u00a7 1. The third objection concerned his non-compliance with the rule of . Fourth, they submitted that, in any event, the complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention since Article 14 did not apply in the case."], "id": "c6670993-051c-418b-92a1-900342955c63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government went on to stress that the proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case were still pending and that consequently he could have lodged a constitutional complaint in line with the new case-law. Since the latter permitted the Constitutional Court not only to award compensation but also to set a time-limit for the competent court to decide the case, the Government contended that such a complaint was an effective remedy and that the Court should make an exception to the general rule of , according to which an applicant is required to exhaust only the remedies available at the moment of the introduction of an application with the Court."], "id": "5e93c905-3a39-4c7e-a585-e7a4aabc2293", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["111. The Government submitted that the applicants' complaints under Article 5 should be declared inadmissible for non- . They maintained, firstly, that the applicants should have brought administrative proceedings under Article 146 of the Constitution against the Republic, challenging the lawfulness of the decisions to detain and deport them. In such proceedings the applicants could have claimed that the decisions in question had been made in excess or abuse of power and were contrary to the relevant provisions of the Aliens and Immigration Law and incompatible with the Constitution and the Convention. Had the applicants been successful the Supreme Court could have granted them effective declaratory remedies under Article 146 \u00a7 4 of the Constitution and they could have instituted civil proceedings for compensation under Article 146 \u00a7 6 of the Constitution."], "id": "0965845a-bc42-4dc5-bdff-edd6f0c4edba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government raised an objection of non- by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for the complaint that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by being detained in inadequate conditions. The Court thus finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "b12a6399-bc8a-4e84-adbd-baed6e7bf9cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government argued under Article 35 of the Convention that the applicant\u2019s complaint in respect of the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court must be rejected for non- . They maintained that the applicant had not invoked this complaint before the domestic courts. In this respect, they referred to the case-law of the Court (in particular Ahmet Sad\u0131k v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V)."], "id": "4050b401-15b5-4b62-9189-12ab7ef30a93", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government raised an objection of non- . In particular, the applicant had not pursued a civil action for damages against the two police officers based on the general provisions concerning civil damages provided for in Articles 998-999 of the Civil Code, in force at the relevant time. They maintained that, since the criminal courts had left the applicant\u2019s request for damages unresolved, he could have brought a separate action in this respect before the civil courts. They also submitted that the intention to commit a crime was an element required only to establish criminal responsibility, while before the civil courts negligence was enough to establish a person\u2019s civil liability. The Government did not submit examples of relevant domestic case-law in this respect. They further contended that in the case Lazzarini and Ghiacci v. Italy ((dec.), no. 53749/00, 7 November 2002) the Court had held that the applicants had a civil remedy available, which, following the rejection of their criminal complaint, they had failed to pursue."], "id": "2872bfbf-c436-433f-b8bc-94a6ecd048bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["217. The applicants submitted that a claim for damages under section 1 of the 1988 Act was not an effective remedy, citing the reasons they had put forward in their submissions relating to the . They went on to say that the possibility of bringing proceedings under Articles 256 and 257 of the Code of Administrative Procedure 2006 was not an effective remedy either, for several reasons. First, some aspects of the conditions of their detention flowed directly from the prison regime under which they were placed, and were therefore not actionable under those Articles. In this regard they referred to the Court judgment in Sabev (cited above, \u00a7 85). Secondly, neither the 2009 Act nor its implementing regulations laid down clear rules on the treatment of life prisoners. Thirdly, it was unclear which authority would be the proper defendant, and there did not exist an appropriate mechanism for enforcing a mandatory injunction against a public authority. The administrative courts considered that authorities that were second-tier beneficiaries of budget funds \u2013 and the likely defendant to a claim under Articles 256 and 257 was likely to be just such an authority \u2013 could not be fined for failure to comply with an injunction. Moreover, any such injunction would be of limited duration and would not be able to provide the applicants with lasting redress. Lastly, the only two examples cited by the Government were judgments given by first-instance administrative courts. Accordingly, there was no established case-law in that domain."], "id": "1e53f1f1-9d0f-41af-bea5-890b1701b19d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government argued, in the first place, that the complaint was inadmissible for non- as the first and second applicants had not applied for compensation bonds. The Court refers to its detailed reasoning in Velikovi and Others, where it found that at the relevant time the bonds compensation scheme did not secure adequate compensation with any degree of certainty (see Velikovi and Others, cited above, \u00a7 227). Furthermore, the Court has already examined an identical objection in a similar case and has rejected it (see Dimitar and Anka Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria, no. 56753/00, \u00a7 23, 12 February 2009). It does not see a reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case."], "id": "470f9fd2-5406-403f-964a-93712b03949a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government raised an objection of non- . They argued that the applicant had not complained to the investigating prosecutor that he had had difficulties in preparing his defence. They also contended that the applicant had not lodged a complaint with the delegated judge from Gherla Prison on the basis of Article 61 of the Rules of Application of Law no. 275/2006 and Article 1 \u00a7 4 of Order no. 2714/C/2008, as amended, taken in conjunction with Article 38 of Law no. 275/2006."], "id": "6aae69d4-5415-4115-a5d6-a023deffa83b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government raised the objection of non- by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government's objection to the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "d95111fe-aaa2-4e90-8a1b-eefdb123a5a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government raised a preliminary objection of non- , in so far as the applicant had not complained to the domestic authorities under the Prison Sentences (Execution) Act about the conditions of his detention. They argued that the remedy under that Act was effective, having regard to the domestic jurisprudence already sent by them in other previous cases."], "id": "c7b6ba09-f819-4f5c-97ee-34f32708f2ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted that this aspect of the case was inadmissible on the ground of non- . They contended that the applicant could have raised his complaints before the public prosecutor in charge of supervising the general lawfulness of conduct in penal institutions. Any decision taken by the prosecutor could be further challenged before the domestic courts."], "id": "ddabb213-24e9-4030-8fef-289cbe5d50da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["190. The Government maintained that the applicants had not been prevented from entering the town of Lachin or the surrounding villages; in fact, they had never tried to enter these territories since their alleged flight and had not applied to the Armenian authorities or the \u201cNKR\u201d to have any of their rights protected or restored. As mentioned already in regard to the issue of the , Armenia\u2019s position in the Minsk Group negotiations \u2013 that the return of displaced persons can be considered only after a final settlement of the status of the \u201cNKR\u201d has been agreed upon \u2013 referred to displaced persons as a group and did not concern who could obtain entry visas if they had a legitimate reason to enter the \u201cNKR\u201d or Armenia. Travel to the \u201cNKR\u201d involved no danger, as the only open entry point \u2013 the road from Yerevan to Stepanakert \u2013 is situated far away from the Line of Contact. The Government further asserted that the capture of Lachin \u2013 as well as Shusha/Shushi \u2013 was a lawful act of self-defence against war crimes committed by Azerbaijan, in particular military attacks on Stepanakert. It was necessary to create a \u201chumanitarian corridor\u201d to Armenia, as large numbers of people in Nagorno-Karabakh were killed or in danger of starving to death. Reiterating that the Republic of Armenia bore no responsibility for the actions alleged by the applicants, they submitted that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "23330b33-fc0c-423e-a55e-b8ca1c25588f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant, having been informed by the Registrar of the possibility of lodging a complaint about the length of the proceedings under the 2004 Act, has chosen not to avail himself of this remedy. Accordingly, the complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings must be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention for non- ."], "id": "16e1deec-426b-4d0d-97de-b92d4ada0866", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government invited the Court to reject the applicant\u2019s complaint for non- . It maintained that the applicant could have filed another constitutional complaint, after the Constitutional Court had dismissed his first one. Bearing in mind that the Constitutional Court has changed its practice in this respect, so as to comply with the Court\u2019s case-law, the Government claimed that a complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act would have been an effective remedy for the applicant\u2019s length complaint."], "id": "239ae391-8144-4b80-971c-26fd46f066c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible for non- and accordingly to reconsider the Chamber\u2019s decision that an appeal to the Court of Cassation on points of law was not a remedy that had to be exercised. In the Government\u2019s submission, the Court had erred in its decision in Scordino v. Italy ((dec.), no. 36813/97, ECHR 2003\u2011IV) in finding that, as the Court of Cassation had always held that complaints about the amount of compensation related to questions of fact, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower courts, an appeal on points of law was not a remedy that had to be exercised. Admittedly, the Court of Cassation, which examined points of law, could not superimpose its own assessment of questions relating to the merits or the assessment of the facts and evidence on those of the lower courts. It did, however, have the power to find that a decision of the lower courts was inconsistent with the correct interpretation of the law or contained grounds that were illogical or contradictory. In such a case it could set out the applicable legal principle or mark out the broad lines of the correct interpretation and remit the case to the lower court for a fresh assessment of the evidence on the basis of those directions. That submission had, moreover, been confirmed by the four judgments (nos. 1338, 1339, 1340 and 1341) delivered by the plenary Court of Cassation on 26 January 2004 (see paragraphs 24 and 25 above)."], "id": "4cdcb4dd-3992-49d7-880b-a8e6d02cd747", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["144. The applicant company further contended that, given the multiple judicial proceedings it had already initiated seeking to have its rights restored, and noting the authorities\u2019 non-compliance with the final judicial decisions delivered in its favour, it could not have been reasonably expected to initiate any additional proceedings in order to comply with the requirement of the . In its view, it had done everything possible at the domestic level before bringing its complaints to the Court."], "id": "9a6d6a8f-b1f6-4e45-8809-204f1314ee90", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["165. The Government pointed out in their submissions that the investigation was pending at the time of the replies and that the applicants could have appealed its results. In the Government's view, the failure to do so should have resulted in the dismissal of the applications for non- . However, the Court is not persuaded, in the light of the delays and omissions described above, that such appeal would have been able to remedy the defects in the proceedings, even if the applicants had been properly informed of the proceedings and had been involved in it. The applicants must therefore be regarded as having complied with the requirement to exhaust the relevant criminal-law remedies."], "id": "7ffd5505-07ae-4c4c-bb9b-886f8304c1f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government raised objections regarding similar to those which the Court has already dismissed in a number of similar cases concerning the non-enforcement of court judgments (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 16 December 2003, and Voytenko, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 27-31). The Court considers that these objections must be rejected for the same reasons."], "id": "7fdb2b61-d5a0-4e64-9844-12eb8d9df994", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government also argued, in general terms, that the applicant could have exercised his so-called \u201cright to rehabilitation\u201d (see paragraph 21 above). The Court need not decide whether the procedure referred to by the Government constituted on the facts a remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention or for purposes of exhaustion within the meaning of its Article 35 \u00a7 1, since it does not transpire from the case file that the applicant was given a copy of the decision of 20 January 2006. Neither is there any evidence showing that he was apprised of his right to apply for compensation in respect of damage caused by criminal prosecution (compare Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 4459/03, \u00a7 39, 8 March 2007). Furthermore, the Government did not indicate how that would have remedied the complaint currently before the Court in respect of the alleged excessive length of the criminal proceedings (see Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 53321/99, \u00a7\u00a7 59-60, 10 January 2008). The Government produced no copies of domestic court judgments where awards had been made in the proceedings under Articles 133 and 134 of the CCrP providing redress for excessive length of criminal proceedings. Having regard to this, the Court considers that the Government\u2019s argument as to non- in respect of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention must be dismissed."], "id": "9922cabe-e0fa-4911-843b-0603fbb9e741", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government contended that the applicants\u2019 complaints should be declared inadmissible for non- . They submitted that the investigation into their relative\u2019s death was pending. They further stated that the applicants had had an opportunity under Articles 124 and 125 of the CCP to challenge acts and omissions of the investigating authorities before prosecutors or courts but had failed to make use of those procedures. In particular, the Government suggested that the applicants should have appealed against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings issued on 13 June 2004. In that connection they referred to the cases of E., S., I. and D., in which the domestic courts granted the applicants\u2019 complaints and ordered the investigating authorities to secure their access to the materials in the files relating to the investigation into their relatives\u2019 disappearance. The Government also referred to the case of a Ms Kh., where the domestic courts allowed her complaint about the decision to suspend the investigation into the disappearance of her relative and instructed the investigating authority to investigate it thoroughly. The Government omitted to furnish copies of the decisions they referred to."], "id": "50fec976-ee7e-4366-9dce-1020afea2106", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government submitted that the application should be rejected for non- , as although the applicant had raised a claim under Article 11 of the Convention in the EAT it did not press that submission at the oral hearing and accepted that the EAT should proceed to interpret section 174 without reference to Article 11. It was then not able to pursue an appeal against the EAT for ignoring that claim. In particular, the applicant did not require the EAT to apply section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, by seeking to construe the legislation so as to make it compatible with its Convention right. It was only concerned to ensure that it could rely on Mr Lee's various activities as the basis for expelling him; it did not propose any construction of section 174 which would have accorded with its case before this Court, namely that it had an Article 11 right to determine its own membership. They submitted that Article 35 \u00a7 1 was not satisfied where an applicant relied on some other ground for impugning a measure, ignoring a possible Convention argument (Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, \u00a7 38, ECHR 2004\u2011III). They asserted that, if the applicant had pressed its submission that Article 11 entitled it to choose its own membership save where exclusion or expulsion caused loss of livelihood and that submission had been accepted, there was ample scope for a creative interpretation of section 174 which would have given effect to that conclusion, including the possibility of reading in a clause \u201csave as necessary to avoid breach of Convention rights\u201d."], "id": "5756433b-328c-402a-a2b1-1075e6e016d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government argued that the first applicant's complaint was inadmissible for non- . They submitted, firstly, that the first applicant could have brought a civil action for assault in respect of his complaint. In the context of such proceedings he could have complained that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 8 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the Convention and could have sought, in addition to damages, a declaratory judgment that there had been a violation of his constitutional and Convention rights."], "id": "d0294f8f-fdb8-451f-906c-37d2489bb87a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government moreover based their preliminary objection of non- on the fact that the applicant had not filed another motion, against the original police decision, but been contented with challenging the decision on non-competence. However, the Court is not convinced that the proceedings which were pursued by Mr K. but not by the applicant can be considered in the circumstances an effective remedy whose omission falls foul of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Given the instantaneous nature of a political demonstration \u2013 the impact of which may rapidly diminish with the lapse of time from the triggering event \u2013 a judicial procedure, which included several remittals and decisions maintaining the ban and which produced at last a decision to the contrary only after more than four years, can hardly be regarded as effective or adequate and must be attributed a chilling effect on the freedom in question (see, a fortiori, B\u0105czkowski and Others v. Poland, no. 1543/06, \u00a7\u00a7 67 to 73, 3 May 2007). For the Court, the applicant\u2019s omission to pursue this legal avenue in addition to the one utilised cannot be held against him, all the more so, since there appears to be no obstacle to the authorities\u2019 assessing proportionality also in those proceedings, of which the applicant availed himself. The Government\u2019s preliminary objection must therefore fail."], "id": "5ddf9f45-ca40-4e51-89f6-d06052d97276", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government raised a preliminary objection of non- , arguing that the applicant could have lodged a general tort law action under Articles 998 and 999 of the former Romanian Civil Code against Dr I.M. or other persons she considered responsible for the deaths of her daughter and granddaughter. The remedy in question would have been available to the applicant, particularly because it was exempted from judicial tax, and according to the Court\u2019s case-law was adequate, given the circumstances of the case. They also contended that according to the relevant domestic legal doctrine criminal law considered the fault (culpa) a form of guilt only where it met a high level of severity. However, tort liability could be engaged even for the slightest negligence (culpa cea mai u\u015foar\u0103). Therefore, the scope of application of tort liability is wider than that of criminal liability. Consequently, the findings of the domestic authorities excluded only Dr I.M.\u2019s criminal liability, and not his tort liability. They also submitted that, according to the relevant criminal procedure rules, since criminal proceedings against Dr I.M. had never been opened, separate general tort law proceedings would not have been suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings."], "id": "25f1c921-b40c-4c52-88aa-6c1c6b96669d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["160. The Government submitted that these complaints were inadmissible in view of the non- , as the applicants had never aired them before any domestic judicial or other competent authority, including the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Health. As an alternative, assuming there were no effective remedies to exhaust, these complaints had been lodged out of six months of the events complained of. In any event they were manifestly ill-founded. The applicants provided no evidence whatsoever in support of their factual account of events. According to the information available to the Government, the authorities did everything in their power to ensure respectful and proper handling and identification of the remains of the accident victims and there was nothing in their conduct to cause the applicants suffering beyond that, which was unavoidable in their situation."], "id": "cfc83b32-0d2e-4aab-9b31-dcef3ff48fe8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s view. He pointed out that both judgments of the Venice Youth Court had been given in the course of the same set of proceedings. The enforcement proceedings in Austria had started on 22 September 2009 when he had sought the enforcement of the Venice Youth Court\u2019s judgment of 10 July 2009 and were still pending. Consequently, his application lodged on 14 January 2013 had been introduced in good time. The applicant did not comment on the Government\u2019s submissions concerning ."], "id": "a635ea34-391c-4ce0-ac41-816868f31c85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government maintained that the applications were inadmissible for non- or, alternatively, premature. They argued that only the proceedings before the courts administering the commercial register had ended, whilst the others - actions to set aside the general meeting resolutions, actions to determine the value of the compensation, and actions in damages and/or seeking just satisfaction - were still pending or were never brought. They maintained that the law hindering the applicants from seeking a review of lawfulness, i.e. Article 131(3)(c) and Article 220h(3) and (4) of the CC, had not yet been directly examined by the Czech higher courts. The existing case law of the Constitutional Court (decisions nos. IV. \u00daS 720/01, PI. \u00daS 51/03, III. \u00daS 527/04 and III. \u00daS 84/05) consisted of unpublished resolutions whose normative force was \u201cmuch less intensive\u201d than that of that court's judgments. It could not therefore be argued that the relevant domestic case law was so settled as to prevent the applicants from defending their cause in proceedings before domestic courts."], "id": "a2d9b2a5-ffc5-4165-bef8-74dd620711b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government pleaded non- and submitted that a civil action for damages under the Code of Obligations would have given the applicant the possibility of obtaining redress for the detriment complained of before the civil courts, which were not, in principle, bound by the findings of the criminal court as to the defendants\u2019 guilt (see paragraph 52 above)."], "id": "26a19982-5aca-4972-b8d4-8a1cd97233d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["87. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible for non- . They submitted that the investigation into the disappearance of Murad Gelayev had not yet been completed. They further argued that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions of the investigating authorities, but that the applicants had not availed themselves of that remedy. They also argued that it had been open to the applicants to pursue civil claims but that they had failed to do so."], "id": "078a64c4-767e-486b-9b8c-32ebe6b72ae1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant disagreed. In respect of the exhaustion issue he argued that the Government had failed to refer to any domestic case-law demonstrating the effectiveness of challenging the expulsion order considering that he had already been expelled from Estonia. Indeed, during the proceedings before the Strasbourg Court, a first-instance administrative court had dismissed the applicant\u2019s complaint against the expulsion order. As concerns the possibility of reapplying for a residence permit, the applicant noted that the Government had not specified what circumstances had changed in the meantime and argued that since his application had been rejected by the migration authorities and the courts, he was not required to make another similar application in order to comply with the requirement of before applying to the Court."], "id": "66f03ae3-2f08-467a-88fd-8c63cb68688f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant contested this view. In particular, he claimed that he had complained about the unlawful acts committed during the investigation to the Leninsky District Court and the Chernivtsi Regional Court under Articles 234 of the CCRP and 248-3 of the CCP. The relevant decisions were given by these courts on 25 April, 31 May and 2 June 2000. The applicant further stressed that the resolution adopted by the deputy prosecutor of the Chernivtsi Region on 19 September 2000 constituted a final decision for the purpose of . The applicant maintained that there were no effective remedies that he was required to exhaust in order to challenge this resolution. In particular, the applicant stated that he had complained on various occasions to the General Prosecution Service (\u0413\u0435\u043d\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430 \u041f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438) and the Chernivtsi Regional Prosecution Service about the unreasonable length and unlawfulness of the proceedings in his case. The final answer to these complaints was given on 7 December 2001 by the prosecution informing the applicant that the case was still being investigated. "], "id": "8876bd30-15e4-4821-a34f-9640f20fde03", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government can be understood as raising an objection of non- . The Court points out that, in principle, any plea of inadmissibility must be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its observations on the admissibility of the application (Rule 55 of the Rules of Court). However, in the present case the decision on the admissibility of the application was adopted on 15 September 2005; at that time the fact on which the Government's objection was based had not yet occurred. Therefore, the circumstances did not allow the Government to comply with the deadline set forth in Rule 55. The Court will thus examine the Government's objection."], "id": "615e9682-4403-4731-9575-14c598d34584", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicant maintained that he had exhausted domestic remedies. He pointed out that he had lodged two complaints with the Federal Constitutional Court, which the latter had refused to admit. Alternatively, he argued that, in the exceptional circumstances of the present case, his application should not be dismissed for non- . The German courts appeared to be unwilling to expedite the proceedings still pending, and further damage was to be prevented."], "id": "410ee633-505a-49b8-9c82-acfdaa001799", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government, the applicant and the third party further referred to their arguments with respect to the Government's objection as to the . In particular, the third party stated that there were no effective remedies to complain about extradition contrary to Articles 2, 3 or 6 of the Convention. They maintained that the law at issue was not sufficiently accessible and precise, failing to avoid risks of arbitrariness. They referred in contrast to the experiences of Poland and the United Kingdom in this area, where the courts, as opposed to the prosecutor's office rule, on requests for extradition. They stated that the courts in the United Kingdom, acting under the Extradition Act 2003, assessed the following issues in assessing the requests for extradition: (a) the rule against double jeopardy; (b) extraneous considerations (whether a person was in fact extradited for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or whether if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions); (c) passage of time; (d) the person's age; (e) hostage-taking considerations; (f) specialty; (g) the person's earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from different territories; (h) human rights considerations arising from the 1998 Human Rights Act."], "id": "8d89dbac-47b5-4711-9b68-18f8cfc6743f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to observe the requirements of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as regards in that he had failed to challenge the length of the proceedings by means of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, lodged in accordance with the applicable procedural rules and established practice. They contended in particular that the applicant had failed to raise his objection before the Constitutional Court as to the length of the proceedings before the District Court while the latter proceedings were still pending. They considered that the applicant could have done so even after the District Court had decided on the matter but before it had transmitted the case\u2011file to the Regional Court for a determination of the defendant\u2019s appeals. The Government further maintained that, had the applicant formulated his constitutional complaint properly, the Constitutional Court would have examined the total length of the proceedings, that is to say their phases before both the District Court and the Regional Court."], "id": "bec8bb9d-299b-4fc1-b2c9-3e4a7abefc61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government pointed out that the proceedings in the applicant's case were still pending and that consequently he could lodge a constitutional complaint in line with the new case-law. Since the latter permitted the Constitutional Court not only to award compensation but also to set a time-limit for the competent court to decide the case, the Government contended that it was an effective remedy and that the Court should make an exception to the general rule of ."], "id": "50d660a0-7940-45a4-94dd-dec7533d102d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government further argued that the applicant\u2019s detention was authorised under section 254 of the Code of Administrative Violations. It suffices to note in this respect that the measure of administrative detention pursuant to this provision could only be imposed on a person, who had committed an administrative offence (see paragraph 37 above). The Court notes that there is no indication, in the documents submitted by the parties to the Court, that the applicant had committed the administrative offence under section 171 or indeed any other administrative offence. The Government have not sufficiently explained the application of section 254 in practice to the applicant\u2019s situation and have not, accordingly, justified his detention on the basis of the latter provision. Taking into account this conclusion, the Court also rejects the Government\u2019s preliminary objection of non- as the legal grounds for the applicant\u2019s detention and any appeals thereof remain unclear."], "id": "a9797e5a-84ac-4d88-8361-90132df0c7c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["267. The Government referred in essence to their submissions concerning the . They maintained in particular that Azerbaijani law protected both ownership and possession of property and provided adequate procedures which were accessible to citizens and foreigners allowing them to take action before the courts in respect of any loss or damage suffered on the territory of Azerbaijan."], "id": "216a549e-6007-4b4a-8a81-2263182c8190", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government continued by raising an argument of non- . In their view, the following avenues could have provided the applicant with an effective protection of his rights: a complaint to the facility governor, a prosecutor, a court, the Ombudsman, the President of the Russian Federation, the Government, or the Russian Parliament. They drew the Court\u2019s attention to three judgments of Russian courts allowing negligence claims by former inmates. In particular, in 2007, 2009 and 2010 courts in the Yaroslavl, Kaliningrad and Smolensk Regions had awarded damages to three inmates on account of the authorities\u2019 failure to provide them with adequate medical assistance. Relying on a number of the Court\u2019s judgments in cases concerning the alleged failure by detention authorities to render effective medical services to applicants, the Government further submitted that on a number of occasions the Court had already examined and dismissed complaints related to the quality of medical care in detention. They concluded by arguing that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention were manifestly ill-founded."], "id": "66b343ae-ab1f-4a8b-9493-0d4c4dcbf885", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government also contended that the applicants had not complied with the six-month time-limit laid down by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that the six-month rule is closely linked to the rule of , as the six-month period runs from the date of the decision considered as final for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, among other authorities, Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001). Nevertheless, where no adequate remedy is available in domestic law, the six-month period in principle starts to run from the date on which the act complained of took place (see Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, \u00a7 155, ECHR 2005\u2011XI)."], "id": "e3af6975-9bb4-49a1-8ffc-e99b2fd538c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government asked the Court to dismiss this complaint for failure to comply with the requirement of under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They argued that the applicants could have sought reparation for the harm allegedly suffered by instituting an action in the administrative courts. They further maintained that this part of the application was not lodged within the six-month time-limit."], "id": "6d6a89d5-0f49-43cf-8ba6-2a61bd69460f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government confirmed the determination of the Bulgarian authorities to shed light on and prosecute all acts of racist violence, but submitted that the existence of such motivation had not been established in the present case. They reiterated the arguments put forward in the context of the objection as to non- to the effect that the applicant could have brought criminal proceedings for minor injuries or civil proceedings against those responsible."], "id": "90df9b7d-fa86-49a6-a287-437cc2c3519d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government averred that the applicants had failed to comply with the rule in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In this connection they reasoned that the applicants had filed their application without having recourse to the local remedies which were effective, sufficient and accessible to them and capable of providing redress for their complaints within the judicial system of the \u201cTRNC\u201d."], "id": "babf9b03-20e0-408e-a7f9-ddaa777d1c66", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["245. The Government contended that the present complaint should be declared inadmissible for non\u2011 . They argued that a suspect who was under arrest was expected to raise allegations of ill-treatment by the police at the time of his appearance before a judge for a remand hearing. In deciding whether or not, and on what conditions, to issue the remand order, the judge would also take into account, as a material factor, the suspect\u2019s complaint that he had been ill\u2011treated by the police and would, as necessary, give instructions for allegations of ill-treatment to be investigated and the suspect to be medically examined."], "id": "a6d2ef05-8404-40b7-88a6-390ac427bb99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government submitted that the application should be declared inadmissible for non- . They noted that the applicant had failed to appeal against the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision to the Supreme Court in the proceedings relating to the issuance of the writ of execution. Moreover, he had given no reasons for his appeal to the Court of Appeal in those proceedings. The Government observed that when the District Court had examined the appeal, the Tax Authority had not yet granted the respite from payment of the tax debt although that had been granted at the time of the Court of Appeal\u2019s examination of the appeal. However, since the applicant did not inform the appellate court about it, the court was unaware of this fact. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the Court of Appeal might have granted leave to appeal and revoked the decision to issue the writ of execution if it had known about the respite. Had this occurred, the decision to sell the property and the ensuing eviction could also have been revoked in accordance with Chapter 18, section 14, of the Enforcement Code."], "id": "fc826ab9-f16d-4bb7-87d5-31197ec37442", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non- . They submitted that the applicants had failed to appeal against the decision of 18 February 2003 to terminate the criminal proceedings. They argued that it had been open to the applicants to lodge complaints with the courts about any acts or omissions of the investigating authorities, but that the applicants had not availed themselves of that remedy."], "id": "2e941313-7aa2-4570-955a-03a9aec8f91c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government pointed out that the proceedings in the applicant's case were still pending and that consequently he could lodge a constitutional complaint in line with the new case-law. Since the latter permitted the Constitutional Court not only to award compensation but also to set a time-limit for the competent court to decide the case, the Government contended that it was an effective remedy and that the Court should make an exception to the general rule of ."], "id": "5aaf1b9b-e73d-4aa4-8f54-32b4e7cb0d6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government further argued that the applicant had also not appealed to a court against the decision of 27 April 2000 by which the criminal proceedings against the police officers were once again discontinued. In this connection the Court reiterates that the rule of must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. The Court has further recognised that the rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; for the purposes of reviewing whether it has been observed, it is essential to have regard to the circumstances of the individual case. This means, in particular, that the Court must take realistic account not only of the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the Contracting State concerned but also of the general context in which they operate, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicant (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, p. 1211, \u00a7 69, and Aksoy, cited above, p. 2276, \u00a7\u00a7 53-54)."], "id": "49948601-e072-482a-b1d4-a832e15bbf97", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government contended that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect that Visita Shokkarov was dead or that any State servicemen had been involved in his abduction or alleged killing. They contended that the complaint should be declared inadmissible for non\u2011 as the investigation into the abduction of Visita Shokkarov had not yet been completed. They further stated that it had been open to the applicants to lodge court complaints against acts or omissions of the investigating authorities."], "id": "100da814-4eb0-4568-bdd1-f43f5a21aef5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant did not use the formal procedure to challenge the decision of 3 July 2001 before a court as was required by the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 41 above). Instead, he lodged an action against the Ministry of Justice, alleging that the assistant prosecutor had erred in his findings. He sought compensation for damage caused by the alleged ill-treatment and the refusal to punish the perpetrators. In this connection, the Court observes that the rule of must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. The Court has already held on a number of occasions that the rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; for the purposes of reviewing whether it has been observed, it is essential to have regard to the circumstances of the individual case (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, p. 1211, \u00a7 69, and Aksoy, cited above, p. 2276, \u00a7\u00a7 53-54)."], "id": "3cabfbbd-aa8d-4853-b40c-c066f47042e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["122. The Government firstly raised the objection of non- . They argued that the alleged violation consisting of failure to obtain informed consent from a patient was a matter of civil liability under national law and that the applicant had not made use of the civil-law remedies to complain of O.\u2019s involuntary treatment. According to the Government, the remedy of claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage would have been available to the applicant under national law. The Government submitted that although the applicant had submitted her complaints within criminal proceedings, this could not be considered an effective remedy as no elements of a criminal offence had been found with regard to the acts complained of."], "id": "9f1fcdd6-f6d3-4f8c-9c84-f5b15f32ae41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government have raised an objection of non- by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for the complaint that he was being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by being detained in inadequate conditions. The Court thus finds it necessary to join the Government\u2019s objection to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "477c9e45-a32a-4675-8e68-4237a4ca19c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["11. The Government raised objections, contested by the applicant, regarding similar to those already dismissed in a number of the Court's judgments regarding non-enforcement against the State-owned companies (see e.g. among many others, Trykhlib v. Ukraine, no. 58312/00, \u00a7\u00a7 38-43, 20 September 2005 and Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 35091/02 and following, \u00a7\u00a7 38-39, ECHR 2004\u2011XII). The Court considers that these objections must be rejected for the same reasons."], "id": "443f1e02-9b34-40e8-bc5f-7157812cbe5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exhaustion of domestic remedies", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government raised objections as to the applicant\u2019s lack of victim status and non- . They submitted that all the requisite domestic action had been taken by Partidul Verde but not by the applicant. They considered that the latter had not put forward in his own name before the domestic courts the complaint raised before the Court. Under those circumstances the Government argued that Partidul Verde should have applied to the Court rather than the individual candidate."], "id": "d299bd4b-ca8d-48b6-93ee-3e399d95656c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants also complained that the proceedings before Centru District Court and Court of Appeal were excessively long and thus in further violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1. The Court observes that these proceedings lasted little over a month before two courts: this is not unduly lengthy and the complaint must be declared pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention."], "id": "f07587fe-8be8-4fa3-9b5b-39f92d46823c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant further complained that the domestic proceedings were discriminatory in violation of Article 14 of the Convention. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "3faf3c18-2d56-40c0-8ebb-8af80d158409", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["181. The Government further noted that subsequent to the reforms carried out in 2002 and 2004, namely revision of certain provisions of the Civil Code and the adoption of a new Criminal Code, and the entry into force of Law no. 4320, Turkish law provided for sufficient guarantees, meeting international standards, for the protection of women against domestic violence. The Government concluded that this complaint should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies or as being since these allegations had never been brought to the attention of the domestic authorities and, in any event, were devoid of substance."], "id": "181b89df-cba0-474c-bc1c-824a0dab73a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government considered that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in that he had not complained of the length of these proceedings to the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution (see Andr\u00e1\u0161ik and Others, cited above). They pointed out that the proceedings had ended in March 2002 when the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution had already been available to the applicant. The Government also considered that, moreover, and in any event, this part of the application was given the factual complexity of the case, the applicant\u2019s conduct and the fact that the case was closely related to the issue of custody and maintenance which had been dealt with in parallel in another set of proceedings."], "id": "2bdc719c-0e46-4da3-a2ba-ebcc1cc354bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["175. The applicants disagreed with the Government concerning the degree of damage to their homes, relying on photographs that they provided (see paragraph 15 above) and their own statements. They considered a comparison with the Lisnyy and Others case misguided since, unlike in that case, the very fact that their homes had been damaged was not in dispute; it was only the extent of that damage that was in dispute. Moreover, they belonged to a particularly vulnerable group by virtue of their Roma ethnicity and being in a situation tantamount to that of internally displaced persons. Referring in particular to the statements of the thirteenth and sixteenth applicants (see paragraph 14 above), they stated that only \u201csome\u201d of them had sold their houses for \u201ca small amount of money\u201d. They considered that it was for the Government to search the registers and archives for proof of the applicants\u2019 ownership. They furthermore considered the Government\u2019s conclusion (that their complaint was for lack of proof) to have been based on racist stereotypes about the Roma as being rootless."], "id": "e7ced570-9c27-4987-a5b7-4604d2357850", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["110. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the administrative proceedings conducted against them. In view of all the materials in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "1f18838a-2ce5-4cc1-8235-cf2cf7f05c06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["163. The applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 on that account is therefore and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. In view of the fact that the applicant had the opportunity to appoint a lawyer, no separate issues in that regard arise under Article 5 \u00a7 4."], "id": "d0818be9-66d0-438b-9460-dca87552fb40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["160. The Government submitted that these complaints were inadmissible in view of the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the applicants had never aired them before any domestic judicial or other competent authority, including the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Health. As an alternative, assuming there were no effective remedies to exhaust, these complaints had been lodged out of six months of the events complained of. In any event they were . The applicants provided no evidence whatsoever in support of their factual account of events. According to the information available to the Government, the authorities did everything in their power to ensure respectful and proper handling and identification of the remains of the accident victims and there was nothing in their conduct to cause the applicants suffering beyond that, which was unavoidable in their situation."], "id": "d9fd0559-914d-41fb-8a70-536238f535fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had not had an effective remedy available to defend his right to freedom of expression. The Court notes that the applicant was found guilty of defamation as a result of court proceedings instituted against him by V.P. He had been able to appeal against the judgments of the Briceni District Court and the B\u0103l\u0163i Court of Appeal and he had his case examined twice by the Supreme Court of Justice. The applicant did not explain why, in his opinion, such a remedy cannot be considered effective within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. The fact that the applicant is not satisfied with the outcome of the proceedings does not automatically trigger a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court cannot accept the applicant's contention that he had not had an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention. The complaint is therefore within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention."], "id": "181920d7-5bd4-482a-8488-b9e02a4d8917", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government noted that the applicant\u2019s enforcement petition had been rejected due to serious formal shortcomings which had made it unenforceable. In their view the decision to reject the enforcement petition was merely of a procedural nature and did not involve the determination of the applicant\u2019s \u201ccivil rights or obligations\u201d within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Government thus considered that the complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. They admitted that, if this were not the case, the complaint could not be considered ."], "id": "d970b269-7531-4057-b6a5-539c2430a47e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government contested the applicants\u2019 arguments. They first submitted that the administrative confiscation proceedings represented a \u201ccivil\u201d dispute within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. During the examination of that dispute, the domestic courts had given ample opportunity to the first, second and fourth applicants to submit their written and oral arguments. However, only one of them, the second applicant, had availed himself of that opportunity, whilst the remaining applicants had ignored the domestic court\u2019s two summonses. As to the second applicant, his arguments had been duly heard by the domestic courts; as a result of the courts\u2019 thorough examination, some of his property had eventually been removed from the confiscation list. In general, the judicial examination, in which the burden of proof was placed on the respondent applicants by law, had been fair, and the court decisions had been sufficiently reasoned. As to the first applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the Government submitted that the provision in question could not apply to the administrative confiscation proceedings, as the latter had not involved the determination of any criminal charge against the applicant. All in all, the Government concluded that the applicants\u2019 complaints under Articles 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 were ."], "id": "d276a5d9-f4bf-4a6d-aa78-3e9ee37571a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["170. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to comply with the requirements of admissibility, in particular, the observance of the six-month time-limit and exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Government stated that the military prosecutor's office had notified the office of the Government of Chechnya of the decision of 13 March 2002. In view of a difficult security situation prevailing in the region and the lack of information as to the residential addresses of the victims in the criminal case, such action constituted due notification. The applicants eventually appealed that decision and on 6 March 2006 the Grozny Military Garrison Court found in their favour. The applicants were also informed of the second decision to terminate the investigation made on 14 June 2007, which they had failed to appeal. The Government further submitted that the applicants could have sought compensation for their non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage through a court in civil proceedings. Finally, they asked the Court to declare the application ."], "id": "16007226-ea1f-4711-b04f-dcb37eb1b3dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government argued that the application was . In his application the applicant had complained merely that the imposition and extension of the TBS order were in themselves unlawful. That, however, was a matter within the reserved domain of the domestic courts. The TBS order had been imposed by the Regional Court, confirmed by the Court of Appeal and left intact by the Supreme Court; for the applicant to argue that it was unlawful was to approach the Court as a \u201ccourt of fourth instance\u201d."], "id": "1b7d124c-bec3-43d5-ac27-aa644b631429", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant also lodged complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention regarding her involuntary psychiatric examination. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints are and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention."], "id": "75f229b2-8cc5-44b1-b79a-7c0b62222a7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["162. The Government contested the applicants\u2019 contentions, maintaining that the complaints were because the impugned remedy \u2013 a complaint under the 2004 Act \u2013 was effective for the purposes of Article 13 and capable of providing the applicants with the required redress. In any event, in their view there had been no violation of Article 13 in the present case."], "id": "56553172-16f3-4309-8716-9aca156dd424", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["115. The Government pointed out that the \u201cphysical damage caused to the applicant\u2019s health\u201d had been reimbursed by performing surgery on him. He was also awarded compensation of 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB) by the Ivanovo Regional Court. As to the non-pecuniary damage, the Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s claim was . In any event, a finding of a violation would constitute sufficient redress."], "id": "f4e6e0e4-ad58-4ac7-b76b-df5e14d1d8a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government argued that the complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 was inadmissible on several grounds. Firstly, the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as he had not claimed compensation for his detention under the State Liability Act 2003. Secondly, the application was , as the guarantees of Article 5 \u00a7 1 had been complied with. Thirdly, and in any event, given the redress which the applicant obtained in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, he could no longer be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention."], "id": "ac1f50f0-5197-49d9-8114-1796af72422b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government put forward two lines of argument, insisting that the applicant had had a choice of effective remedies before him but had not exhausted them and, at the same time, arguing that both the treatment provided to the applicant during the entire period of his detention and the conditions of his detention in colony no. 8 had corresponded to the highest standards. As to the first argument, the Government stressed that the applicant had not complained to a court that he was not receiving adequate medical assistance and that the conditions of his detention were unsatisfactory. The procedure for making claims before a court was established in Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as clarified by the Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling no. 2 of 10 February 2009. Having relied on two cases examined by the Russian courts and the Court\u2019s findings in the case of Popov and Vorobyev v. Russia (no. 1606/02, 23 April 2009), they submitted that it had also been open to the applicant to lodge a tort action claiming compensation for damage caused by the allegedly inadequate medical assistance and poor conditions of his detention. Relying on Resolution no. CM/ResDH(2010)35 adopted at the 1078th Meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Government further noted that statistics and a number of cases presented to the Committee had demonstrated the developing practice of the Russian courts in awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by unsatisfactory conditions of detention. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the applicant\u2019s failure to apply to a Russian court with a complaint had to be interpreted by the Court as his unwillingness to comply with the admissibility requirements set out by Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention. The Government stressed that his complaints under Article 3 should therefore be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies and the complaints under Article 13 were obviously ."], "id": "ca4e3839-75f3-4d6b-a1ba-77c0199ade5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government contested the applicant's argument. They claimed that the presumption of innocence had not been breached in the applicant's criminal case. The information disseminated by the investigator on the TV show could not be considered libellous because the applicant had been convicted by a final judgment for the acts described by the investigator. By the time that the show had been broadcast, a bill of indictment had been drawn up in respect of the applicant, charging him with the crimes referred to by the investigator, which could not be done until sufficient evidence of the applicant's guilt had been collected. The investigator had had a right to disseminate information about the course of the investigation as he had seen fit. The final judgment of 4 February 2004 established that the investigator had only disseminated that part of the information about the investigation that he had been entitled to disseminate. In sum, they concluded that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention was ."], "id": "f418e1df-c6d2-4c86-abc1-bae3447e76fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["101. The applicants also maintained that it had not been an obligation to exhaust remedies by making claims which would have been . Referring to the Supreme Court minority\u2019s opinion the applicants argued that a claim for a retrial would have been ill-founded as there had not been any legal provision to allow remand of this aspect of the District Court\u2019s judgment back to the first instance for a new process. They further argued that a retrial at this point would also been meaningless as the deadlines to impose fines on them at first instance under Sections 223 and 224 of the Act had expired."], "id": "0db2f6da-e83d-437d-b75a-d3a4ea351789", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government raised no objection as to the admissibility of this complaint. The Court notes that the applicant\u2019s complaint in respect of the proceedings instituted against the Komsomolska Pravda newspaper is not within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible."], "id": "3ac2bfc6-a163-49cd-bd07-621149db6458", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government further submitted that the complaint regarding secondary strike action should be rejected as . They considered that there had been no violation of, or even interference with, the applicant union\u2019s right of freedom of association since Article 11 did not confer any right to take secondary action. Instead, it was plain from the very wording of that provision that it contemplated collective action by workers to protect their own interests. Sympathy strikes, which were no more than a show of solidarity with another group of workers, lacked the requisite nexus between collective action and the direct interests of the persons taking part in it. It did not appear from the facts adduced that the situation of the RMT members employed by Hydrex had any real bearing on the situation of their union colleagues employed by Jarvis. Had any similar threat to the latter\u2019s interests materialised, it would have been open to them to take strike action, just as the Hydrex members had done."], "id": "b7cfca9d-a78d-47e3-9d4c-c9747b6890ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government further considered that the complaint was , given the limited character of the prohibition and its limited impact on the applicant company\u2019s activities. It was only the fishing of mussel seed that had been affected, and only for a brief period of time while the State negotiated with the Commission. Other aspects of the applicant company\u2019s business \u2013 growing transplanted mussels and harvesting them at maturity \u2013 had not been interrupted. There had been no impact on the applicant company\u2019s boat licence and boat registration, meaning that it would have been able to gather mussel seed at other locations. It had also had the option of purchasing the raw material it required from other operators. The real cause of the applicant\u2019s loss in 2008 was not the closure of the harbour, but the action of predators, a natural risk that was always present."], "id": "18a41c0d-253b-4955-9ba2-6485f04ce0fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["13. The Government contended that the complaint is inadmissible on three grounds. They claimed, first, that the applicant is not a \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because, in consequence of his reliance on the provision before the Court of Appeal, he obtained a substantial reduction in his sentence. Secondly, they contended that even if he is a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article 34, he has failed to exhaust domestic remedies because it was open to him to bring a civil action under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Human Rights Act in respect of the delay of the hearing of his appeal, but he did not do so. The applicant does not comment on these pleas. Finally, as noted above, they contended that the complaint is ."], "id": "2ff48432-e39b-4b6a-aada-b59a82571950", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained about a violation of Article 4 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, referring to the fact that he was forced to work without receiving remuneration. The Court notes that the applicant performed his work voluntarily and his entitlement to payment has never been denied. The dispute thus involves civil rights and obligations, but does not disclose any element of slavery or forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of this provision (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 26 November 2002). In these circumstances, the Court considers that this part of the application must be rejected as being pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "c9cdacd3-0fca-44fd-828c-5217a086e34d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government argued that this complaint was . Under Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detention on remand remained in force during the trial. As soon as the prosecution had passed the case to the court, the applicant was \u201cassigned\u201d to the court (\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0447\u0438\u0441\u043b\u0435\u043d \u0437\u0430 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u043e\u043c). In such circumstances the District Court had, under Article 227 \u00a7 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, fourteen days for deciding on the applicant\u2019s detention. Hence, the effect of the Basmanniy District Court\u2019s decision of 26 December 2003 lasted until 6 April 2004."], "id": "fecc34c8-aafb-4e42-a862-ed84958c3c83", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government continued by raising an argument of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In their view, the following avenues could have provided the applicant with an effective protection of his rights: a complaint to the facility governor, a prosecutor, a court, the Ombudsman, the President of the Russian Federation, the Government, or the Russian Parliament. They drew the Court\u2019s attention to three judgments of Russian courts allowing negligence claims by former inmates. In particular, in 2007, 2009 and 2010 courts in the Yaroslavl, Kaliningrad and Smolensk Regions had awarded damages to three inmates on account of the authorities\u2019 failure to provide them with adequate medical assistance. Relying on a number of the Court\u2019s judgments in cases concerning the alleged failure by detention authorities to render effective medical services to applicants, the Government further submitted that on a number of occasions the Court had already examined and dismissed complaints related to the quality of medical care in detention. They concluded by arguing that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention were ."], "id": "6fa9ca17-b73d-44f1-abf5-cd4570b1c841", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicants raised serious issues regarding the lack of independence, impartiality, and inadequacy of the investigation into the suspect death of V.P. The Court is not convinced by the Government\u2019s assertion that these alleged shortcomings would amount to the degree of \u201carbitrariness\u201d within the meaning of the Constitutional Court\u2019s case-law. Indeed, the arguments similar to those raised by the applicants in the instant case were submitted to the Constitutional Court only on one occasion (see paragraph 62 above). In that case, the Constitutional Court, despite the applicant\u2019s exhaustive complaint as to the independence of the Supervision Department, omitted to discuss that issue in its reasoning and rejected the complaint as . The Government, for their part, did not put forward any submissions that would contest this conclusion. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that the Constitutional Court was likely to reach a different opinion on those issues in any proceedings which might have been initiated by the applicants. Moreover, even if the Government\u2019s assertions were correct, the Court cannot see how the intervention of the Constitutional Court could have had any impact on the outcome of the investigations. Indeed, the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the investigation is of a structural nature. Thus, even if the Constitutional Court had adopted a different approach in the instant case and had found that the decisions to discontinue the investigation were arbitrary, as the Government suggest, it would not have been capable to remedy the applicants\u2019 situation."], "id": "614c11b4-7e42-40b5-8eba-f298d4fb7781", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government held that the complaint was and therefore inadmissible. In particular, the impugned decisions did not disclose bias as they were in accordance with the constant case-law of the Federal Social Court and the Federal Constitutional Court. By his unsubstantiated allegation concerning the judges' partiality, the applicant merely aimed at correcting the outcome of the impugned proceedings. If he had actually doubted the judges' impartiality, he would have lodged a motion for bias or requested the reopening of the proceedings on that account. In any event, he had accordingly failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in this respect."], "id": "426434e2-4848-4805-aa42-7918b5a37567", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant also complained of other violations of the Convention. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that they are and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "040599ab-3b20-47df-87e9-e587a88d8cbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government submitted that the applicant had not appealed against his allegedly unlawful arrest and detention to a court. Therefore, he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. If, however, the Court were to dismiss that objection, his complaint would still be inadmissible, being . The Government constructed their arguments along two general lines. Firstly, they submitted that the police officers had rightfully arrested the applicant because he had refused to disclose his identity. The officers had acted in response to phone message no. 12316, which contained information on wanted criminals who looked similar to the applicant and his brother. Relying on section 11 of the Police Act, the Government stressed that police officers were entitled to check persons\u2019 identity documents if there were sufficient grounds to suspect them of having committed a criminal or administrative offence. In their second line of argument, the Government stated that the applicant had been arrested because, by using offensive language in public, he had committed a minor disorderly act, that is to say, an administrative offence. Hence, by virtue of section 242 of the Administrative Code, he could be detained until his case was to be examined by a judge or a high-ranking police officer. The Government concluded that the applicant\u2019s rights as guaranteed by Article 5 of the Convention had therefore not been violated."], "id": "5120d30f-b002-4afa-b79c-3cceb78eca92", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant further complained about a violation of Article 4 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, referring to the fact that he was forced to work without receiving remuneration. The Court notes that the applicant performed his work voluntarily and his entitlement to payment has never been denied. The dispute thus involves civil rights and obligations, but does not disclose any element of slavery or forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of this provision (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), cited above). In these circumstances, the Court considers that this part of the application must be rejected as being pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "4c83cade-3479-4dfb-88a1-d2b66e463f47", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicants disagreed with the Government and argued that under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in force at the material time, the offence allegedly committed by the four police officers was within the category of offences which did not require an express complaint from the victim in order to trigger a criminal investigation by the Prosecutor\u2019s Office. In any event, the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants had intended to intervene as victims after the formal initiation of criminal proceedings. However, they had not been able to do so because the Prosecutor\u2019s Office had refused to initiate criminal proceedings and dismissed the complaints as after a superficial preliminary investigation."], "id": "2f1ac796-b94e-43a7-9f82-a41f68f65e36", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government submitted that the proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case had been conducted fairly and that the applicant had enjoyed all procedural guarantees under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicant had been represented and his case heard at two instances before Medical Courts which had been independent and impartial. As regards the personal impartiality of the members of the Medical Courts, the Government argued that they had been impartial and that there was no proof to the contrary. Although the applicant had attempted to challenge the members of the Medical Court, this challenge had not included any specific complaint or evidence pointing to a lack of impartiality; it had thus been dismissed as . The Government, referring to the Albert and Le Compte case (cited above), submitted that it had been necessary for the members of the Medical Courts to have expertise in medicine. They had been independent in exercising their functions and had followed the law and the Code of Ethics. Moreover, one judge sitting in the Supreme Medical Court had been appointed by the Supreme Court. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "575baeb3-4805-49f7-8598-f694b4bd2ed1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["193. The applicant relied on Article 4 of the Convention, claiming that she had been subjected to forced labour during her imprisonment after the conviction. The Court observes that the applicant's situation is clearly justified under Article 4 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention, and therefore this complaint is and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "9e28fe37-3aaf-4d53-b5a9-0b54b5487fd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government invited the Court to find this part of the application . They contended that the applicant had at her disposal options to submit a request to the President of the Zagreb Municipal Court or the Ministry of Justice to speed up the proceedings and a request pursuant to section 59(4) of the Constitutional Court Act. In the Government\u2019s view these options constituted effective remedies in respect of the length of the proceedings in the applicant\u2019s cases."], "id": "2dcb3348-6ed5-4fce-82c4-0d5208fe197a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicants referred to certain injuries and cigarette burns on the body of Ms Aleksandrovich which, in their view, constituted irrefutable evidence that she had been ill-treated in police custody with a view to extracting a confession. However, the medical experts who examined Ms Aleksandrovich\u2019s body after her death made no mention of cigarette burns or of any injuries that could not have been caused by her lethal fall (see the medical reports of 10 June 2002 and 12 March 2004). The applicants did not corroborate their claims with written statements by any witnesses who may have seen those burns or injuries. Likewise, their claim that the medicine she had been given could have had a detrimental impact on her well-being appears to be conjecture without a solid basis in fact. In these circumstances, the Court is unable to detect any evidence of the alleged ill-treatment and considers that this complaint is and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "9a10e259-3bb2-4bed-9b3f-eadcec7e725b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant also complained under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by policemen and that the domestic courts had erroneously assessed the evidence in his criminal case. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, those complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, the Court rejects them as , pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "b475997a-b392-48dd-9fe7-21f6b325b67f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government recalled that the decision on the claim of the applicant\u2019s son had become final on 30 January 2002 and argued that the applicant could have sought redress by means of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution enacted with effect from 1 January 2002. They relied on the relevant practice of the Constitutional Court. In their view, the application was in any event ."], "id": "c4bf088b-6ddd-4776-88ce-80bc79637fe1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant also relied on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention with respect to the enforcement proceedings. The Article 8 complaint was based on the applicant\u2019s allegation that the judgment debt could have been used by him to ensure better treatment for his son, who had been suffering from leukaemia and had subsequently died, in March 2003. The Court notes that the applicant did not raise these complaints before the domestic courts. In any event, his allegations are unsubstantiated and do not lay a basis for an arguable claim of a breach of this provision. It follows that this part of the application is too and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "daf19570-d855-4527-9751-105588a6cab9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["112. The Government further submitted that the applicants\u2019 procedural complaint, insofar as it related to the independence of the investigation, had been . Notably, the investigation had been carried out under the supervision of the General Prosecutor\u2019s Office by a team of the investigators belonging to various entities. It resulted in the indictment of ten military servicemen, including five officers of General rank. Even following acquittals of some of the defendants by the court, the prosecution chose to appeal and to maintain the charges until the end of the proceedings. It was therefore not possible to discern either an objective or a subjective appearance of lack of independence or impartiality on the part of the investigative authorities."], "id": "ec7e35c4-644a-46a5-8c8f-cb269735d5e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["153. The applicant also complained of a violation of Article 14 taken with Articles 5 and 6. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court\u2019s jurisdiction, it finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that these complaints must be rejected as being , pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "32a35076-5a46-4cbf-a92c-35f2d40ef65e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["213. The Government reiterated that, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case\u2011law, the obligation deriving from the procedural limb of Article 2 was one of means and not of result. In this regard, if some doubts had persisted concerning the events surrounding the applicant\u2019s husband\u2019s death, this was simply because there were always situations in which medical science was unable to predict, diagnose or explain. However, this was not in any way attributable to a lack of effort on the part of the domestic authorities. The Government therefore considered that the procedural obligations deriving from Article 2 of the Convention had been fulfilled in the present case. Accordingly, they called for the application to be rejected as inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, on the ground that it was ."], "id": "b3556ab6-788c-4ebe-baed-6b6830a0a7d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["177. The Government argued firstly that the appointment of a guardian did not involve a determination of the applicant\u2019s civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against her. It followed that Article 6 was not applicable under that head. Were the Court to take a different view on the matter, the applicant\u2019s complaint that she had not had an opportunity to be heard in person on the need for the appointment of a guardian was, nevertheless, , for the reasons set out below."], "id": "2f5c6f18-565c-4a68-b70f-6614dc288815", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["112. The applicant owed a significant amount in taxes, as established by final judicial decisions which had entered into force prior to the impugned events. The applicant\u2019s complaint that those decisions were arbitrary was rejected by the former Commission as being (see partial decision of 12 April 1996 in application no. 28411/95). While it appears that there was certain ambiguity as to whether the Passport Law or the relevant legislation on the residence of foreigners applied in respect of the travel ban imposed on the applicant (who had double citizenship until 2004), the Bulgarian courts examined in detail her arguments and dismissed them in reasoned decisions (see paragraphs 20-24 above). On the basis of the material before it, the Court is satisfied that the prohibition against the applicant leaving Bulgaria had legal basis in Bulgarian law."], "id": "cfee8fa4-1ccc-4a89-95b3-98d909bb7449", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that because of his unlawful conviction, he had been obliged to pay an administrative fine and compensation to the victim. The Court cannot speculate on the outcome of the proceedings had the applicant\u2019s case been examined in full compliance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. For these reasons, this part of the application should be dismissed as within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention."], "id": "e3d341cd-9b88-4da7-bd6d-e46426e2fefe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government maintained that the guarantees of Article 5 \u00a7 4 do not extend to proceedings before the Constitutional Court. Those proceedings were governed by different legal provisions from the proceedings before criminal courts. They were separate from and independent of proceedings before criminal courts and were of a specific nature, as they concerned alleged breaches of the applicant\u2019s fundamental rights and freedoms. A complaint to the Constitutional Court could not be regarded as an ordinary remedy against criminal courts\u2019 decisions related to the applicant\u2019s detention. In any event, the Government considered this complaint to be ."], "id": "5a84e3d6-0888-4a3d-9a17-d118845cd0de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government admitted that the complaint about the length of the execution proceedings was not . They considered, however, that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings by insisting that the execution be carried out despite the fact that the debtor had had no property and by refusing to pay an advance on the costs of the execution."], "id": "6e416851-8cf3-4b4d-a1b5-d6bb0dcd5e24", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government\u2019s main submission was that the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in that Article 2 did not apply to the unborn child. They further submitted that the applicant had had a legal remedy capable of redressing her complaint, namely an action for damages against the hospital in the administrative courts. Accordingly, she had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In the alternative, they considered that the application should be rejected as being ."], "id": "95938e4e-0193-4430-8a64-5e7167bdea8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s complaint relating to the conditions of his detention on the premises of the Cluj police station and in Gherla and Rahova Prisons should be dismissed as . In this connection they pointed out that the applicant had benefitted from personal space in accordance with the CPT\u2019s requirements of 4 sq m per person. Moreover, he had benefitted from special status as a vulnerable person. They acknowledged that just for one day, on 12/13 January 2012, the applicant had shared his cell with seven other detainees, but insisted that that situation had remained an isolated problem."], "id": "1fd3bd9c-901b-4b0d-b1f5-3691f6f384a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["116. The Government further submitted that the applicants\u2019 procedural complaint, insofar as it related to the independence of the investigation, had been . Notably, the investigation had been carried out under the supervision of the General Prosecutor\u2019s Office by a team of the investigators belonging to various entities. It resulted in the indictment of ten military servicemen, including five officers of General rank. Even following acquittals of some of the defendants by the court, the prosecution chose to appeal and to maintain the charges until the end of the proceedings. It was therefore not possible to discern either an objective or a subjective appearance of lack of independence or impartiality on the part of the investigative authorities."], "id": "854f372f-0e38-4e33-bc02-a168b736ed2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained about a violation of Article 4 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, referring to the fact that he had been forced to work without receiving remuneration. The Court notes that the applicant performed his work voluntarily and his entitlement to payment has never been denied. The dispute thus involves civil rights and obligations, but does not disclose any element of slavery or forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of this provision (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 29439/02, 26 November 2002). In these circumstances, the Court considers that this part of the application must be rejected as being pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "dc9a30d5-64ae-488b-b5b7-3c055b6b2cd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention of the length of the second set of proceedings. The Court notes however that this case has been pending for three years and one month, the pre-trial investigation having taken up nearly two years of the total period (paragraphs 25-28 above). In view of the complexity of the case and the absence of any significant delay which may be attributed to the authorities, the Court considers that the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement has not been exceeded to date. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "469f66fe-74d2-4396-9d8b-17fc30ab87a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s claim was inadmissible because he had not exhausted the domestic remedies; specifically, he had not complained about the alleged ill-treatment to prosecutors. Alternatively, the Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaint was , in that he had failed to submit coherent and detailed proof of his ill-treatment to any domestic authorities or to the Court."], "id": "557379bf-d587-4b40-b41e-1980f10be384", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant next complained about a violation of Article 4 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, referring to the fact that he was forced to work without receiving remuneration. The Court notes that the applicant performed his work voluntarily and his entitlement to payment has never been denied. The dispute thus involves civil rights and obligations, but does not disclose any element of slavery or forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of this provision (see Sokur v. Ukraine (dec.), cited above). In these circumstances, the Court considers that this part of the application must be rejected as being pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "e57497db-3af1-4e3b-b223-cc7242422671", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant submitted various other complaints under Articles 3, 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (c), and 13 of the Convention. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "918729f0-e81e-4065-8cfd-6f102d1eee7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant also complained under Article 10 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings. The Court observes in this connection that the impugned statement was not made by the applicant but by his political opponent. It follows that \u2013 the applicant\u2019s own freedom of speech not having been at stake \u2013 the facts of the case do not give rise to any issue under Article 10 from the applicant\u2019s perspective. This complaint is therefore within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "9a2a100b-2b0e-4b22-907e-6a98cd854338", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government argued that the remainder of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (that is, his complaint in respect of the period from 14 January 2008 to 14 September 2009) was . However, the Court is satisfied that the complaint raises complex issues of fact and law, such that it cannot be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible."], "id": "01da55b1-40fa-4f45-a0cc-6873d457d09b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["124. The applicants argued that a constitutional appeal was an ineffective remedy and submitted one case in which a decision concerning an interim custody and contact order was challenged. The constitutional appeal was in this case rejected as (decision number Up-498/08, 15 April 2008). In another case referred to by the applicants the constitutional court dismissed on procedural grounds a constitutional appeal concerning alleged inactivity of the court in proceedings concerning enforcement of an interim contact order. The Constitutional Court found that no constitutional appeal lay against a conduct or omissions, such as a court's inactivity, but only against legal acts issued by public authorities (decision number Up-1044/05, 21 December 2005)."], "id": "028d3f8f-e002-4f83-a62a-012bd458dfd1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government further argued that the complaints were : in their view, the periods of time from receipt of the necessary documents by the competent authorities to the effective payment of judicial awards had ranged between thirteen days and nine months and were thus reasonable in the light of the Court\u2019s case-law. The Government blamed the applicant for having repeatedly withdrawn the writ of execution concerning the judgment of 17 April 2003 and consecutively sent it to different authorities. The judgment of 4 December 2003 was enforced only six months after its rectification on 9 March 2006. Finally, the judgment of 24 March 2006 was enforced in two steps: on 2 November 2006 in its major part and on 17 August 2007 for the remainder, namely only nine months after the partial execution."], "id": "3612e337-fe63-4836-a798-be0e8a2b896c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government objected that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as he had not formally requested, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitutional Court Act, that the Constitutional Court determine whether or not there had been a violation of Article 8 as a result of the length of the proceedings in issue. The applicant could have requested that the District Court issue an injunction pending the determination of his claim. There was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention which, in any event, was ."], "id": "057e577a-4d1b-481e-8397-8d2371330b3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government submitted that the application should be dismissed as for the applicant\u2019s failure to exhaust domestic remedies and comply with the six-month time-limit. In particular, they pointed out that on 23 September 2008 the Karabulak District Court rejected the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the failure of the Karabulak investigating department to initiate an investigation into his nephew\u2019s killing, and that the applicant, who had been duly informed of that decision, failed to either appeal against it or bring his complaint to the Court within six months of that date. The applicant\u2019s assertion that he was not informed of the decision of 23 September 2008 was based solely on his lawyer\u2019s statement to that effect. In any event, after having been informed of the decision to terminate proceedings in criminal case. 27520028 of 2 November 2007 or at the latest of the decision of 23 September 2008, the applicant should not have waited until 30 May 2009 to lodge his application with the Court."], "id": "80aa35c2-dcea-4c81-bda6-5b14df6f11d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government maintained that Bosnia and Herzegovina could not be held responsible for the conduct of the High Representative (they relied on Beri\u0107 and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), nos. 36357/04 et al., ECHR 2007\u2011XII). They therefore invited the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible as being incompatible ratione personae. Even if the Court had jurisdiction ratione personae to deal with this complaint, the Government submitted that it was . The Convention did not require that judges be appointed for their lifetime, as illustrated by Sramek v. Austria, 22 October 1984, Series A no. 84, in which the Court regarded appointment for a renewable period of three years as sufficient. Moreover, the international members of the State Court had been appointed as judges in their countries of origin by independent bodies and had been seconded to the State Court as a means of international assistance to war-torn Bosnia and Herzegovina."], "id": "8b21abf3-0f0b-484f-bd03-331a101d86c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government contested the applicant's argument. In their view, the applicant's complaints were . First, the Government stressed that in April 2005 the applicant had received the flat in accordance with the judgment of 28 November 2001. Therefore, the judgment in his favour had been fully enforced. As to the delay in enforcing it, the Government pointed out that this had been explained by the need to provide housing for various groups of socially disadvantaged people, including other victims of the Chernobyl catastrophe. The Government argued that on two occasions the authorities had offered the applicant housing which he had not accepted."], "id": "aedfe0ba-2129-4bd8-b3a6-f365a170c5c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government raised an objection arguing that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. The Court considers that the question whether the requirement that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case is closely linked to the complaint concerning the existence of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. It therefore considers that this objection raised by the Government under Article 3 of the Convention should be joined to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It further notes that this part of the applications is not within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible."], "id": "7da5e890-ee6b-400d-bd2a-b471d9623bd3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant further relied on Article 14 of the Convention (the prohibition on discrimination) without any further reasoning. The Court finds no indication whatsoever in the case-file which might disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision. The Court, therefore, rejects this part of the application, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention, as being ."], "id": "43a42625-42ab-4915-b705-a301d1dc94d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government contested the applicant's arguments. They indicate that he failed to follow the procedures provided for the enforcement of court decisions against the State. In particular, the applicant failed to send to the competent authority \u2013 the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation - certain documents, required by Decree no. 666 of 9 September 2002 (see the \u201cRelevant domestic law\u201d above). Therefore, the delay in execution of a judgment was the applicant's fault. The Government further alleged that \u201ctaking into account that Mr. A. E. Shvedov [the applicant] has not received the money due to him, in connection with his death, ... the heirs of the departed, in particular, Mr. A. A. Shvedov [the second applicant] can address for execution of the judicial decision by way of submitting the relevant documents to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation\u201d. The Government concluded that the complaint about the non-enforcement of the court decision was ."], "id": "c7801a47-aad2-4834-b306-56df41a99b35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["87. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s complaint was , being linked to the manifestly ill-founded complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. In any event, it had been open to the applicant to lodge a tort action with the Yakutsk Town Court and he had explored that avenue. The fact that the applicant\u2019s action had been unsuccessful did not strip that avenue of its effectiveness."], "id": "9376f968-4451-4ac9-b0af-8c946fd8f54c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government next observed that that there were two sets of proceedings in the applicant's case: contentious and administrative proceedings. As to the contentious proceedings, they ended on 29 November 1999, more than six months before the application was lodged with the Court. As to the second set of proceedings, the Government considered that their length did not exceed a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, because it amounted to one year and four months. They considered therefore that these complaints should be rejected as being ."], "id": "1e145331-49a5-4899-b6d4-c1651930d65a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant also referred to Article 17 of the Convention (the prohibition of an abuse of rights) without any reasoning. The Court finds no indication whatsoever in the case file which might disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision. The Court, therefore, rejects this part of the application, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention, as being ."], "id": "ae8a0fcf-c65a-412c-8784-6655b746a74e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government submitted that the Court should reconsider its admissibility decision arguing that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that she was no longer a victim of a violation of the Convention, that her application was out of time and, finally, that her complaints were . The applicant rejected these submissions relying, inter alia, on the Chamber\u2019s unanimous admissibility decision."], "id": "90156c09-96d3-44b7-8aa1-bcf2e70c53fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["210. The Government contested these arguments by disputing the admissibility of these complaints on three grounds. They argued that the applicant bank could not claim to be a victim of a breach of positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that it had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, and that in any event the bank\u2019s complaints were ."], "id": "3efa4e09-b160-4156-817f-b3c78775a73f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["174. The Government also submitted that the applicants had failed to substantiate their arguments. In this context they referred to the Court\u2019s decision in Lisnyy and Others v. Ukraine and Russia ((dec.), nos. 5355/15, 44913/15 and 50853/15, 5 July 2016). The Government argued that the applicants\u2019 explanation that they had supposedly lost their title documents owing to the attack on their homes was not convincing since (i) the applicants had been warned ahead of time of the attack, (ii) some houses had been sold (so it follows that the owners did have the relevant title documents), (iii) copies of title documents could be obtained from State registries and archives, and (iv) in their civil claims lodged in the criminal case some applicants claimed very specific amounts (suggesting that they must have had some documents on which to base those claims). Accordingly, the Government considered that the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was ."], "id": "5948afde-203f-4db6-ab23-e390b899540e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government argued that the reasons given in the above two judgments were similar to the reasons put forward in the decisions refusing the applicant\u2019s request to institute the so-called \u201cauto-lustration\u201d proceedings. They recalled that it was the national authorities that were charged with interpreting the internal law of a Contracting Party. The application to institute the \u201cauto-lustration\u201d proceedings was examined by two courts with full jurisdiction to assess the relevant facts and law. The applicant did not produce any evidence indicating that the relevant courts\u2019 decisions had been arbitrary. In consequence, the Government maintained that the applicant\u2019s complaint was and that the applicant had failed to substantiate her complaint of a breach of Article 8 \u00a7 1."], "id": "89a6378e-1f61-4630-9154-b038b79bca88", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["10. The applicant complained that the introduction of the 2001 Law, barring debt retrieval from State-owned enterprises, violated Article 17 of the Convention. The Court finds no evidence whatsoever in the case-file which might disclose any appearance of a breach of this provision. The Court, therefore, rejects this part of the application, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention, as being ."], "id": "a8ca2479-c748-4853-829b-e84540cc40ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government submited that the relocation of the courts from the non-controlled territory had not been discriminatory and was not aimed at restricting the rights of those who lived on those territories. On the contrary, the aim of the relocation had been to ensure the compliance of rights guaranteed by law for those who lived in the zone of the ongoing hostilities. Given the above, the Government stated that the above complaints should be rejected as ."], "id": "96c9c53d-4cc7-43f1-a4a9-416c1955b32f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government therefore concluded that the work the applicant had been required to perform was appropriate to his age and that the requirement to work was proportionate. Echoing the reasoning of the Federal Court (see paragraph 14 above), they submitted that a voluntary occupation would not achieve the desired objectives. Accordingly, the work the applicant had been required to perform came within the scope of Article 4 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and did not constitute forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 4 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In the Government\u2019s submission, therefore, the complaint alleging a violation of Article 4 was ."], "id": "6d5046f6-1bfb-4a8d-9071-2a42aee23b6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention because he had not sought judicial review of the decision to determine his whereabouts and the decision to bring him before the investigator (see paragraphs 18 and 35 above). The Court does not need to address this argument. Given the short duration of the deprivations of liberty on 25 January and 25 December 2006, the applicant did not have time to \u201ctake proceedings\u201d by which his release could be ordered. Thus, no issue arises in the circumstances under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. Accordingly, this complaint of the application is and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "16ebf6da-c510-4800-b1f1-b85d1329dc96", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["103. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) and (d) that the criminal proceedings initiated against him on 18 July 2005 for forgery of documents had been unfair. The Court observes that a person may not claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention which, according to him, occurred in the course of proceedings in which he was acquitted or which were discontinued (see Osmanov and Husseinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, 4 September 2003). The Court notes that the proceedings against the applicant were discontinued on 17 May 2006 because the relevant limitation period had expired. The Court considers that in these circumstances the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair trial. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as , pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "ff6bb600-c94b-4204-888b-35852625c45a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government submitted that since the third, fourth and fifth applicants (X\u2019s sister Y and the grandparents) had not been part of the domestic proceedings, and the application to the Court did not specify or substantiate that those applicants\u2019 own rights had been violated, or that X and the grandparents had shared a \u201cfamily life\u201d, their complaints should be declared inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as or for failure to exhaust domestic remedies."], "id": "e28e8bba-8920-432b-a00c-cd7f9675876d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in respect of her were not fair because she was not invited to participate at the hearings at which the courts decided her detention order. Since the proceedings in question did not concern the determination of a criminal charge against the applicant, the Court considers that the complaint is pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention, and declares it inadmissible."], "id": "d1ea9463-4690-43db-ac2f-82d472e9f32c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["198. The applicant also submitted that the overall length of the criminal proceedings against her had exceeded the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration in determining the length of criminal proceedings begins with the day on which a person is \u201ccharged\u201d within the autonomous and substantive meaning of that term and ends with the day on which a charge is finally determined or the proceedings are discontinued (see, among many other authorities, Kalashnikov, cited above, \u00a7 124). In the present case, the applicant was detained and questioned as an accused on 28 February 2000 and her conviction was upheld on appeal and became final on 23 May 2001. Thus the overall length of the proceedings at issue was less than fifteen months, during which period the applicant's case was examined at two levels of jurisdiction. The Court does not find such a length of the proceedings excessive within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "e353ff88-c52f-475c-9c91-668fd8ab8a8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["194. The applicant made a number of further complaints under Articles 1, 3, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as , pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "51815a3b-0b5c-4172-a032-6f0bea6ba703", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government put forward a two-fold argument submitting that the applicant\u2019s complaint is both and inadmissible due to his failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, they insisted that the applicant, while having lodged numerous complaints with the detention facility administration and various executive authorities, had not taken \u201cfull advantage of the domestic remed[ies]\u201d. In the Government\u2019s opinion, a tort action against the detention facility could have provided the applicant with the desired relief in the form of \u201cthe restoration of his allegedly violated rights or compensation for non-pecuniary damage\u201d. The Government supported their submission with a reference to two judgments issued by Russian courts in favour of former inmates who had obtained compensation for damage resulting from the inadequate conditions of their detention or ineffective medical care. Citing Resolution no. CM/ResDH(2010)35 adopted on 4 March 2010 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, they further stressed that there was a developing judicial practice in Russia \u201cof awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by poor detention conditions\u201d."], "id": "957ec629-174f-4ed2-be9f-20b24c20827e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government put forward two lines of argument, insisting that the applicant, who had had a choice of effective remedies before him, had not exhausted them and, at the same time, arguing that the treatment provided to the applicant during the entire period of his detention corresponded to the highest standards. As to the first argument, the Government stressed that the applicant had not complained to a court that he was not receiving adequate medical assistance. The procedure for making claims before a court was established in Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as clarified by the Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling no. 2 of 10 February 2009. Having relied on two cases examined by the Russian courts and the Court\u2019s findings in the case of Popov and Vorobyev v. Russia (no. 1606/02, 23 April 2009), they submitted that it had also been open to the applicant to lodge a tort action claiming compensation for damage caused by allegedly inadequate medical assistance. Relying on Resolution no. CM/ResDH(2010)35 adopted at the 1078th Meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Government further noted that statistics and a number of cases presented to the Committee had demonstrated the developing practice of the Russian courts in awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by unsatisfactory conditions of detention. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the applicant\u2019s failure to apply to a Russian court with a complaint had to be interpreted by the Court as his unwillingness to comply with the admissibility requirements set out by Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention. The Government stressed that his complaint under Article 3 should therefore be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies and the complaint under Article 13 was obviously ."], "id": "6e7dd680-afe4-4cee-bbed-711f50aeae31", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant alleged that he was deprived of an income which would allow a decent standard of living. He relied in this connection on Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention can be interpreted as conferring on an individual a right to enjoy a particular standard of living (see, Wasilewski v. Poland (dec.), 32734/96, 20 April 1999). Moreover, the applicant has not shown that he suffers such destitution that his life is at risk. The Court, therefore, rejects this part of the application, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention, as being ."], "id": "91300b7a-3a78-403a-8a69-289e0c92f043", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant also complained about being placed under house arrest. The Court considers that Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (the right to freedom of movement) is relevant in respect of this part of the application. However, the Court finds that the applicant has failed to show either the domestic unlawfulness of the measure, or that it was disproportionate in relation to the general interest, within the meaning of the above provision. Accordingly, this part of the application must also be rejected as being , pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "8544503d-749a-4d19-8aa4-87fdab5a79e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicant argued that a constitutional appeal was an ineffective remedy and submitted one case in which a decision concerning interim access and custody had been challenged. The constitutional appeal had been rejected as (decision no. Up-498/08, 15 April 2008). In another case referred to by the applicant the Constitutional Court had dismissed on procedural grounds a constitutional appeal concerning alleged inactivity of the court in proceedings concerning enforcement of an interim access order. The Constitutional Court found that a constitutional appeal did not lie against a conduct or omissions, such as a court\u2019s inactivity, but only against legal acts issued by public authorities (decision no. Up-1044/05, 21 December 2005)."], "id": "c461760e-4d2d-499a-9470-6f29715ba757", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government maintained that the guarantees of Article 5 \u00a7 4 do not extend to proceedings before the Constitutional Court. Those proceedings were governed by different legal provisions from the proceedings before criminal courts. They were separate from and independent of proceedings before criminal courts and were of a specific nature, as they concerned alleged breaches of the applicant\u2019s fundamental rights and freedoms. A complaint to the Constitutional Court could not be regarded as an ordinary remedy against criminal courts\u2019 decisions related to the applicant\u2019s detention. In any event, the Government considered this complaint to be ."], "id": "cf73eee8-814d-450b-9004-b9ebc586ce05", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government argued that the complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention was . Article 6 \u00a7 1 was not applicable to the proceedings at issue and thus the operation of the Foundation's bodies could not be examined under this provision. The Foundation's organs which dealt with the applicant's case had been established in accordance with section 19 of the GFA and the Agreement of 16 February 2001 between the German and the Polish Foundation. Section 19 of the GFA stipulated that the partner organisations were to create appeals organs which were independent and subject to no outside instruction. The Partnership Agreement contained further detailed regulations in this respect. In so far as the appeal procedure was concerned, the Polish Foundation operated within the legal framework provided for by the GFA and the Partnership Agreement."], "id": "0a082d38-3e23-4e78-a053-b9af1564bcb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["119. The Government submitted that this complaint was and that the whole of the period of the applicant\u2019s detention had been covered by orders issued by the competent court, the Vienna Regional Court, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These decisions had been repeatedly and carefully examined by courts of higher instance, the Vienna Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which had all concluded that the decisions given by the Regional Court had been issued in accordance with the law."], "id": "a8bfd149-a4d8-44f5-af46-235396ccef34", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government contended that the applicants\u2019 complaint of a lack of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence of abuse of official authority was in so far as the items of evidence that had been collected at the early stage of the investigation had been more than enough for the domestic courts to confirm the need to keep the applicant in pre-trial detention. They also stated that the court decisions in question had been properly reasoned."], "id": "b66732e7-c851-4b5f-8cfc-8c2a7ce06317", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicants complained that the introduction of the 2001 Law, barring debt retrieval from the State-owned enterprises violated Article 17 of the Convention. The Court finds no evidence whatsoever in the case file which might disclose any appearance of a breach of this provision. The Court, therefore, rejects this complaint, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention, as being ."], "id": "09f40c90-5fff-48d9-bb3c-ec6c78e30b17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "manifestly ill-founded", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government submitted that the applicant had not challenged the investigator\u2019s decision of 31 December 2011 refusing to initiate a criminal investigation into the matter (see paragraphs 60 and 63 above). They therefore asserted that she had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies before making her application to the Court, contrary to Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In the alternative, the Government contended that these complaints were ."], "id": "90d3099e-b076-45d4-beb6-ac1139c8f135", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["108. The applicant accepted that he no longer faced a risk of deportation to Syria and the question of violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention taken alone was not as such in issue anymore. He submitted that his recognition as a refugee was in substance an acknowledgment by the Government that his deportation to Syria would have been in violation of these provisions. He stressed, however, that if it had not been for the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court by the Court he would have been deported by the authorities. In reply to the Government\u2019s plea of non-exhaustion he maintained that he did not have an at his disposal as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In this respect, the applicant pointed out, inter alia, that a recourse against a decision by the Reviewing Authority or against deportation and detention orders did not have automatic suspensive effect. Neither did an application for a provisional measure to suspend deportation made in the context of such proceedings. Lastly, the applicant argued that the scope of the recourse proceedings before the Supreme Court was too limited, as it did not entail an examination of the merits of the administrative decisions concerning asylum and deportation."], "id": "58bab62e-77fd-4789-af61-f914fb96ad3d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government further submitted that, following the delivery of the Court's judgment in the case of Kud\u0142a v. Poland (application no. 30210/96, judgment of 26 October 2000), the applicant could have requested, with reference to Article 144 of the Constitution, that the domestic courts should apply the State Liability Act of 1969 in accordance with the requirement of an under Article 13 of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court. In the Government's view, in such case the domestic courts would be obliged to compensate the applicant for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the protracted length of the proceedings."], "id": "693e47a1-e6e2-48c4-9101-353090f97228", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["195. The Government further referred to the Court\u2019s previous pilot judgments concerning the excessive length of proceedings and the lack of remedy in that respect, in particular to the cases of Finger v. Bulgaria (cited below), Rumpf v. Germany (no. 46344/06, 2 September 2010) and Vassilios Athanasiou and Others v. Greece (cited below). In their view, the circumstances which had given rise to the Court\u2019s finding of a systemic problem in those judgments could not be compared to the instant case. In Finger the only existing domestic remedy had not met the Court\u2019s standards as regards the possibility of accelerating the procedure and obtaining sufficient redress. In the remaining cases the domestic system had offered no . In contrast, in Poland a remedy had been introduced and had been positively assessed by the Court. It operated effectively and enabled a party to expedite proceedings and receive sufficient compensation."], "id": "f8666192-633b-43a0-abf5-79cc6419123f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant further submitted that the arrest of Mr Apti Dalakov had not been planned appropriately to minimise the risk to his life in violation of the State\u2019s positive duty to protect it. For instance, the FSB officers had failed to identify themselves, they were not in uniform, and their vehicle did not have official registration numbers. In addition, the FSB officers had aggressively refused to obey the orders of the police who had arrived at the crime scene and to identify themselves. The investigation of criminal case no. 27520028 had demonstrated that the authorities\u2019 version of the events had been in contradiction to the statements collected by the investigators and the documents contained in the criminal case file. The investigation into Mr Apti Dalakov\u2019s death was inadequate, as no criminal case was opened in connection with his killing, and criminal case no. 27520028 was terminated in spite of the investigator\u2019s failure to take the necessary steps and comply with the supervisors\u2019 orders (see paragraphs 27 and 30 above). The conclusions of that investigation were based solely on the statements given by the FSB officers implicated in the incident. The applicant further alleged that there was no in his case under Article 125 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, as domestic judges had no right to prescribe which actions should be taken by the investigation."], "id": "efe95b30-905a-45de-9a3b-5ebcf2fdc345", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["116. The applicant complained that she had not been able to initiate compensation proceedings against the State authorities in respect of the ill-treatment and death of her son in the army because of a jurisdictional conflict between the national civil and administrative courts. She therefore complained that she had been denied an in respect of her complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Although the applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention, the Court considers, having regard to the substance of this complaint that it would be more appropriate to examine it from the standpoint of Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "f6fb79a8-ee04-4f56-a582-d867894e4206", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government invited the Court to reject the applicant\u2019s complaint for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, claiming that in 2002 Section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court introduced an in respect of the length of proceedings. On 2 February 2005 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision whereby it applied the reasonable time requirements in respect of the pending enforcement proceedings."], "id": "301bddb8-4423-4e84-aede-abb49c85011e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government further submitted that \u201cdespite [the fact that] the Supreme Court, as a cassation instance, was the highest judicial authority in Azerbaijan, there was [a] higher judicial instance directly accessible to the applicant, [namely] the Constitutional Court\u201d. The Government argued that, under domestic law, final decisions of the Supreme Court could be reviewed by the Constitutional Court. An individual application to the Constitutional Court constituted an ordinary remedy which the applicant had failed to exhaust. In this regard, the Government argued that, in Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 44363/02, \u00a7 43, 1 February 2007), the European Court had recognised the Constitutional Court as an for alleged violations of the rights and freedoms under the Convention."], "id": "85c6b069-5a9d-4730-81b3-270f802cadff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government submitted that should the Court conclude that for some of his complaints, the applicant did not have at his disposal an , they would plead that his application had been filed outside the six-month time-limit. They observed that the period for filing the application had started to run on the date of the violation complained of, namely on 23 August 2011 when he had left the social care home and had been transferred to the Convalescent Home \u2013 Long-term Care Hospital. In any case it was on 27 September 2011 at the latest, when the applicant had been moved back to his flat in Prague. However, he did not introduce his application with the Court until 29 September 2012."], "id": "33d21113-27f3-402f-b7fd-45044dfbeb27", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["79. The applicant stated that a complaint to the Court of Serbia and Montenegro, vaguely defined as it was, could not be considered an in terms of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, and that, having complained to the President of the Municipal Court on 31 March 2003, she had not complained to the President of the District Court or the Ministry of Justice as this would only have resulted in additional delay and, in any event, could not have provided her with any effective redress. Finally, the applicant stated that Article 199 of the Obligations Act was irrelevant, as it concerned civil defamation primarily, and that a successful lawsuit based on Article 200 of the same Act could, at best and after years of litigation, have provided her with compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, but could not have expedited the proceedings of which she complained."], "id": "af54817e-f5d3-4a7a-b97e-52666879a7f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["169. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated in police custody upon his arrest; under Article 6 that he had not been informed of the charges against him and had not been presumed innocent in that he was held in custody merely on the ground of the seriousness of the charges against him; that the tribunal which convicted him on 17 May 2004 had been unlawful; that two members of the Supreme Court had on several occasions participated in the review of his pre-trial detention and conviction at second instance and, therefore, could not have been impartial in their decisions. He further complained that the Supreme Court had not read out the full text of the appeal decision of 10 March 2005. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 13 about the lack of an with regard to the alleged violations."], "id": "4de61131-cbf6-48d6-b83e-90afd386cfdc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government observed that the right to an was a procedural right which had to be linked to a possible violation of a substantive right under the Convention or the Protocols thereto. In paragraph 15 of its admissibility decision of 7 July 2015 the Court had found that \u201cin the absence of an arguable complaint of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the complaint under Article 13 is unsustainable\u201d. The Government therefore argued that, since there had likewise, in their view, been no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 in the present case, no violation of Article 13 of the Convention could be found."], "id": "e9e689f8-78e2-46dd-bda4-bf0881ef5c04", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicant also complained that there had been no grounds for his arrest on 13 October 2010. Furthermore, his arrest had been conducted in violation of the domestic law and he had been taken to the police station under a false pretext. He also complained that the domestic courts had not taken into account the time of his actual arrest and therefore he had spent an additional twenty-six hours in detention. The applicant maintained that the domestic legislation did not provide for compensation for unlawful detention in cases like his. He complained that he had had no by which to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest and detention after the three-day period of administrative arrest had expired. He referred to Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (a) and (c) and 5 and Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "c3996586-904e-496b-8948-84de2eb9cacf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant submitted that the Ukrainian authorities\u2019 recurrent failure to enforce domestic decisions delivered against the authorities or companies owned or controlled by the State and to introduce an constituted a systemic problem. He referred to several cases raising similar issues which had already been determined with final effect by the Court, including Svintitskiy and Goncharov v. Ukraine (no. 59312/00, 4 October 2005); Mikhaylova and Others v. Ukraine (no. 16475/02, 15 June 2006); Aleksandr Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 8371/02, 26 April 2007); Kolesnik v. Ukraine (no. 20824/02, 10 April 2008); Maydanik v. Ukraine (no. 20826/02, 10 April 2008); and Tishchenko v. Ukraine (no. 33892/04, 25 September 2008)."], "id": "c1f746ae-2388-4224-bd81-d4dacb2edeee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant replied that an appeal to the Constitutional Court was not an for the purposes of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as it lacked automatic suspensive effect. He referred to \u010conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, ECHR 2002\u2011I; Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, ECHR 2007\u2011II; and Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, ECHR 2009\u2011...."], "id": "e9813743-0923-4aef-93fc-44251d9ce987", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["137. The applicants maintained that the State had not demonstrated that an was available to any of them and they were not required to initiate ineffective actions simply to clarify facts. They underlined that it was not the law, but the State\u2019s interpretation of the law, which was overly restrictive. In addition, only remedies which could intervene prior to any necessary abortion could be considered effective."], "id": "2b00b6cc-f2aa-4544-a261-a59bb33ca3e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government pointed out at the outset that the applicant had lodged his appeal against the judgment of the Zamokvoretskiy District Court outside a ten-day time-limit set out in the domestic law. However, the domestic courts granted an extension of the period for introduction of the grounds of appeal. They examined the appeal against the refusal to grant the applicant refugee status. Furthermore, the applicant made use of the procedure for challenging the extradition order by the Prosecutor General. In each set of the proceedings, his arguments were examined by the courts at two levels of jurisdiction. Therefore, the applicant had an in respect of his complaint under Article 3 and was able to make use of it."], "id": "97fdec70-256f-4bb7-8f56-04520a842376", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["197. The applicant further submitted that neither could she exercise her right to an through other persons. As concerns her guardian, who was her legal representative in accordance with the law, this remedy had been purely discretionary. More importantly, it was difficult to conceive how this remedy could have worked with regard to complaints challenging decisions taken by the guardian him, her or itself on the applicant\u2019s behalf, such as the decision to hospitalise the applicant in the institution, or the decision by the K\u0117dainiai Home to restrict visitors\u2019 access to the applicant."], "id": "7d003ac7-5bca-4d3e-ac71-1a2b9743d2d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that she had been subjected to acts of police brutality which had caused her great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment. She also complained under the same provision, taken together with Article 13 of the Convention, that the Greek investigating and prosecuting authorities had failed to carry out an effective and impartial official investigation into the incident which could have led to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. The applicant therefore claimed that she had been denied an for her sufferings."], "id": "e90c72f0-70a9-47b7-876e-d90a6e5f3fa4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government further noted that although the issue of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally to be determined in view of the date when the applications were lodged, exceptions could be justified in the specific circumstances of a given case (see, for example, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, \u00a7 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts); Brusco v. Italy, (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; and Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, 5 September 2002; see also Marinkovi\u0107, cited above, where, according to the Government, the Court held that, in the context of socially owned companies, a constitutional appeal should be considered as an as of 22 June 2012)."], "id": "35436323-96e5-4d4c-b724-a5c905318512", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the respondent State had failed to enforce a final and enforceable decision of 16 May 1994 rendered in his favour and that he had been unable to obtain payment of the difference between the pension actually paid to him and the pension for the period between September 1990 and December 1993 as awarded to him by that decision. The applicant also complained under Article 13 that he had had no by which he could have had the 1994 decision enforced."], "id": "db258d8b-95d6-498e-9e00-10aeb7e484fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant complained that during his arrest and subsequent detention he was subjected to acts of police brutality which caused him great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He also complained that the investigative and prosecuting authorities failed to proceed with a prompt and effective official investigation into the incident capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. The applicant therefore claimed that, contrary to Article 3, taken together with Article 13 of the Convention, he had had no for the harm suffered while in police custody."], "id": "33cff5cb-fe3b-43c3-8f68-62fd66ed9ed4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government acknowledged that although Babjak concerned a police decision stating that the applicant had committed a criminal offence, though a criminal prosecution could not be pursued against him due to his young age, in that case the police had issued a later decision clarifying that his conduct had not met the constituent elements of a criminal offence. Notwithstanding, the Government maintained that in the present case an action under Articles 11 et seq. of the Civil Code was also an available and . An ordinary court dealing with such an action would examine whether the statement by the police infringed the applicant's right to be presumed innocent and her right to respect for her private life, given that no criminal prosecution had been initiated and that the courts had not pronounced either way on her guilt or innocence. In the event that the ordinary court considered that the applicant's rights had been breached, it was open to it to order the police to issue an apology and/or award the applicant financial compensation for any non-pecuniary damage caused to her as a result. In particular, the applicant could have relied on the request for reimbursement of the costs of her husband's medical treatment as the basis for her action."], "id": "78bc4f8d-e87d-43f7-ba78-cd87f3d2b748", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["253. The Government conceded that prior to Mr H.K.\u2019s statement the applicant had not had an as required under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 5. They further admitted that in the absence of any conclusions of the criminal investigation, the civil avenue of redress, as such, could not be regarded as effective in relation to the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "b13a562c-5355-4bee-9501-6389dd412835", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government submitted that the Court could not examine the case before the Constitutional Court had made an assessment as to whether section 504 of the Sentence Enforcement Code complied with the Convention. The Constitutional Court was the created for this particular purpose, was capable of providing redress and was available to the applicant both in law and in practice. Even so, the applicant\u2019s constitutional complaints had been rejected for lack of sufficient legal reasoning. The applicant had been aware of the mandatory requirements of a constitutional complaint and could not bypass the obligation to exhaust the available domestic remedies by deliberately and consistently submitting incomplete and insufficiently reasoned constitutional complaints. Moreover, the applicant had not been precluded from remedying the deficiencies identified by the Constitutional Court and lodging another constitutional complaint."], "id": "36e9ac6e-a805-419f-acb7-ed413d4be721", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments, mainly relying on the substance of their observations made in respect of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and maintained that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his home had been lawful and necessary in a democratic society and had pursued the aim of \u201cthe improvement of the appearance of the city\u201d which, in the Government\u2019s view, was in the interests of the economic well-being of the country. They argued that the domestic civil proceedings had been fair and that they had constituted an ."], "id": "6cc460f4-e9af-4f9a-a80b-f3ac81314ae5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government further submitted that the competent Azerbaijani authorities had examined the applicant\u2019s complaints that he had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment during his temporary extradition to Russia. In particular, the Khazar District Court, while ordering the extension of the period of the applicant\u2019s detention pending extradition, had examined his submissions concerning his alleged ill-treatment during his temporary extradition to Russia and had found them unsubstantiated, because he had never previously lodged any related complaints with either the Azerbaijani or Russian authorities. Therefore, the Government considered that the applicant had had an for his complaint under Article 3 at his disposal."], "id": "7923aaea-b75e-4dcd-958f-fd42683aacda", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["83. The applicant argued that he did not have effective remedies for his complaint about the appalling conditions of detention. He referred to the case of Benediktov v. Russia (no. 106/02, 10 May 2007), where the Court had found a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence in Russia of an effective remedy in respect of inhuman and degrading conditions of detention. He also cited the cases of Kalashnikov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001), Moiseyev v. Russia ((dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004) and Mamedova v. Russia (no. 7064/05, \u00a7 57, 1 June 2006), where the Court had noted that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicants' detention had apparently been of a structural nature, for which no had been shown to exist. In the applicant's opinion, the Government had not put forward any argument capable of calling the above findings into question. The rare examples cited by the Government of redress being obtained by a detainee through an application to the domestic authorities were exceptions to the general rule."], "id": "60bc28d0-0e7a-4a7d-bb91-6d6024c6b23c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant complained under Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention that he had been arrested in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that he would flee and that he did not have an for his complaint about the unlawful arrest. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s grievances fall to be examined under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 5, which read as follows:"], "id": "6360db23-22ee-4ce5-8a16-2803c363f958", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant submitted that, as the Court had held in Louled Massoud, there was no for the purposes of Article 5 \u00a7 4 which he could undertake in order to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. Indeed, although the applicant had attempted a remedy, it had taken more than a year for the IAB to determine his claim."], "id": "91721c12-8d48-47f3-bf25-e8972e3e79da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant also made a number of other complaints, relying on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No.1, concerning the proceedings before the domestic authorities. She complained, in particular, about the lack of fairness and outcome of the proceedings before the competent bodies, particularly the Constitutional Court; and lack of an in that respect; length of proceedings before the administrative authorities and the Administrative Court concerning the recognition of her father\u2019s status of a disabled war veteran; and alleged violation of her right to respect for her private and family life and the protection of property."], "id": "60e3fff0-6a64-4caf-8fb9-89160c2618f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant submitted that after two rulings of the Constitutional Court, namely the judgment of 11 May 2007 (case no. K 2/07) and the judgment of 20 October 2010 (case no. P 37/09), and the amendment to the Institute Act which had entered into force on 27 May 2010, the proceedings concerning access to her file had been finally terminated. Before the entry into force of the said amendment to the Institute Act, the applicant had had no whereby she could obtain access to all relevant documents concerning her. She had no influence over the decisions of the parliament as to whether and when such amendments should have been introduced."], "id": "bf0123a8-2c7e-45df-a8cb-ea588cfd939f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government maintained that the applicant's allegations of being beaten by the tax police officer had not been supported by any appropriate evidence and that, although the applicant had indeed sustained physical injuries it was impossible to conclude \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d that they had been inflicted by S. They referred to the conclusions of the forensic medical examinations that the applicant had had only minor physical injuries which could have been inflicted three to five days before the events in question. None of the examinations established that the injuries had been inflicted on 28 April 1998. The Government also submitted that, as for the testimonies of G., who had allegedly seen the applicant being beaten by S., it had been established that G. could not have seen the events in the room properly since its windows had been covered with opaque plastic curtains. Furthermore, the Government maintained that the investigation in the applicant's case had been performed by an independent authority which had carried out a full investigation and had taken all necessary action. Therefore, the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention had not been violated and the applicant had had at his disposal an in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "fb62894b-38ad-4147-9912-42c888c8d433", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["113. The applicants submitted that they had been victims of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and had lacked an as required under Article 13. They pointed out that after the Supreme Court had upheld the normative framework as being compatible with the Convention (see paragraph 69 above), their subsequent applications for a judicial review had been bound to fail (see paragraphs 72 and 73 above)."], "id": "47b81c5d-07eb-44bb-b430-d2899fbdea0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted that the complaint was inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. In this respect, they referred to all of the Swedish Supreme Court\u2019s judgments mentioned above (\u00a7\u00a7 29-34) in which the court had awarded individual compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage concerning the violation of different Articles of the Convention. In the Government\u2019s opinion, these showed that Swedish law now provided a remedy in the form of compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in respect of any violation of the Convention, including violations under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Although the Government acknowledged that the legal position on this matter under domestic law had been less clear prior to the Supreme Court\u2019s judgments in 2005 and 2007, they submitted that following these judgments the legal position must have been considered sufficiently clear. Therefore, since the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 13 November 2008, he should have been aware of the Supreme Court judgments and that there was an available to him. They pointed out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy, which was not obviously futile, was not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies. Therefore, the Government held that compensation proceedings against the Swedish State constituted a domestic remedy which the applicant should have been obliged to exhaust prior to examination of the case by the Court."], "id": "347a2cc3-8169-4d0f-a1a9-8a770be37d17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while he had been detained. In particular, he alleged that the conditions of his detention in the Simferopol SIZO had been debasing with regard to the size of the cell in which he had been detained, the number of persons in the cell, the bedding and conditions of hygiene, sanitation and ventilation, nutrition, outdoor daily walks, and access to natural light and air. He further alleged that he had not received the necessary medical treatment and assistance for his diseases, and that he had been forced to work for more than 12 hours a day, for which he had not been paid. The applicant finally alleged that he did not have at his disposal an for his Convention complaint about his conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. He invoked in substance Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which provide as follows:"], "id": "9821a2e0-d0e8-4293-8c71-0e4462ac4250", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government considered that these complaints were inadmissible because of the applicants\u2019 non-compliance with the six-month rule. In particular, at the material time the law in force did not provide for a possibility to claim compensation from the State for any damage inflicted by a State official who was not acting in his/her official capacity. It had been established in the present case that at the time of the incidents D. had been off duty. Therefore, the applicants\u2019 claim for damages lodged against the State bodies had been devoid of any prospect of success from the very beginning. Consequently, the six-month time-limit should be calculated from the date of the incidents, namely, 22 November 1999. Given that the applicants had lodged their complaints on 29 September 2005, the Government considered that the applications were inadmissible in the part relating to the applicants\u2019 complaints about the absence of an for their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention."], "id": "37b50cc1-294d-4a45-8b53-356fbec9af50", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant replied that at the relevant time the CCP did not contain a procedure whereby a person could challenge his or her house arrest before a court. The national courts could not be expected to \u201cproduce\u201d and apply a non\u2011existent procedure to conform to the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. It was true that the Convention was part of the domestic law of Bulgaria, but that did not make an application based directly on Article 5 \u00a7 4 an ."], "id": "89e0a0dc-5e96-4e45-bbd8-cd33c14b80dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have any in respect of his allegedly infringed rights, as the Senate of the Supreme Court had ruled that the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers was a political decision. He considered that an application for supervisory review by a public prosecutor was not an effective remedy since a decision by the latter in the instant case would not be subject to appeal."], "id": "c90691e1-767c-49de-86d6-4f3e5cf62911", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant organisation complained that there had been an unlawful interference with its right to freedom of peaceful assembly, as provided in Article 11 of the Convention, on account of the prohibition issued by the municipality of the public rally planned for 19 April 2000. It also complained of the lack of an for its complaint under Article 11 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts having declared null and void the prohibition issued by the municipality almost a year after the date of the planned event and also in view of the alleged inability to seek redress for the actions of the municipality."], "id": "f979c583-d845-49d1-9374-0b8908090124", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "effective domestic remedy", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant company submitted that it was, but the Court is not convinced by that argument. The rules applicable to such applications at the relevant time were analogous to those examined in Karuna v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 43788/05, 3 April 2007). In that case the Court concluded that at the relevant time, applications for a rehearing by the Supreme Court were akin to requests for a reopening of the proceedings and Article 6 did not apply to the proceedings concerning them. In Bulanov and Kupchik v. Ukraine (nos. 7714/06 and 23654/08, \u00a7 32, 9 December 2010) the Court found that such applications were not an to be used in administrative cases."], "id": "ff71c464-707d-4b82-b50f-a41502c57811", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "continuing situation", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant disagreed with the Government's contention and claimed that his application related to a . He noted that his initial communication to the Court of 12 December 1999 was followed by a completed application form, which detailed his complaints and contained additional facts and information. Separately, he claimed that Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention does not preclude an applicant from submitting an application prior to the date on which a final decision by a domestic court is taken, or the date on which he is released, but rather stipulates the last day by which such an application must be made, following which the Court is barred from examining it as it would, in such case, be submitted out of time."], "id": "40b9dc63-ac72-41c9-8ae8-3559dce229f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "continuing situation", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant replied that no change in his situation had occurred on 2 October 1996, when he had been released from detention and put under house arrest, as he had continued to be deprived of his liberty. This deprivation of liberty had been a , which had come to an end only on 1 January 2000, when the amendments to the CCP had come into force. He had lodged his application well before that."], "id": "44bcff05-772d-4727-8d19-8c66ec868fba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "continuing situation", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant argued that the conditions of detention in both facilities had been equally bad and should therefore be treated as a . The Government had adduced no evidence in relation to the temporary detention centre and should not be absolved from responsibility merely on account of the expiry of the period for keeping relevant records and logbooks."], "id": "effe082f-17df-4811-8a08-d1083681f1bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "continuing situation", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in the temporary detention centre in March 2001, whereas the complaint before the Court had been raised in 2003. Thus, he had failed to comply with the six-month rule. The temporary detention centre and the remand centre were supervised by different authorities and there was thus no reason to consider the applicant\u2019s detention in both facilities as a ."], "id": "a0b1905f-bdca-49de-b7f1-f205bda8c6af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "continuing situation", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government submitted that the deprivation of property was an instantaneous act and did not produce a . They pointed out that it was the former Yugoslav legislation that allowed for the applicants\u2019 property to be expropriated without at the same having determined or awarded them compensation. The subsequent 1994 Croatian legislation amended those rules, but could not have changed the applicants\u2019 situation. In any event, all of these facts having occurred prior to Croatia\u2019s ratification of the Convention, i.e. 5 November 1997, the Court is not competent ratione temporis to entertain the present application."], "id": "c5eb98c7-b02e-421c-8a47-cb02eb660b30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "continuing situation", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government argued in the first place that in so far as the complaint related to the initial search and seizure conducted by the police prior to the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Estonia on 16 April 1996, it was outside the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis. The police measures were instant acts and could not be viewed as constituting a ."], "id": "6e9bc55c-905f-4674-b160-43af98d58715", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "continuing situation", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant first argued that his complaints concerning medical care after the arrest in April 2008 and during his subsequent detention in remand centre no. 77/6 and the prison hospital of remand centre no. 77/1 were closely linked to each other, concerned an uninterrupted period of detention, and had the same factual and legal basis. Thus, in his view, the facts of the case disclosed a requiring the whole period of detention to be taken into consideration, despite the six-month rule under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "955971eb-fe7f-4c82-b8ec-5992e2ec0877", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "continuing situation", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant\u2019s complaints concern problems relating to insufficient medical care which he allegedly had to endure during the uninterrupted period of his detention. It follows that the facts of the case can be regarded as a (see, for instance, Vladimir Sokolov v. Russia, no. 31242/05, \u00a7 56, 29 March 2011, and, by contrast, Vladimir Vasilyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 28370/05, 1 July 2010). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government\u2019s objection to this effect."], "id": "6f3eaa40-9ec7-485b-bf33-7092af5c153d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "continuing situation", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["193. The applicants were forced to leave Lachin when the district came under military attack in May 1992. However, the Court\u2019s task is not to scrutinise this event as such, but to determine whether the applicants have been denied access to their property since 26 April 2002, the date on which Armenia ratified the Convention, and whether they have thereby suffered a continuing violation of their rights. Earlier events may still be indicative of such a ."], "id": "2e145ef1-a59b-47da-adfb-896c00ed5330", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "continuing situation", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant company argued that its submissions in respect of the quashing of the decision which had recognised its claims were merely an elaboration and development of the original complaints contained in its application form (see paragraph 50 above). The quashing itself had merely been another episode in what it believed was a \uf02d the ineffectiveness of bankruptcy proceedings as a process. In any event, a further appeal lay against the HCC\u2019s decision to the Supreme Court (see paragraph 47 above). That remedy was effective in theory even though it had proven without result in practice as the HCC had refused it leave to apply for a Supreme Court review and it had only become aware of that decision on 15 July 2014 (see paragraph 40 above). As there was still no decision by the Supreme Court on the substance of its application for review, the situation of unfairness still persisted."], "id": "e25cbe21-215e-4231-befa-6ab4a154901b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "continuing situation", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant's complaints which fall under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 of the Convention, meanwhile, relate to certain alleged deficiencies of the relevant provisions of the CCP, in force at the relevant time, as construed by the competent authorities and as applied to the applicant, which gave rise to a against which no effective remedies were available at the time."], "id": "3d772e9e-97ae-44c9-8dd2-da1813c2fe75", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government asked the Court, firstly, to dismiss the application as inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 of the Convention. For the purposes of that provision, time had started to run on 17 March 1998. However, the applicants had not lodged their application with Court until 4 May 1999, that is almost fourteen months after the ."], "id": "a062a229-b714-45e1-bce1-bd8ef402c6b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government further argued that the applicant had failed to submit his case to the Court within the six-month time-limit provided for by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Where an applicant was entitled to be served with a written copy of the as a matter of course, the object and purpose of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention were best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the written judgment (the Government cited Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, \u00a7 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V). In the present case the applicable law did not provide the applicant with the right to be served with a written copy of the judgment of the second-instance court, as a matter of course. Hence, the six-month period should be counted from 16 January 2007, the date when that court had given judgment. The applicant submitted his application to the Court on 31 July 2007. He had therefore failed to comply with the obligation to apply to the Court within six months, as stipulated by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "3190b90e-053d-4a9d-a6e6-de01e94a44f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s arguments, maintaining that he had appealed against the domestic decisions in accordance with the law. In particular, he submitted that the remedies proposed by the Government were of a theoretical nature and not practical and effective. The constitutional complaint was an extraordinary remedy and he should not have been obliged to exhaust it. Moreover, he maintained that if any additional remedy had been open to him, he should have been informed of this when the authorities gave the . Finally, as regards the possibility of his lodging a civil action, the applicant argued that he would have been required to prove that he had sustained damage by the unlawful action of an official, while the decisions given in his case had a legal basis in the domestic law."], "id": "1f073d84-b4a9-4df7-a1cc-aa56646895bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant lodged his application with the Court on 4 February 2008, more than six years after he had lodged his criminal complaint with the prosecuting authorities. Yet, the investigation was still pending at that time; some investigative steps had been taken and the applicant could legitimately have believed that there were tangible indications of progress in the investigation. For the reasons indicated above, which remained valid at least until the time when the applicant lodged his application before the Court, he cannot be criticised for having waited too long. Besides, the Court observes that the in the applicant\u2019s case was rendered on 29 March 2010 (see ibid. \u00a7\u00a7 281\u2011282)."], "id": "f4f2a86e-0de6-485f-9ac0-bcd9a4ff7a5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government argued that the second applicant failed to lodge his complaint within the six-month time-limit prescribed in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In the present case, given that the was the refusal by the Supreme Court on 14 November 2011 to grant the applicants permission to appeal (see paragraph 24 above), that time-limit expired at midnight on 14 May 2012."], "id": "be74305b-2596-4cd6-8000-8e3c80294345", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government argued that the in the present case had been the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision of 12 March 2009, by which the Constitutional Court had dismissed the applicant\u2019s constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Osijek County Court. They pointed out that this decision had been served on the applicant on 26 March 2009 and that the present application had been lodged with the Court on 23 October 2009. As regards the decision of the Constitutional Court of 26 May 2009 by which the applicant\u2019s constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Supreme Court had been declared inadmissible, they argued that the request for extraordinary review of the County Court\u2019s judgment could not have been considered decisive in respect of the criminal charges against the applicant. He had had no grounds on which to lodge a constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Supreme Court, as he had already lodged a constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Osijek County Court."], "id": "61744d1f-b1fb-450c-b9d7-d989809fd139", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants contended that the six months\u2019 time-limit for the lodging of applications, in respect of the four applicants, should be calculated from the date of the that was given in respect of M.N. filed on 27 October 2011 and served on the latter applicant\u2019s lawyer on 10 November 2011, irrespective of the fact that the decisions in respect of the other three applicants had been antecedent to that. They argued that had M.N.\u2019s claim been successful, the measure would have been annulled and the effects of such an annulment would extend to the other applicants, who would have then lost their victim status in respect of the alleged violations."], "id": "117c88d1-60c3-4542-ada2-07ca005f7682", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["121. The Government asserted that the Russian legal system provided for an effective remedy in respect of the applicants\u2019 grievances under Article 8 of the Convention. They referred to Chapter 25 of the CCP containing the mechanism for challenging State and municipal authorities\u2019 decisions before the courts. The Government stated that a in the context of such proceedings would be \u201can appellate (cassation appellate) judgment of the second-instance court, where citizens ha[d] a right to apply if they disagreed with the findings of the first-instance court\u201d."], "id": "c884b530-b608-4b51-b371-9ae7954ba768", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["195. The Government argued that the third to nineteenth applicants had failed to comply with the six-month requirement established in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They stated that the criminal proceedings in case no. 34/00/0008-03 had been discontinued on 17 November 2003 owing to the absence of constituent elements of a crime in federal officers\u2019 actions. In their submission, the relevant decision had established the absence of any grounds to hold the relevant officials criminally responsible for the alleged violations of the applicants\u2019 rights which, in its turn, indicated that there had been no grounds for the applicants to receive compensation in civil proceedings. Accordingly, in the Government\u2019s view, the decision of 17 November 2003 should be regarded as the for the applicants\u2019 complaints under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and therefore the applicants should have lodged their applications within six months after the date on which that decision had been taken, that is before 18 May 2004. The Government further pointed out that, as could be ascertained from the Court\u2019s stamp on the application forms submitted by the third to nineteenth applicants, it had received those applications on 1, 14, 15 and 23 June 2004 and 7 February 2005 respectively, that is outside the six-month period that ended on 18 May 2004."], "id": "329e449d-90d9-4971-a8d2-f4a0167bf21c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government submitted that the applicant had raised his complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 for the first time in a supplement to his application dated 30 September 2005, more than six months after the (the Constitutional Court's ruling of 25 May 2004). They accordingly contended that this part of the application was out of time and, as such, inadmissible."], "id": "092edad9-c0d2-4680-bdfa-2a1847e6cdec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government firstly submitted that it appeared that the applicants had not complied with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They stated that while the had been given by the Vienna Regional Court on 16 March 2012 (see paragraph 30 above), the application to the Court was dated 2 November 2012. It was therefore doubtful that the time-limit had been complied with."], "id": "5a90437b-7807-4788-9ef4-6d77504c2906", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government were of the opinion that the application was also inadmissible for the applicants\u2019 failure to observe the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. On the issue of whether the applicants\u2019 education was channelled into special education on the basis of assessments made with culturally biased or unbiased tests and methods, the Regional Court\u2019s judgment of 27 May 2009 had been the . This judgment became final in regard to the Expert Panel on 2 July 2009. The applicants, however, had not submitted their application until 11 February 2011, that is, more than six months later."], "id": "ae520e75-2102-45d4-816d-809ed417590d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 various complaints with respect to both of the alleged instances of the dispersal of the protest at the University were inadmissible owing to their having been lodged out of time. They claimed in this connection that an inquiry initiated on the basis of the applicants\u2019 complaint of 24 July 2006 had been discontinued on 29 July 2006. This had been the for the purposes of the calculation of the six-month time-limit, given that the subsequent administrative proceedings had been limited to the examination of the applicants\u2019 \u201cguilt\u201d only. There had been no basis for the applicants, in the Government\u2019s view, to expect their allegations of violence against police to be addressed within the scope of the administrative proceedings conducted exclusively against them. Therefore, the applicants\u2019 complaints with respect to the events of 19-20 June and 3-4 July 2006 should be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "819c19e5-5ca2-4ef2-9641-545754e65111", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government pleaded failure to comply with the six-month time-limit, referring to the date on which the had been taken (29 May 2002), and the date on which the application had been lodged (8 January 2003). Furthermore, they contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, as he had failed to raise, even in substance, his complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) in the national courts."], "id": "4acba944-aa8a-45f8-8603-a81c64fc9f05", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant appears to be complaining about the length of the various sets of proceedings which were concluded between 1996 and March 1998 (see paragraph 13 above). Insofar as the Court is competent ratione temporis, the Convention having entered into force in respect of Albania on 2 October 1996, that complaint must in any event be considered to have been lodged out of time, that is to say, more than six months after the date of the relevant . Accordingly, this part of the complaint must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "8765af9a-7639-484d-8010-2241d611a23a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government objected that the applicant had not complied with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In particular, they argued that he should have lodged his application, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case-law, within a period of six months which ran, according to them, either from the date of the act complained of or from the date on which he had allegedly become aware of the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies. The Government stated that, if the applicant considered that the decision of the public prosecutor\u2019s office, adopted on 3 April 2008, constituted the , he should have lodged his application by 3 October 2008. Consequently, they argued that the application of 17 October 2008 was out of time and had to be rejected."], "id": "a30687d5-9bed-4f62-aab8-b90727aefadf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicant company complained that the domestic courts had quashed the recognising its claims in the bankruptcy proceedings and had failed to recognise its claims. It also complained that the bankruptcy proceedings had been ineffective as a tool for protecting the creditors\u2019 rights. It relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads, in so far as relevant:"], "id": "dd378906-51f0-475c-9c7d-759aeb274f3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government alleged that the applicants have failed to comply with the six-month rule of Article 35 of the Convention. They argued that in the present case the was taken on 29 November 2001 by the Court of Cassation; however the application was introduced on 26 September 2002 that is more than six months after that date."], "id": "7a672662-8d5a-480b-a32f-0d6196f04cad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "final domestic decision", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government submitted that the application was inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-months\u2019 rule. They observed that the was the Katowice Regional Court\u2019s judgment given on 7 September 2001 and that the applicant had until 7 March 2002 to lodge his application. However, the applicant\u2019s first letter was received by the Registry on 19 March 2002 and thus more than six months after the final domestic decision was rendered. The Government further submitted that they had not been provided with any proof that the applicant\u2019s first letter had in fact been sent before the expiry of the six-month time-limit. The date printed on the applicant\u2019s letter (7 March 2002) should not be taken as the date on which the application had been lodged, since the applicant could have chosen this date arbitrarily. In addition, they argued that the applicant\u2019s first letter had been sent beyond the prescribed time-limit, having regard to the date of its arrival at the Registry."], "id": "6b6375d9-836d-47f8-8618-4dd06fdcb9d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "relevant new information", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government submitted that the complaint was inadmissible as under Article 35 \u00a7 2 (b) the Court could not deal with an application which was substantially the same as a matter that had already been examined by the Court or which had already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contained no . The applicant had in fact complained to the CPT about the conditions of his detention."], "id": "35516ba3-5802-4013-91a2-afc203f7b2c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "relevant new information", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant\u2019s claim in that regard, as it can be derived from her submissions, concerns the manner in which the Supreme Court dealt with one of her principal arguments based on the Court\u2019s 2007 judgment. In particular she maintained that the reasoning employed by the Supreme Court in its decision of 14 March 2008 manifestly contradicted the Court\u2019s pertinent findings in its 2007 judgment (see paragraph 29 above). This new grievance thus concerns the manner in which the March 2008 decision had been reached in the proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s exceptional appeal, not either their outcome as such or the effectiveness of the national courts\u2019 implementation of the Court\u2019s judgment (compare and contrast Steck-Risch and Others, \u00d6calan, and Schelling, all cited above, in which no distinct unfairness was alleged in relation to the conduct of the relevant new proceedings brought by the applicants in those cases at the domestic level). Although the applicant\u2019s initiatives to have the domestic decisions in the present case reconsidered were undoubtedly connected with the execution of the Court\u2019s judgment of 3 May 2007, her complaints regarding the unfairness of the subsequent judicial proceedings both concern a situation distinct from that examined in that judgment and contain relating to issues undecided by that judgment."], "id": "3a178bb7-a729-4563-8285-00ad77b36571", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "no significant disadvantage", "echr_article": "35", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government further maintained that the first applicant was not a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, because the amount of compensation he had claimed before the domestic courts (MDL 0.1) had been so low as to suggest that the true purpose of his libel action had not been to obtain redress for being defamed, but rather to make a political example of the President and the governing party. In the alternative, the Government submitted that the first applicant\u2019s application was inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7 3 (b) of the Convention because he had suffered ."], "id": "dee64267-dfde-4e0a-a037-755e0de38c93", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "educational supervision", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["178. The applicant contested the applicability of Article 5 \u00a7 4 and maintained that the Chamber\u2019s approach had been the correct one and that the proceedings fell within the scope of Article 6 and should be considered in terms of compliance with that provision. He contended that his placement in the temporary detention centre had not been aimed at but to punish him for the crime he had allegedly committed. In his view, the authorities had used the placement as a measure of criminal prosecution since they were prevented from instituting criminal proceedings against him on account of his age."], "id": "78287741-2969-4ad5-be45-7b6fad98bd36", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "educational supervision", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government justify his detention on the grounds of \u201ceducational supervision\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (d) and the Court has therefore considered whether his detention complied with the conditions imposed by that subsection. The Court notes that the applicant turned 17 during the impugned period of detention and could no longer have been required to attend school. However, the relevant part of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (d) referring to \u201ceducational supervision\u201d concerns the detention of \u201cminors\u201d, accepted by Ireland (section 2(1) of the Child Care Act 1991) to be persons under the age of 18. Since the applicant was therefore a minor throughout the relevant period, the only question for the Court is whether the detention was lawful and \u201cfor the purpose\u201d of (Bouamar, cited above, p. 21, \u00a7 50) within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (d)."], "id": "05c149f4-a63d-4f16-9c78-345e9f7a32f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "educational supervision", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["156. The applicant agreed with the reasoning in the Chamber judgment in relation to Article 5 \u00a7 1. He had been placed in the temporary detention centre for thirty days for the \u201ccorrection of conduct\u201d, which did not involve within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (d). In his view, the temporary detention centre was in no sense an institution intended for educational supervision and, according to section 22 of the Minors Act, its tasks did not include carrying out educational work with the minor. In fact, according to domestic legislation, temporary detention centres were not included in the system of educational institutions. The applicant stressed, further, that special closed institutions existed that did have the specific task of bringing up and educating children and young persons of deviant behaviour."], "id": "5abd24ee-118f-4388-9255-c753a7d4f052", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["135. The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 deprivation of liberty was a consequence of their unauthorised entry and pending the examination of their asylum application, thus in line with the first limb of the provision. Once they resulted to be , they had been released. They noted that practically all immigrants reaching Malta did not carry documents and thus ascertaining their identities upon entry was a lengthy process which dependent on the cooperation of the migrants themselves. Moreover, the large number of undocumented migrants constituted a huge and entirely justified security concern for Malta."], "id": "b11ea4fe-fa3a-413e-bcc5-269691991334", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government submitted that the applicant must demonstrate that there was a relevant difference in treatment, that it had no legitimate aim and that the treatment was not proportionate to that aim. While he was undoubtedly treated differently to other , adults and citizens, that is not the relevant distinction. The real question is whether he was treated differently to other minors in the same position and he clearly was not \u2013 any other minor with the same problems would have been treated similarly. Even if the Court finds that he was treated differently to other minors, the Government argue that any such treatment had a legitimate aim and was proportionate. The applicant maintained his allegations of discrimination."], "id": "e3e2be81-c4f9-4e7a-a254-363005704047", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government considered that the applicant's pre-trial detention had satisfied the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3. They submitted that between 12 August 1999 and 27 December 1999 the applicant had been serving a prison sentence ordered in another set of criminal proceedings against him. The Government maintained that his detention was justified by \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds. These grounds were, in particular, the gravity of the charges against the applicant, who had been accused of being the leader of an organised criminal gang. Moreover, there was a high risk of the applicant attempting to influence the victims, particularly since two other co-accused had been convicted of having threatened the victims. The Government also submitted that the applicant had absconded in the past and that there was a serious risk that he would go into hiding again. They further underlined the complexity of the case which had involved 12 co\u2011accused and concerned multiple offences of rape and false imprisonment of 5 victims, some of whom were ."], "id": "7f1a19d4-99b9-4226-a3b9-ec5e799a5249", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicants submitted that the centres at Safi Barracks were both staffed exclusively by Detention Service personnel, most of whom came from a security background and were neither trained nor competent to provide psychological or social support to detainees. While the applicants acknowledged that the personnel did their best, there was no provision of psycho-social support to detainees, especially to the applicants who were . Thus many of their concerns related to the treatment they experienced at the hands of fellow detainees which could not be addressed. The applicants highlighted that they were not provided with support to deal with the harsh realities of life in detention."], "id": "570eee1a-c88a-474f-87e1-c5104c1412e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["222. The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claims. They alleged, in particular, that the applicants\u2019 mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention, as certain applicants had been at the time of the abductions of their parents. The Government also noted that the domestic legislation provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints."], "id": "ab3aacfb-64dc-4db3-815f-a4b728d6b4dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["160. The Government maintained that the applicant\u2019s detention in the temporary detention centre had been in accordance with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (d) of the Convention since his placement had been ordered precisely for the purposes of \u201ceducational supervision\u201d. They noted that the national courts had authorised the applicant\u2019s placement in the temporary detention centre to prevent him from committing further offences \u2013 by correcting his behaviour through individual preventive work \u2013 in accordance with section 22(2)(4) of the Act. They observed that other preventive measures taken earlier had not resulted in the improvement of the applicant\u2019s behaviour and that his family had been unable to ensure his proper supervision. In relation to this, the Government stressed the applicant\u2019s troubled background with alcoholic parents, placements in orphanages, anti\u2011social and aggressive behaviour and commission of offences which had led to his being placed under the preventive supervision of the Juveniles Inspectorate between 2002 and 2005. They noted that the case file concerning the preventive supervision of the applicant had been destroyed in 2011."], "id": "62af941e-fb52-4745-b884-e5a9e5c9f635", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["111. The applicant further argued that he was discriminated against as regards all of the above matters on the grounds of his social origin, birth or \u201cother status\u201d. He was discriminated against as compared to other (he was not placed in specialised residential institution aimed at the proper care of minors), as compared to adults (as no adult could have been detained in a penal institution in such circumstances) and as compared to other citizens (as he was detained in a penal institution without having been charged or convicted of a criminal offence)."], "id": "11eda7d3-7817-4787-9a25-e3e638a3b36f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicants, of sixteen and seventeen years of age respectively when they entered Malta, were subjected to routine detention by the immigration authorities. Not even the vague governmental policy on \u201cvulnerable\u201d irregular migrants helped them. Entering Malta as irregular migrants, all odds were against them. They were placed under detention in the Safi Barracks Detention Centre. Their situation was not different from that of thousands of other migrants in Malta, the aggravating factor in their case being their age. This is the first case in which the Court finds that the conditions of detention at the above-mentioned detention centre breach Article 3. As in Suso Musa, the Court also found that the placement in detention itself breached Article 5, but the important novelty in the present case is that the Court explicitly has applied the necessity test to the interpretation of the first limb of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f), which it did not do in Suso Musa. This is the added value of the present case."], "id": "f484062b-9a30-4c17-8bb9-717848e716c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant alleged that he should have been provided with a lawyer during the detention proceedings and given the opportunity to challenge and question witnesses. We note that the applicant was temporarily detained in a juvenile detention centre under section 22(2)(4) of the Act for the purpose of preventing him from committing further delinquent acts. As we have already pointed out (see paragraph 9 above), this provision requires that the domestic court assess whether the minor has committed a \u201cdelinquent act\u201d and whether certain personal or public interests, namely the life or health of the minor or the interest in preventing further delinquent acts, justifies imposing a temporary detention order on him or her. The review of lawfulness under this provision, and the vulnerable status of the minor \u2013 in the present case a young boy only twelve years old at the relevant time, with certain health problems \u2013 thus clearly necessitate under Article 5 \u00a7 4 that the minor have access to legal assistance during the proceedings and have the possibility of challenging the veracity of witness statements that form the basis of the allegation against him."], "id": "e477ee67-1daa-4425-bcea-295ca8bad651", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government noted that from July 1997 until the beginning of 1998 there had been a considerable increase in burglaries and thefts in the city of P\u00e4rnu committed by different groups of persons. Altogether the police had initiated 11 criminal cases and on 7 occasions the investigator had joined different criminal cases. This was because the burglaries and thefts had been committed by the same persons or the joinder of the cases had been considered necessary for the better conduct of the preliminary investigation and for speeding up the investigation. The charges against the applicant had been investigated within a criminal case which had included 39 counts of burglary and theft from different kiosks and numerous other episodes of burglaries and thefts. During the preliminary investigation 18 and 7 adults, including the applicant, had been charged with criminal offences."], "id": "acb83e28-6760-4e83-bd5e-1280c10c2d34", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant has claimed that by the end of March 1998 the factual circumstances concerning the offences committed by him had largely been established by the investigation. The Court has not been provided with any information to the contrary and finds no reason to hold otherwise. It should also be noted that as regards two of the counts of burglary the applicant was caught in the act by witnesses who then took him to the police. Moreover, during the investigation the applicant admitted having committed the offences, except for the additional count of inducing . That being so, the authorities could hardly be regarded as having exercised special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings."], "id": "dd41bed7-8c9a-4bbb-ae6b-a0a8e8d06758", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["133. The applicants claimed that the Age-Assessment Procedure has often been criticised, as it is plagued by delays and by a lack of adequate procedural guarantees, including lack of information about the procedure followed and the possibility of appeal. No reasons are ever given for decisions and there is no real possibility to challenge the decision taken by the AAT. In addition, migrants undergoing Age-Assessment Procedures are detained throughout the procedures, usually in centres with adults without any special consideration for the fact that they are . They referred to the 2012 report of Human Rights Watch entitled \u2018Boat-ride to Detention: Adult and Child Migrants in Malta\u2019[2]."], "id": "1ed4dc70-629d-43fb-acfd-6114dafb4c59", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s dwelling was \u201cinspected\u201d rather than \u201csearched\u201d. This action was governed by Article 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, which allowed the police to enter and inspect a dwelling on the basis of its resident\u2019s consent. The inspection in the present case was lawful, as prior written consent had been received from the applicant, and pursued the legitimate aim of investigating a crime. Regard being had to the suspicions that the applicant had engaged in sexual activity with in the venue at issue, this inspection was justified in the interests of public safety and did not constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant\u2019s rights."], "id": "9ab565cb-ce9f-4c6e-9694-ac1ec333e552", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government submitted that the Safi Detention centre (a military base) had two warehouses (House 1 and House 2) as well as (according to the photographs submitted) a two-storey building called B Block. They explained that Warehouse 2 had been closed at the beginning of 2013 for refurbishment. Both warehouses have a capacity of 200 persons and host only men and male undergoing age-assessment procedures. They consist of a single open space with half-length low partitions between rows of bunk beds. At the entrance of the warehouse, there is a common area with tables, benches and a television, which exits onto an outdoor recreational facility. There is also access to secluded sanitary facilities with hot and cold water which respect the privacy of the individual using the shower facilities. All compounds have recreation yards which are accessible to inmates from sunrise to sunset."], "id": "02d84a4b-fab6-4198-9240-57a6310a2ed8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["133. The Government considered that the detention was carried out in good faith, as the centre at issue had been set up especially for that purpose, and the detention had fulfilled all the conditions indicated by the Court in Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 13229/03, ECHR 2008). They also considered that detention was based in law and was not discriminatory, nor was it applied across the board. Indeed they noted that vulnerable persons, including unaccompanied , women with children, pregnant women, elderly persons and disabled persons were not subject to detention, more than would be necessary until medical clearances were obtained. The Government claimed that since many persons alleged to pertain to such categories, procedures were in place to screen such requests accurately and expeditiously. As an example they submitted that in the first half of the year of 2012, out of 1, 065 persons who arrived in Malta irregularly, seventy\u2011five claimed to be minors. AWAS processed and determined all the cases and forty-six persons were issued with a care order. They further noted that age assessment of persons who were quite young was fast tracked as in such cases there was little difficulty in assessing the age. On the other hand with teenagers or alleged teenagers, close to the age of adulthood, the procedure involved more steps and thus inevitably took longer."], "id": "8d0e8aa8-63f0-4070-b749-6f551a268fb8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["156. The applicant agreed with the reasoning in the Chamber judgment in relation to Article 5 \u00a7 1. He had been placed in the temporary detention centre for thirty days for the \u201ccorrection of conduct\u201d, which did not involve educational supervision within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (d). In his view, the temporary detention centre was in no sense an institution intended for educational supervision and, according to section 22 of the Act, its tasks did not include carrying out educational work with the minor. In fact, according to domestic legislation, temporary detention centres were not included in the system of educational institutions. The applicant stressed, further, that special closed institutions existed that did have the specific task of bringing up and educating children and young persons of deviant behaviour."], "id": "8e2dc0ab-b035-461d-9b2b-7a978a70b87e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government submitted that on his recall to prison the applicant had access to a court satisfying the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. The Parole Board which authorised his continuing detention was independent of the executive and the parties and had the power to direct the Secretary of State to order the applicant\u2019s release. While and persons of unsound mind were entitled to an oral hearing, with representation, this was not always the case. An oral hearing was not essential to the fairness of the proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case as he did not dispute the facts that led to his recall, as he had been provided with all the materials before the Board and had made written representations to the Board and on the basis of the facts admitted, the Board was bound to conclude that public protection required that he be confined. The review took place approximately six weeks after recall and was therefore prompt. The decision in October 1998 to direct release was based on the progress that he had made since his first recall to prison. The applicant\u2019s second recent recall on drug related matters to prison indicated that he continued to raise matters of grave concern having regard to the circumstances in which the original murder offence came to be committed."], "id": "2e2f93b8-f8a2-4505-8f7f-b5c0d4b80b8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s daughter had lost her victim status in respect of the complaints under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (d) and 5 of the Convention, raised on her behalf by the applicant, in view of the failure to pursue civil proceedings for compensation in respect of damage caused by her unlawful placement in the closed educational facility for ."], "id": "04b1620b-e952-494b-9072-fa748d8a0ca0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["138. The Government submitted that in 2013 567 individuals had claimed to be unaccompanied and most of them had required referral to the FAV test. Thus, any delay in the examination of the applicants\u2019 request was as a result of this huge influx. Moreover, one had to bear in mind the small size of the island and its limited resources, which sometimes resulted in a waiting list to carry out certain tests. They further noted that out of the 567 individuals, only 274 were ruled to be minors."], "id": "df9cd8a5-4ab7-4d1d-b5a6-d9251b070a03", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["247. The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claims. They stated in particular that the applicants\u2019 mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention, particularly on account of the fact that certain applicants were and there was no evidence of the applicants\u2019 relatives\u2019 arrests by State agents. Lastly, the Government averred that the domestic legislation, including Articles 124 and 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints."], "id": "501076c2-51ae-4fdc-86a2-a8664c7173d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted that there had been valid reasons for holding the applicant in detention on remand. They maintained in the first place that the applicant had previous convictions for similar offences and provided the relevant court decisions. Secondly, they stated that, as the applicant had been charged with armed robbery, he faced up to fifteen years\u2019 imprisonment. At this point, they referred to Article 19 of the Law on the Establishment, Jurisdiction and Judicial Procedures of Juvenile Courts which stipulated that could not be held in detention if the charges they faced did not carry a sentence of a minimum of three years\u2019 imprisonment."], "id": "e365322f-9d0d-486b-9568-a2b6c6fe806d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government pointed out that the charges against the applicant had concerned several serious sexual crimes which had been committed in co-operation with other persons. Some of the crimes had been committed with extreme cruelty and involved . The applicant faced a heavy sentence and there existed, in the Government's opinion, a genuine public-interest requirement which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighed the rule of respect for individual liberty and justified the applicant's continued detention. They noted that the applicant was eventually sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment and temporary deprivation of his civic rights."], "id": "4e296489-b259-45eb-83da-2d175b288d1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["152. The Government stated that, during the relevant period, the CSPA at Contrada Imbriacola had been fully operational and had had the necessary human and material resources to provide aid and initial accommodation to migrants. In addition to the director and two deputy directors, the centre employed ninety-nine \u201csocial operators\u201d and cleaning staff, three social workers, three psychologists, eight interpreters and cultural mediators, eight administrative staff and three division managers responsible for supervising activities in the facility. Three doctors and three nurses provided medical assistance in a temporary unit. According to the results of an inspection carried out on 2 April 2011 by the Palermo health services, the conditions of hygiene were satisfactory, and so was the quality and quantity of the food provided. A further inspection immediately after the fire of 20 September 2011 reported that drinking water was provided in bottles and that the canteen was serving meals. Before being transferred to the Lampedusa CSPA, the applicants had undergone a medical examination which showed that they were in good health. Furthermore, and particularly vulnerable individuals had been separated from the other migrants and taken to the centre of Loran (see \u00a7 31 of the PACE report of 30 September 2011, cited in paragraph 49 above)."], "id": "e8ba4675-1a67-461d-abfb-1e9c3e7346fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["162. The Government also claimed that the regime in closed educational institutions, as foreseen by section 15(4) of the Act, was similar to the regime in temporary detention centres, as specified in section 22(2)(4) of the Minors Act. Although the emphasis was placed differently in the wording of the two provisions, the essence, methods and aims of the work conducted with the minors were the same in both places. The difference was merely in the duration of the stay. The main objects of the closed educational institutions, as specified in section 15 of the Minors Act, were fully applicable to temporary detention centres."], "id": "90cd748f-909b-47ab-9790-d3db4cb988a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant claimed that to detain a post-tariff mandatory life prisoner by reference to concerns about the prisoner which bore no necessary relationship to the nature of the criminal conduct which resulted in the imposition of the sentence in the first place produced a form of detention which had no sufficient connection with the object of the legislature and the sentence of the court, such that it amounted to an arbitrary detention in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He pointed out that no Secretary of State had ever sought to justify post-tariff detention of a mandatory life prisoner who was no longer a risk to the public on the basis of a general need to maintain public confidence in the system of criminal justice. The Government could not convincingly rely on the domestic courts' decisions where those judges had expressed unease about the imposition of a substantial term of imprisonment by the exercise of executive discretion. Nor could they rely on the recent case-law of this Court in V. v. the United Kingdom ([GC] no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX), which concerned detained during Her Majesty's pleasure and did not address developments in domestic law concerning adult mandatory life prisoners. The domestic courts identified no practical distinction between these two categories and have clearly found that the fixing of tariffs in both was akin to an exercise of sentencing or imposing punishment which attracted the same procedural safeguards as applied to a judge when passing sentence. "], "id": "44aa8b0e-b8b9-4fad-87be-a7b5d6383524", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant also maintained that the charges brought against him and the circumstances of the offence had not been complicated. He had admitted the charges from the very beginning and had assisted the investigation in a reasonable way. He submitted that it had appeared from the criminal case-file that by the end of March 1998 all or most of the factual circumstances supporting the charges had been established by the police investigators. He considered that, after having established the facts, the legal issues \u2013 for example the question whether he had induced to burglary or whether they had acted of their own will \u2013 could have been determined during the trial, without any excessive delay of the investigation."], "id": "d7155a09-eb8c-4e5a-b1f3-0ca68bc7fc2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant disagreed with the Government\u2019s argument that K. had lost her victim status. He argued that neither he nor K., as of her coming of age, could have claimed compensation for the latter\u2019s unlawful placement in a closed educational institution in the absence of clear provisions to that effect in the domestic law. He referred, in particular, to the absence of either a criminal or an administrative case in respect of K., the lack of clarity as to the procedure followed by the District Court when taking the decision of 18 February 2008 on K.\u2019s placement, and the uncertainty of K.\u2019s procedural status. Article 1070 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code provided for compensation for unlawful criminal conviction or prosecution, the unlawful application of a preventive measure and an unlawful administrative penalty, whereas K. had been neither the accused in any criminal proceedings, nor a party to any administrative proceedings. The Act did not contain any provisions on compensation for damage caused by illegal placement of minors in closed educational institutions, either. Nor did the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan of 7 August 2008 contain any mention of K.\u2019s right to compensation. Lastly, the applicant noted the absence of any established domestic practice as regards compensation for damage caused to a minor as a result of his or her unlawful placement in a closed educational institution."], "id": "51d96121-924e-43b6-848e-086232e12d9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government also argued that the applicant's detention had been aimed at securing the proper conduct of the investigation as there had been a risk that he would obstruct the proceedings and influence witnesses, in particular since he had been charged (and later sentenced) with threatening the victims. The Government emphasised that the case concerned rape and the victims \u2013 women, some of whom were \u2013 were especially vulnerable to violence and required adequate protection. They concluded that only the detention of the main perpetrators could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings since in cases of that kind victims often refrained from reporting the offence."], "id": "adfec1ee-0f29-4b56-819d-eaf8faf6ac01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government considered that the applicant's pre-trial detention satisfied the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3. It was justified by \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds. These grounds were, in particular, the gravity of the charges against the applicant who had been accused of membership of an organised criminal gang. Moreover, there was a high risk of the applicant attempting to influence the victims, particularly since two other co-accused had been convicted of having threatened the victims. The Government also submitted that the applicant had absconded in the past and that there was a serious risk that he would go into hiding again. They further underlined the complexity of the case which had involved 12 co-accused and concerned multiple offences of rape and false imprisonment of 5 victims, some of whom were ."], "id": "e406e6b8-087e-4567-a66e-3bcc85a04072", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicants found the living conditions in detention very difficult, particularly because of the fact that they had to live with so many people. They highlighted how unsafe they both felt in the often tense and violent atmosphere of detention, where other violent individuals were hosted (despite criminal records); both applicants describe incidents of bullying and intimidation which left them feeling very threatened and unsafe in detention, where it was impossible for them to obtain protection or effective redress for the harm suffered. Apart from being a minor, the first applicant also belonged to a minority group in that he was a member of the Midgan, a minority tribe, which caused him to fear other detainees, who often also stole his food. The applicants failed to understand how they, as , could be detained with other aggressive individuals, without any form of protection, supervision or support. Furthermore they admitted that they did not always report certain individuals for fear of reprisals. They noted that incidents of assault in detention were common, particularly among detainees, although few if any were reported, possibly due to doubts about the efficacy of the system in place to provide redress. A report entitled Becoming Vulnerable in Detention, National Report on Malta, July 2010 under the DEVAS project, reported that 28% of respondents interviewed for the study reported being physically assaulted while in detention. Of these 68% were assaulted by other detainees; 18% of them reported that they had filed complaints in cases of physical assault, but none reported that the complaints had resulted in any change."], "id": "06dd8850-0cb2-46ca-9b0e-e7712d3eea39", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "minors", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government considered that the applicant's pre\u2011trial detention satisfied the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3. It was justified by \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds. These grounds were, in particular, the gravity of the charges against the applicant who had been accused of membership of an organised criminal gang. Moreover, there was a high risk of the applicant attempting to influence the victims, particularly since two other co\u2011accused had been convicted of having threatened the victims. The Government also submitted that the applicant had absconded in the past and that there was a serious risk that he would go into hiding again. They further underlined the complexity of the case which had involved 12 co\u2011accused and concerned multiple offences of rape and false imprisonment of 5 victims, some of whom were ."], "id": "5e363a25-946c-46b0-b77a-b1d04f189405", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government took the view that the applicant\u2019s preventive detention in the present case had complied with Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. It was justified under sub-paragraph (a) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 as \u201cdetention of a person after conviction by a competent court\u201d. There had been a sufficient causal connection between the order for the applicant\u2019s preventive detention by the sentencing Cologne Regional Court in 1972 and his after 26 January 2000. The repeated suspensions of the execution of the preventive detention order by the Krefeld Regional Court on 17 December 1980 and on 2 March 1994 (see paragraphs 11 and 14 above) had not affected that causal connection as those suspensions had had to be revoked following the applicant\u2019s fresh offences (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above)."], "id": "67cb13fd-abbc-4e78-9794-2f7a5df0df95", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government argued that the applicant had not been the victim of a that could be imputed to the State. The applicant had been detained in a private clinic, and there had not been a court order or other decision by a State entity authorising her confinement. Nor had any State entities been involved in the applicant\u2019s detention as supervisory authorities. Such supervision had only been provided for by law in respect of institutions competent to admit patients confined to a psychiatric hospital by a court order. Dr Heines\u2019s clinic had not been such an institution. The clinic had had no obligation and indeed, on account of a doctor\u2019s duty of confidentiality, no right to inform the State authorities about the applicant\u2019s treatment there."], "id": "c12ccbfd-a413-4300-8f2e-eca29a48c645", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant submitted that she had been subjected to a criminal sanction and that her could therefore, on the face of it, be treated in the same way as the situation covered by Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention. Since, in her submission, her deprivation of liberty had not been effected in accordance with the applicable criminal procedure, it had to be regarded as breaching that provision of the Convention. Nor was her placement in the school compatible with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (d) of the Convention, seeing that she had not had access to a system offering adequate education and support at the Podem school and had not been properly protected against the exploitation to which she had previously fallen victim and which had formed the basis for her placement in the school."], "id": "659b73c6-c7cd-4b2c-895f-cc8bb4f9f9d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["112. The applicants further took the view that the information provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 2 had to emanate from the authority carrying out the arrest or placement in detention \u2013 or, in any event, from official sources. During their they had had no contact with the authorities, not even orally, concerning the reasons for their detention. The fact that members of non-governmental organisations had been able to communicate with the migrants on this subject could not, in their view, satisfy the requirements of that provision."], "id": "03d2aa38-3174-4081-bbbe-2d0971e9c312", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government have not invoked any of the permissible grounds for the applicant\u2019s between 18 and 25 September 2014. They did, however, cite the Court\u2019s case-law relating to sub\u2011paragraph (e) of Article 5 \u00a7 1, namely the detention of persons of unsound mind. Since it is obvious that the applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty was not covered by sub\u2011paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) or (f) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the Court will ascertain whether the applicant\u2019s detention in the present case was justified under sub-paragraph (e) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "39088d68-9ffb-4d12-a3de-d44d2591af5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that remanding the applicant in custody had been justified on several grounds. Firstly, she had been charged with having committed several crimes for which the punishment could entail . Secondly, in view of her personality and life-style there had been a serious risk that if she remained at liberty she would commit further crimes and obstruct the investigation. According to the references from the boarding school, the applicant was prone to truancy, drinking alcohol and smoking and had a negative influence on her schoolmates. Moreover, the applicant had already been placed on the wanted list before her arrest, which evidenced her proneness to abscond. These reasons, on the basis of which the District Court had remanded her in pre-trial custody, were relevant and sufficient for the ordering of the measure."], "id": "8bbf33b5-58cb-4f45-8ff5-15e542b0c098", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant maintained that his placement in the social care home was in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. As regards the objective aspect of , the applicant submitted that his situation in the Ruda R\u00f3\u017caniecka Home had been similar to the conditions examined by the Court in the case of D.D. v. Lithuania (no. 13469/06, 14 February 2012). In particular, the applicant could not leave the home freely. Only his guardian could apply to the home\u2019s management for a leave of absence for the applicant. The length of the leave of absence was limited and could only be extended exceptionally. In the event of an unauthorised absence the police would be informed. Therefore, the applicant had been entirely under the control of the staff of the social home."], "id": "e9db567d-561b-403f-9fc6-75950046d9d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant argued that his detention after 25 January 2005 had been unlawful, for reasons which the Constitutional Court had indicated in its judgment I. \u00daS 6/02 of 4 December 2002 and a number of judgments delivered subsequently, including those of 10 May and 30 November 2006, in the applicant\u2019s case. The position set out in the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgments put an end to the practice of ordinary courts, which had been applied in the applicant\u2019s case and which was contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 1, namely of not providing appropriate guarantees for judicial control of of accused persons following their indictment."], "id": "37b4fd45-484e-4bfb-a9dc-cf9918530bdb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant claimed that his preventive detention at issue had violated Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. His detention was unlawful and could no longer be justified under sub-paragraph (a) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 because there was no longer a causal connection between his conviction and his after his renewed detention in May 2008."], "id": "dd55e23e-f7e0-4285-b320-ee5396f4aa0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government asserted that the applicant's arrest had been based on the presence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. Furthermore, the Izmir Assize Court had dismissed the applicant's claims of compensation for the allegedly unlawful given that the circumstances of the applicant's case had not been prescribed by Article 1 of Law no.466. Accordingly, the applicant's arrest and detention and the domestic courts' refusal to grant him compensation complied with Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 5 of the Convention."], "id": "9f4bdbc1-21d7-4aa6-b64d-7dcd6f450187", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicants acknowledged that, under Italian law, the CSPAs were not detention centres but reception facilities. They argued, however, that this fact did not preclude the finding that, in practice, they had been deprived of their liberty in the Lampedusa CSPA and on the ships Vincent and Audace, in spite of the domestic law classification of the confinement. They observed that, to ascertain whether a person had been deprived of his or her liberty, the starting-point had to be his or her concrete situation and not the legal characterisation of the facility in question. Otherwise States would be able to implement forms of without any safeguards simply by classifying the premises in question as a \u201creception facility\u201d rather than a \u201cdetention facility\u201d."], "id": "8d0711d2-63e1-4e0d-aa28-a195c60c9c4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["79. The applicant submitted that on 9 March 2010 he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty from 8.40 a.m. to 9.34 p.m. Under the domestic criminal procedure rules, the warrant to appear could not justify a person\u2019s . In addition, the authorities had not complied with the aforementioned criminal procedure rules because they had not provided any reasons why they had issued this order against him. There had been no danger that the applicant might contact the victims of his alleged offence, because he had been unaware of the accusations brought against him and had not known who his accusers were. Also, the authorities had disregarded the law by holding the applicant for periods longer than had been necessary to question him."], "id": "e0faa99c-ccf5-48df-ada0-02885dc1a5c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that Mr Raza\u2019s placement in a detention facility pending his deportation had complied with all substantive and procedural rules. The length of his was due to the need to secure a document allowing him to travel abroad. The Bulgarian immigration authorities had made numerous requests in this regard to the embassy of Pakistan, to no avail."], "id": "8ad86450-08ce-429e-9cac-57d05b3d8810", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention had been in full compliance with the requirements of the relevant domestic law and had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. In particular, the time-limits for his pre-trial detention had not been set out in the decisions extending the detention following the submission of the indictment because that had not been required under the relevant domestic law. However, on each occasion the domestic authorities had paid due attention to the necessity of his continued detention and had examined the particular circumstances of the case warranting his continued ."], "id": "c713cefd-1ab5-48e8-8e63-b9a3444e53c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant brought the claim for compensation under Article 552 \u00a7 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, his claim was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15 November 2007. The domestic courts found that the proceedings against the applicant had ultimately been discontinued, a circumstance which, under Polish law, rendered his pre\u2011trial detention \u201cundoubtedly unjustified\u201d within the meaning of Article 552 of the Code - a prerequisite for obtaining compensation under this provision. The Court has held in similar circumstances that the compensation due to an applicant as a result of his acquittal was indissociable from any compensation he might have been entitled to under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention as a consequence of his being contrary to paragraphs 1 to 4 (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], cited above, \u00a7 57; and Staykov v. Bulgaria, no. 49438/99, \u00a7 108, 12 October 2006)."], "id": "2e362a29-ffe8-4085-b9a4-5e0ade7a5342", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant argued that section 2 of the SMRDA gave a right to compensation only to persons placed in pre-trial detention, provided that their detention had been quashed for lack of legal grounds. However, her did not amount to pre-trial detention, and moreover there was no procedure for challenging its lawfulness. Therefore, her action was barred."], "id": "c963d5ae-27b4-4ba9-bfa4-72f69e3f62af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["123. The Government submitted that the \u201cfirst part\u201d of the applicant\u2019s detention fell within the first limb of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f). They further submitted that the applicant\u2019s was required for the purpose of repatriation. It had continued until there were no longer any prospects of her return, and at that point she was released on 12 September 2013 given that, while it transpired that she was not Somali, the Government were unable to establish the exact country of origin of the applicant."], "id": "be9b10be-02d5-4cc4-ab64-d5eb46fce52c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention that their detention by the police prior to their removal on 12 September and 11 October 2008 had been unlawful, and that they had not been informed of the reasons for their in the course of their deportations and had no means of challenging its lawfulness."], "id": "f46f8468-a66d-4fed-9952-40b21dae8d69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that the applicant\u2019s from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. on 15 February 2005 had been effected in breach of Articles 91 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which regulated the grounds and procedure for the arrest of a suspect in criminal proceedings, and Article 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the enhanced guarantees for a juvenile suspect in case of arrest in criminal proceedings."], "id": "aa256da0-f59a-4067-8930-bf992ff3c7eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["102. The applicant was apprehended on suspicion of procurement and attempted supply of drugs following a search in his flat and seizure of a quantity of drugs. The Court is satisfied that that suspicion was a reasonable one. For at least an initial period, its existence justified the applicant\u2019s detention. However, the Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but with the lapse of time this no longer suffices. Thus, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, \u00a7 44, ECHR 2006\u2011...). Where such grounds were \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d, the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed \u201cspecial diligence\u201d in the conduct of the proceedings."], "id": "8e91d95d-1eac-4bde-a509-32aa0fbb1f6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["97. The applicant submitted that she had been able to exhaust adequate and effective remedies only after 10 October 2005, when she had been released from hospital and had escaped from her family. In this connection, she contended that she had lodged several criminal complaints against her family members, the psychiatrist Dr. I., and police officer G.C. for unlawful , bodily harm and association cooperation with a view to committing offences. In addition, she had joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party. Consequently, she had provided the authorities with the opportunity to examine her case and her claims. The authorities could have assessed if her hospitalisation, diagnosis and treatment had been carried out in accordance with the rules set out by Law no. 487/2002. In addition, the said Law provided that a doctor\u2019s criminal liability could be engaged if he had breached the principles protected by it."], "id": "7976179c-ddef-4960-9ed9-69a2d3bdd212", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s argument that house arrest had constituted a within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention. They suggested that the measure should be examined as a restriction of freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. In any event, they considered that the coercive measure had been justified in view of the prior breach of the applicant\u2019s residence order. They submitted that although the investigator\u2019s order to apply a written undertaking not to leave the city of Moscow, dated 17 December 2012, could be \u201cinterpreted in different ways\u201d, it did not absolve the applicant from obtaining prior authorisation from the investigator for travelling to Moscow Region. They maintained that the requirement of prior authorisation set out in Article 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had remained valid irrespective of the investigator\u2019s decision of 17 December 2012. They submitted that the cancellation of that decision by the investigator himself on 13 January 2014 corroborated their argument. They also pointed out that the applicant had not gone to the investigator\u2019s office to study the criminal case file on 19 December 2013."], "id": "765bad5e-8036-4a0a-a12c-f887327bf461", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant argued that his case was a parallel case to that of M. v. Germany (cited above). The defendant State was therefore obliged under Articles 1 and 46 of the Convention to put an end to the Convention violation also in his case. It was possible for the German courts to interpret the relevant provisions of German law in conformity with the Convention (the applicant referred, in particular, to a decision of the Federal Court of Justice (fourth senate) of 12 May 2010 (file no. 4 StR 577/09)). The new Therapy Detention Act (see paragraph 40 above) was unconstitutional, circumvented the Court\u2019s findings in the M. case and led to a prolongation of the in breach of the Convention of the persons concerned."], "id": "aa2689e4-b93f-4c6d-a1e3-c555e9bc42cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government maintained that the applicant\u2019s was not in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. Her pre\u2011trial detention had been based on Article 152 of the CCP, which had stipulated that it was mandatory in cases like hers. Moreover, the time\u2011limits set in domestic law for pre\u2011trial detention had not been exceeded. As regards the applicant\u2019s house arrest, under domestic law there was no absolute time\u2011limit for its duration. Nevertheless, the length of the applicant\u2019s house arrest had corresponded to her state of health and to the pace of the criminal proceedings against her."], "id": "e2cc93e3-e201-4877-9643-b2cc1537798e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["97. The applicant was refused leave to enter Russia and his detention at Sheremetyevo Airport was thus covered under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention for the purpose of preventing his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country. The Court reiterates that it falls to it to examine whether the applicant\u2019s detention was \u201clawful\u201d for the purposes of Article 5 \u00a7 1, with particular reference to the safeguards provided by the national system. Where the \u201clawfulness\u201d of detention is in issue, including the question whether \u201ca procedure prescribed by law\u201d has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it requires in addition that any should be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, which is to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Amuur, cited above, \u00a7 50)."], "id": "b4317567-58c3-4582-a626-399984bca4f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicants complained that the poor material conditions of their stay in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport had been incompatible with the guarantees of Article 3 of the Convention. They further complained that their confinement to the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport amounted to an unlawful in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. These Convention provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "c85bd68a-4199-42d6-bcda-dd70caf6d4d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government submitted that, although subsequently impugned by the courts, Mr Dzhabarov\u2019s and Mr Petkov\u2019s detention had been in line with the formal requirements of the law and based on a reasonable suspicion, which did not presuppose the existence of categorical evidence of them committing an offence. As for Ms Nikolova, she had not been detained but simply taken to a police station for a short time to be questioned. The Government went on to emphasise that both the Code of Criminal Procedure 2005 and the Code of Administrative Procedure 2006 laid down a number of safeguards intended to prevent unlawful and arbitrary ."], "id": "82540b43-0586-4319-9869-b9f7150428af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant noted that the institution of the criminal proceedings in itself had not been sufficient to justify his . He maintained that his arrest had been conducted with numerous procedural violations and had not been justified. The case file had contained no specific evidence that the applicant had had any intention of escape and he could not have possibly continued any alleged criminal activities, as by the time of his arrest he had not been a member of the Government anymore."], "id": "f9540f26-5230-439c-9487-f5e59e003ffe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government further submitted that the applicant had had the opportunity to apply to the administrative courts under Article 125 of the Constitution to object to the decision to hold him at the Kumkap\u0131 Foreigners\u2019 Admission and Accommodation Centre, and indeed had done so. They therefore considered that the applicant had had a remedy whereby he could challenge the lawfulness of his ."], "id": "146e15c8-f1d5-444a-979d-1d5423f30669", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government observed that, following the judgments of 30 January and 3 February 2003, the applicants had been immediately released and had left the centre for illegal aliens in Bruges. However, as they had not been allowed to enter the territory owing to the decisions refusing them entry, which were still in force, they had been taken to the transit zone. That measure had implemented the above-mentioned decisions in accordance with domestic law and with the domestic courts' interpretation of it. The investigating courts had no jurisdiction to set aside or stay the execution of decisions refusing entry or ordering removal. Under section 72, subsection 2, of the Act of 15 December 1980, their role was limited to ascertaining whether administrative decisions depriving individuals of their liberty were in accordance with the law. In any event, the applicants' transfer to the transit zone could not be regarded as . The order of 14 February 2003 had departed from domestic and international case-law in considering that the transit zone was a \u201cclosed place\u201d. The only restriction placed on the applicants' freedom was that they had been prohibited from entering Belgian territory. Furthermore, the applicants had been duly informed of their situation in English, a language which they knew, and their luggage, money and personal effects had been returned to them. They had been free to move and, in particular, to leave Belgian territory. The authorities had also given them the opportunity to do so by taking a flight on which seats had been booked in their names, but the applicants had refused these opportunities on three occasions and one occasion respectively. In those circumstances, the applicants must be considered to have been at the origin of the complaint which they had put forward and the State was therefore not responsible for the situation created (citing Mogo\u015f v. Romania, no. 20420/02, 13 October 2005)."], "id": "abd57212-b3bc-4513-bea2-b6c7c484290d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government contended that the enforcement of the order to appear before the criminal-investigation authority issued in the applicant\u2019s name could not be considered a within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1. They claimed that the applicant had willingly accompanied the police officers from the Bihor Police Inspectorate. They maintained that although the questioning of the applicant had lasted one and a half hours (between 0.30 a.m. and 1.52 a.m.), enforcement of the measure had taken longer because of the applicant\u2019s problematic medical condition. The Government further submitted that the order to appear before the criminal-investigation authority had been issued in compliance with the national law and had been justified by the investigators\u2019 doubt that the applicant would present himself for questioning at the police headquarters."], "id": "7a367c6e-952a-4a90-9376-696a5b9725ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained that he had been deprived of the right to obtain compensation for his pre\u2011trial detention between 20 September 1994 and 11 January 1995. He submitted that he had used the only available domestic remedy; however, his claim for compensation failed. The applicant argued that the domestic courts\u2019 practice of crediting a period of towards a fine was unfair and had not compensated for the damage sustained by him."], "id": "2f81a3b5-9f12-4502-9564-2009feccedd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicants submitted, in particular, that their detention had not been justified under sub-paragraph (c) of Article 5 \u00a7 1, as that provision did not authorise a purely preventive . They had not been detained in connection with criminal proceedings, as required by that provision as interpreted in the Court\u2019s case-law (they referred, inter alia, to Je\u010dius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, \u00a7 50, ECHR 2000\u2011IX). This was proved by the fact that their detention had not been based on section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which concerned remand in custody (see paragraph 42 above). On the contrary, the courts had based their detention on sections 55 and 56 of the Mecklenburg-West Pomerania Public Security and Order Act (\u201cthe PSOA\u201d), which governed detention for preventive purposes without any link to criminal proceedings."], "id": "9b3dce26-7796-4e27-8a84-bb50f3128623", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government took the view that the applicant's complied with Article 5 \u00a7 1. They pointed out that during the period in which the applicant had been released on probation and had been instructed by the Bayreuth Regional Court to reside in an old people's home (from 16 December 2003 until 3 March 2004), he had not been deprived of his liberty. During that period, he had only been subjected to a restriction of his freedom of movement to which he had agreed in the hearing before the Regional Court."], "id": "78465e01-79af-44be-b1da-e0fb20152cc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies with regard to the issue of his or the legality of his continued detention. In respect of the deprivation of liberty, the Government noted that the applicant had not appealed against the Tallinn Administrative Court\u2019s decision of 31 October 2003 whereby his placement in the deportation centre had been authorised. In so far as the applicant\u2019s subsequent stay in the deportation centre was concerned, the Government emphasised that the domestic courts, when authorising the extension of his detention in the deportation centre, had dealt with the issue only in the context of extending the stay. If the applicant had believed that the length of his detention had been unlawful, he should have filed a separate claim for damages."], "id": "d251059c-06e4-4df3-90bf-e2a9c4ffb026", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant\u2019s clearly did not fall under sub\u2011paragraphs (a), (d), (e) or (f) of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention. Nor could it be said to fall under sub\u2014paragraph (b): there was no evidence of non\u2011compliance with a lawful order of a court and the applicant\u2019s detention could not have been to secure the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law because, at the time his arrest, there was no unfulfilled obligation on the applicant (see Vasileva v. Denmark, no. 52792/99, \u00a7 36, 25 September 2003)."], "id": "b0244591-8e50-44ce-87fa-230318aa8b33", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["101. The applicant maintained his claims. Firstly, he alleged that his placement in hospital had amounted to a deprivation of his liberty. Thus, he was placed in a locked facility. After he attempted to flee the hospital in January 2006, he was tied to his bed and given an increased dose of sedative medication. He was not allowed to communicate with the outside world until his discharge. Finally, the applicant subjectively perceived his confinement in the hospital as a . Contrary to what the Government suggested, he had never regarded his detention as consensual and had unequivocally objected to it throughout the entire duration of his stay in the hospital."], "id": "f60725c8-d819-4069-a21e-d92cf3f899a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["191. The Government suggested that the applicant\u2019s during the period under consideration was caused by slow progress of the copy of the court order of 7 July 2003 from the Kominternovskyy Court to the Hospital and the need to warn the competent authorities about the release of a mentally ill person. The Court takes this to be an argument that, in the circumstances, the applicant\u2019s detention was still authorised by the decision of 5 July 2002. The Court reiterates that administrative formalities connected with release cannot justify a delay of more than several hours (see Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, \u00a7 82, 30 January 2003; see also Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011IV, \u00a7 25; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, \u00a7 172, ECHR 2000\u2011IV, and Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, \u00a7 42)."], "id": "212d1ca5-70b8-4acd-b9fa-286cc6c310b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government stated that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as it had been open to her to request the District Court to revoke its order, pursuant to Article 344 of the 2006 CCP. They argued that the District Court had already done so when the applicant\u2019s lawyer appealed against the fine imposed on her (see paragraph 9 above). On the merits, the Government argued that Article 5 was not applicable because the measure taken against the applicant did not amount to a but rather to a temporary restriction of her freedom of movement. They stated that the applicant\u2019s detention on the day before the hearing had been necessary, because the train used by the escort departed early the next morning. They also stated that the order of 18 September 2006 had a legal basis in Article 269 (2) of the 2006 CCP."], "id": "4bc32c8a-8704-47fe-a94c-5618bbcfc4e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants complained that their arrest, conviction for breach of public order and contempt of court, and consequent punishment by , as imposed by the President of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal in her decision of 29 June 2006, was unlawful and unfair, in breach of Articles 5 \u00a7 1 and 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention."], "id": "8469ca4c-2b0b-45ff-ae5e-819d64c519d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government submitted that this complaint was premature. In particular, since the domestic investigation into the applicant\u2019s complaint of unlawful was incomplete, it was not possible to determine whether the applicant had been deprived of his liberty before 8.40 p.m. on 19 July 2005. The Government were therefore precluded from commenting on whether the applicant had been promptly brought before a judge."], "id": "5cab3afc-266a-4b60-9ddc-f78a414933df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["121. The applicant submitted that Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention also enshrined requirements as to the quality of the law, which meant that a domestic law authorising had to be sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application. She further submitted that Article 5 applied to the right of a convicted person to early release where the legal provisions establishing the right did not make it conditional or discretionary but applicable to anyone who met the legal conditions of entitlement (see Grava, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 31-46), irrespective of whether the measure related to the sentence proper or to its execution for the purposes of Article 7. She argued that the extension of the sentence and/or of its effective duration had not been reasonably foreseeable and, in the alternative, that the substance of the penalty imposed and/or the manner of its execution and/or its effective duration had not been reasonably foreseeable either."], "id": "6db034a0-11ca-427f-a240-33e6fd3e8948", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicant claimed that his detention pending extradition had been in breach of both domestic and international legal provisions. The decision of the district prosecutor\u2019s office of 9 June 2009 authorising his remand in custody had been unlawful as, contrary to the requirements of Article 466 \u00a7 2 of the CCrP, the Russian authorities had not received either a copy of the Almaty City Court\u2019s arrest warrant or an extradition request by the time they had taken the decision in question. Furthermore, the applicant insisted that he should have been released no more than two months after his initial remand in custody since, pursuant to Article 466 \u00a7 2 of the CCrP, a term of detention authorised by a prosecutor could not be longer than two months. In the absence of any judicial decision covering his detention between 3 May 2009 and 30 April 2010, his detention had therefore been in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. During his lengthy detention he had not been protected against arbitrary ."], "id": "b28c934a-57ac-4468-a758-3f516c6941fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["95. The Government argued that, in any event, the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention had been met. The had been justified under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Convention, since its purpose had been to allow the applicant to become acquainted with the criminal file against her. Relying on the case of Soare and Others v. Romania (no. 24329/02, 22 February 2011), they pointed out that the order had not had a punitive intent, but had been issued in order to ensure that an obligation prescribed by law was fulfilled. Moreover, the order to appear had a legal basis in domestic law, namely Articles 183 and 250 of the CCP, and it had been delivered by the prosecutor in the interests of the proper administration of justice. Bearing in mind the applicant\u2019s behaviour in the past, when she had refused to comply with such orders, the prosecutor had reasons to suspect that she might try to obstruct and delay the proceedings. The Government provided copies of summonses to appear which had been sent to the applicant in December 2002 and January 2003, as well as police reports stating that the applicant had not responded to those summonses."], "id": "a57331b3-8648-4c32-bbe6-6ebf86243920", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted: \u201c... the acceptance of to which no other citizens are subject is the result of a voluntary decision on the part of those who embrace a career in the armed forces and consequently accept the discipline it imposes ... It is quite clear that such situations are not covered by Article 5 of the Convention as they result from the choice made by the applicant, who is free to avoid such legal consequences whenever he wishes simply by abandoning his military career, unlike a person who commits and is convicted of a criminal offence ...\u201d The Government said in conclusion that the situation examined in the instant case did not come within the ambit of the cited Convention provision, even if the Spanish reservation was found not to be applicable to such cases."], "id": "ecb0fd4f-72f8-4a58-8d6c-e668a130b526", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government\u2019s claim that the applicant had been released at 3.15 p.m. and had gone to the Nadterechnyi police station of his own will appears as implausible to this Court as it did to the domestic court (see paragraph 10 above). The applicant denied that he had asked to be taken there to file a complaint, and the Government were unable to produce a copy of any such complaint to substantiate their contention. The facts that the applicant was brought there by police car in the company of a police officer, that he had his identity checked, and that he had thanked the station chief for \u201ca prompt release\u201d (see paragraph 6 above) suggest that the applicant\u2019s transfer to the Nadterechnyi police station and his stay there amounted to a . He was therefore deprived of his liberty until 5.10 p.m. on 10 October 2006, for a total duration of four hours and ten minutes."], "id": "86e20957-f81f-41bc-834f-1cbb436986c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant further submitted that his was not in compliance with Articles 183 and 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He emphasised that he had never been summoned to appear before the Prosecutor\u2019s Office attached to the Cluj Court of Appeal before 27 November 2006 and that no reasons had been provided by the Romanian authorities for taking such a measure against him."], "id": "e7d60db0-6fe5-46fc-b988-208cc22c8c51", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["135. The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 was a consequence of their unauthorised entry and pending the examination of their asylum application, thus in line with the first limb of the provision. Once they resulted to be minors, they had been released. They noted that practically all immigrants reaching Malta did not carry documents and thus ascertaining their identities upon entry was a lengthy process which dependent on the cooperation of the migrants themselves. Moreover, the large number of undocumented migrants constituted a huge and entirely justified security concern for Malta."], "id": "2676a1dd-ab8d-4dc9-b2e3-37858e7e49f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["145. The Government maintained that the domestic courts had not breached the domestic law when ordering or extending the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention. As regards the initial detention order (that of 25 October 2003), and the subsequent extensions, it is true that they did not specify the time-period for the detention. However, under Article 109, section 1 of the CCrP pre-trial detention is imposed for a period of up to two months. The law also specified the maximum duration of any extension thereof. The fact that the courts had not indicated the periods of detention did not mean that the applicant had been subjected to an unlimited ."], "id": "fcf9b545-c069-4966-a0af-6c91c1a23de2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicant submitted that his between 13 July and 12 October 2006 and between 26 April and 28 June 2007 had not been acknowledged as unlawful in the domestic proceedings and, therefore, he had had no grounds to claim compensation under Articles 1070 and 1100 of the Civil Code. There had therefore been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention in respect of the above-mentioned periods."], "id": "003a5230-c532-41e9-8a28-07285ddc8971", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicant attempted to make use of the avenue open to him under Russian law. However, his appeal was never examined. The Court would like to reiterate that Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention requires that certain procedural rights of a detained person must be respected. These need not be the same as the guarantees of \u201ca fair hearing\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and they should take account of the possibility, in the context of the of persons of unsound mind, that those persons may be personally incapable of using their procedural rights. Accordingly, the prescribed minimum must ensure that that the mentally ill person has access to the courts and the opportunity to be heard either in person, if possible, or through a legal representative, where his condition demands this (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, cited above, \u00a7 60). The Court is prepared to tolerate certain limitations on the exercise of this right where justified by the circumstances (see, for instance, X. v. Belgium, no. 6692/74, Commission decision of 13 March 1975, Decisions and Reports (DR) 2, p. 108, concerning the introduction of a time limit on applications for release). In the present case, the Government did not cite any justification, apart from the applicant\u2019s mental illness, for the court\u2019s silence towards his appeal against the detention order. However, it would be inconceivable, in the opinion of the Court, that Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention should afford procedural guarantees to a party whose detention matter is pending before a court without also protecting what makes it in fact possible to benefit from such guarantees \u2013 that is, the possibility to access the court by making an application to review the lawfulness of the detention. The effective and expeditious characteristics of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention are of no value at all if there are no judicial proceedings. The Court will not accept the state of mind of a detained person, on its own, as an implied and blanket limitation on his right to institute judicial review proceedings for the purpose of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, particularly so when, as in the present case, no assessment of his ability to be personally involved in the proceedings leading to his detention was performed by the court and no formal court decision explaining the reasons behind the refusal to examine the appeal was issued. The importance of what is at stake \u2013 personal liberty \u2013 compels this conclusion."], "id": "5302356e-b679-4224-9584-62de9ffcd599", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["194. The Government submitted that from 5 April 2011 until 22 December 2011 the applicant had been deprived of his liberty on the basis of deportation and detention orders that had been issued on 4 April 2011, pursuant to section 6(1)(k) and (l) of the Aliens and Immigration Law, on the grounds that the applicant had been a prohibited immigrant staying in the Republic unlawfully. In particular, the decision ordering the applicant\u2019s detention had been based on section 14 of the Aliens and Immigration Law, which permitted the Chief Immigration Officer to order (i) the deportation of any alien who was a prohibited immigrant and (ii) his or her detention in the meantime. Therefore, the applicant\u2019s throughout this period fell within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention as he had been detained for the purposes of being deported, in accordance with domestic law."], "id": "2b9e3fd4-c607-4773-b2bc-cfa88523a467", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant complained that, in two respects, the procedure through which he challenged his provisional detention before the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court did not comply with the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 4 and Article 6 of the Convention. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 4, which is the lex specialis for matters of (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, \u00a7 55, ECHR 2005-XII). Article 5 \u00a7 4 reads as follows:"], "id": "88cdf118-fb2c-4545-97c1-871e6560caef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["128. The applicant submitted that his detention had been ordered and extended without justified and sufficient legal and constitutional grounds and that his detention had been excessively lengthy, in violation of the principle of speediness in a case where the defendant had been deprived of his liberty. In his view the domestic authorities had failed to demonstrate special diligence during the criminal proceedings and the higher courts had also failed to address any of his complaints in that regard, interpreting the grounds for very broadly and generally."], "id": "db229a5d-61bf-4393-969d-ba204090f734", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant submitted that Article 5 of the Convention required domestic courts to review the lawfulness of a person\u2019s at regular intervals. Under domestic law that obligation was embodied in Articles 121 and 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which required the Court of Appeal to carry out reviews no later than every three months, once the duration of remand detention had exceeded six months. He argued that the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal had arbitrarily omitted to carry out such a review between 28 July 2014 and 15 April 2015. It had taken its decision more than five months after he had requested, on 7 November 2014, that the detention order against him be set aside."], "id": "4d813a77-12b8-42e6-afec-ac5931e9b6e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["146. The applicant was apprehended on suspicion of participating in multiple acts of organised armed robbery. The Court is satisfied that this suspicion was reasonable. For an initial period at least, its existence justified the applicant's detention. However, the Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but with the lapse of time this no longer suffices. Thus, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, \u00a7 44, ECHR 2006\u2011...). Where such grounds were \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d, the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed \u201cspecial diligence\u201d in the conduct of the proceedings."], "id": "c099b71f-94c8-4a9a-a541-367e3282e827", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government, arguing that the applicants were not awaiting deportation or extradition, took the view that the facts of the case did not fall within sub-paragraph (f) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which authorised a person\u2019s \u201clawful arrest or detention ... to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country\u201d or when \u201cdeportation or extradition\u201d proceedings were pending against the person (see paragraph 81 above). The Government did not, however, indicate under which other sub-paragraph of Article 5 the could be justified in the applicants\u2019 case."], "id": "d96cdd2e-8016-46bd-bcfe-a284902434de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["126. The Government noted that the refusal-of-entry orders had indicated that it was open to the applicants to lodge an appeal with the Justice of the Peace in Agrigento (see paragraph 19 above). Some other Tunisian migrants had in fact used that remedy, and in 2011 the Justice of the Peace had annulled two refusal-of-entry orders (see paragraphs 30-31 above) as a result. The Government concluded that the applicants had certainly had the possibility of applying to a court to challenge the lawfulness of their alleged ."], "id": "70efbb96-5d7e-4302-bd8c-0d6c51bbb5be", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government submitted that the reasoning by which the Chamber had established that the applicant had been under the control of State agents was inconsistent since that issue was the same as the issue of the existence of a . They argued that in its judgment of 15 June 2010 the Chamber had made a serious error by reversing the burden of proof and thus establishing a presumption of deprivation of liberty against the State, a presumption which in the Government\u2019s view constituted an extremely dangerous precedent. The Government pointed out that it had not been established in the instant case that the applicant had been deprived of his liberty; that was precisely what had to be determined."], "id": "55587ced-beb2-4478-9dd2-7783535681ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant was confined to a psychiatric hospital for a seven-day period lasting from 23 to 30 December 2010 pursuant a court order requiring him to undergo an in-patient psychiatric assessment. The Court has previously accepted that a for the purpose of conducting a court-ordered psychiatric assessment falls to be examined under subparagraph (b) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Trutko v. Russia, no. 40979/04, \u00a7\u00a7 33-35, 6 December 2016, and D.R. v. Lithuania, no. 691/15, \u00a7 69, 26 June 2018)."], "id": "0e77c750-079d-408e-aa7d-f5983e04c03f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s hospitalisation had been carried out in accordance with the court order of 2 July 2014 and had been necessary in order to determine whether he was fit to answer for his deeds. They further submitted that the applicant\u2019s hospitalisation had not amounted to a because he had consented to it by signing the hospital\u2019s pre-printed consent forms. It was only on 24 September 2014 that the applicant expressed his wish to leave the hospital and was released the next day."], "id": "13844420-c26d-49d9-b047-1b6832244f2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government argued that the applicant had been free to leave after his questioning as a witness on 23 June 2010 and that no coercion or pressure had been exercised on him to make him stay at the Security Service building. In that connection, the Government attached weight to the fact that the applicant had been accompanied by his lawyer, who must have been aware of the issues associated with the . In the absence of any complaints from the lawyer regarding his client\u2019s staying in the offices of the Security Service, there was no indication that the applicant had been kept there against his will."], "id": "4557982b-1c33-416b-ac13-63da4ba3be70", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention had been adequate. He had been detained in twenty-two different cells in the SIZO between 26 February 2003 and 18 August 2010, including cell nos. 10, 40 and 167. Every cell was equipped with a ventilation system, water supply and heating, a toilet, sink, table, bench, and a box for crockery. The applicant\u2019s complaints about his conditions of detention had been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. Each detainee had a place to sleep, there was a weekly disinfection and clean-up of rodent-infested areas, the temperature in the cells was satisfactory, and bedding was in a reasonable condition. Therefore, the applicant\u2019s conditions had not caused him suffering exceeding that inevitably caused by a ."], "id": "a2e77069-9413-41e4-b3e7-f0caf92a1c81", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Deprivation of Liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government further argued that the applicant had been released as soon as the decision on his conditional release had been served on the prison governor. Having regard to the foregoing, they maintained that his detention between 12 April 2000 and 14 April 2000 had been lawful under the Convention and in conformity with the applicable domestic law, in particular the Ordinance of the Minister of Justice of 27 August 1998 on Administrative Acts concerning Execution of Pre-Trial Detention and Sentences and Coercive Measures resulting in ."], "id": "4517a73f-05d6-4d7c-be42-5a2ac3ca30b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant submitted that he had not been \u201creliably shown to be a person of unsound mind\u201d for the purposes of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e) of the Convention. In his view, a psychiatric patient could be hospitalised only if he suffered from a serious condition which had a reasonable prospect of deterioration and would seriously endanger his health if not treated. Medical professionals must reliably show that these criteria were met, and their opinions and the domestic courts\u2019 decisions must be subject to strict scrutiny. Unwillingness to undergo hospitalisation should not be considered as justifying unless it was convincingly established that the patient was incapable of deciding on his medical treatment. The applicant claimed that in the instant case the above criteria had not been met."], "id": "c97b7674-9f84-49c4-bd00-9d3b2a00c74f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant contended that his pre-trial detention had been excessively lengthy and had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. He stressed that when extending his detention throughout the period at issue the domestic courts had failed to cite any compelling reasons justifying his . In fact, from the very beginning of his deprivation of liberty they had merely reiterated the same stereotyped wording without making the necessary assessment of the particular circumstances of the case. Moreover, following the submission of the indictment in the competent court, the domestic courts had failed to set time-limits for the continued detention in their decisions extending his detention."], "id": "bdb199b6-f41a-48dc-9ddb-ef851c3f3e53", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant argued that preventive detention did not fall under any of the sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 \u00a7 1. In particular, he had not been lawfully detained \u201cafter conviction by a competent court\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a). There had been an insufficient causal connection between a conviction and his detention because his had been exclusively preventive and thus not linked to a conviction. He further submitted that the preventive detention order made against him in 1972 following his conviction for armed robbery had not been intended to prevent him from committing further acts of fraud."], "id": "6fa1b594-01ab-4553-9f37-31053df82cb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants submitted that their compulsory placement in Drin did not meet the conditions for of persons of unsound mind set out in Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (cited above, \u00a7 39). The social work authorities based their decisions to place them in Drin on the simple fact that their families were not prepared to take care of them and they needed social assistance. They had not examined whether the necessary assistance could be provided through alternative measures that were less restrictive of their personal liberty. Furthemore, the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention in the cases of Ms Had\u017eimejli\u0107 and Mr Crepulja. Subsequently, the competent civil court held that the current state of their mental health was not of a kind or degree warranting continued placement. However, despite these rulings, they were still in the social care home against their will."], "id": "a747864b-8e32-4a22-8dcc-c198d2fb59f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government considered that this provision was not applicable in the present case, given that the applicant\u2019s had been effected for the sole purpose of Article 5. They further noted that the applicant did not invoke Article 18 in his application to the Court and the only allegation of possible political pressure had been made by the applicant in his request for priority. They noted that the applicant made only general remark about hypothetical pressure on him and therefore this issue cannot be considered by the Court. They further reiterated that the status of a politician could not grant him or her immunity from criminal prosecution. The Government observed that the applicant had been deprived of his liberty in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against him. The criminal offences with which he had been charged were defined in the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. The prosecuting authorities had conducted an investigation in connection with the suspicion that the applicant had committed serious crimes and, as a result, more than forty-seven volumes comprising the criminal case file, together with the indictment, had been forwarded by the prosecuting authorities to the court. On 23 May 2011 the court had held a preliminary hearing in the criminal case against the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant\u2019s behaviour during the period when he was at large had given sufficient grounds to believe that he had been attempting to influence the investigation and to obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case. Therefore, the Government considered that the purposes behind the deprivation of the applicant\u2019s liberty had been exclusively those envisaged by Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention."], "id": "0ca45917-e55c-482a-84bf-dbaad97d00ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["157. The Government claimed that the applicant could initiate proceedings before the Constitutional Court to challenge the compliance of specific legal provisions contained in the Law on Social Services and Social Assistance, the Civil Law and the Law on Custodial Court with provisions of superior force. The Court, being mindful of the Constitutional Court\u2019s ruling of 27 December 2010, notes however that the present applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention relates to his inability to obtain release from the \u012ale Centre and not to the issue of his legal capacity. In this connection, the Court reiterates that the Constitutional Court in Latvia is empowered to repeal legal provisions which it finds unconstitutional, but not to adopt new legal procedures or to close an alleged legislative gap (see Liep\u0101jnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, \u00a7\u00a7 73 and 75, 2 November 2010). This conclusion is further supported by the Constitutional Court ruling of 27 December 2010, whereby some legal provisions of the Latvian Civil Law relating to the legal capacity of individuals were declared null and void with effect from 1 January 2012. Parliament therefore had to come up with a legislative solution to comply with the Constitutional Court\u2019s ruling and to establish a system of partial legal capacity for individuals in Latvia. This was done two years after the Constitutional Court\u2019s ruling and the new regulation is applicable from 1 January 2013. In such circumstances the Court fails to see how the present applicant\u2019s recourse to the Constitutional Court would enable him \u201cto take proceedings at reasonable intervals\u201d to determine the lawfulness of his continued . The Government did not suggest that there were any other venues available to the applicant to obtain a review of the lawfulness of his detention in the institution."], "id": "98592e87-4658-404c-bda9-d2ee84d8b650", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government further argued that the applicant\u2019s preventive detention was the least intrusive way of protecting the public. The experts consulted by the domestic courts had confirmed that the applicant\u2019s dangerousness had not diminished as a result of his age because, in order to commit his offences, he had used force against considerably weaker women or children. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s transfer to a supervised residence run as a closed facility would not have constituted a less intrusive measure as it would equally have entailed ."], "id": "9a9b90a6-3c4f-4c5e-a05b-9b8120b0a14d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government submitted that the applicant had been accused of serious offences and that his had been necessary and not excessive in duration. Most of the investigative actions had been carried out before he had lodged his application with the Court. A careful reading of his requests for release indicated that he had failed to invoke any change in the relevant circumstances; it was therefore logical that these requests had been rejected. Each time the competent authorities had dismissed such requests, they had had regard to the risk that the applicant may abscond, obstruct the investigation or re\u2011offend. As a chairman of the board the applicant would have had the opportunity, if released, to destroy documents. Moreover, before being arrested for a second time, the applicant had failed to pay his bail and had took flight for three months. In sum, the Government were of the view that the applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty had been fully warranted, regard being had to his disregard to his duty to cooperate with the authorities. Furthermore, the applicant\u2019s house arrest had been de facto fictitious, as the authorities responsible for monitoring compliance with it had been in Burgas, whereas he had been in Sofia for medical treatment. Since the end of 1996 the applicant had had the opportunity to leave and change his place of abode without any control."], "id": "1a3e59f0-3eb3-41e7-a80e-d84a85c0986c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government further argued that the fact that the domestic authorities, when extending the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention, had reiterated the same or similar reasoning did not suggest any breach of his rights since his detention had been extended by the domestic courts sitting in various formations and with due respect to the applicant\u2019s rights and the particular circumstances warranting his continued . The domestic courts had examined the possibility of applying less restrictive preventive measures but had found them insufficient in view of the circumstances of the case. The Government also pointed out that the criminal proceedings at issue concerned a particularly complex case and that the domestic authorities had duly complied with the requirement of special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings."], "id": "2f5b2e58-f9e0-4e82-ae1e-2302508fd0d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["321. The applicant submitted that, starting from 19 April 2004 and during the period when he was questioned as a witness, it was not explained to him that he was in fact under arrest, and no reasons for his arrest were given. He was not formally charged with a crime during those days, nor was his arrest official, but was carried out on internal instructions of the Military Prosecutor\u2019s Office. He was unaware of the duration of his arrest, by whom it was ordered and whether and how he could appeal against it. He was not brought promptly before a judge, this was done only on 27 April 2004, which was about eight days after he had been taken into custody, and he had no opportunity to clarify in the meantime whether his was lawful."], "id": "b8281287-059e-4a5f-acfc-7262e480678f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicants also observed that the treatment to which they had been subjected could not be justified on the basis of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 (see paragraph 33 above), which in their view provided for so-called \u201cdeferred\u201d refusal of entry when an alien had entered Italy, \u201cfor purposes of public assistance\u201d. The above-cited Article 10 made no mention of or of any procedure for a possible confinement measure."], "id": "c399d49b-d9bc-4544-966b-fdcf340bfaf7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government also considered that the damages invoked by the applicant were not linked with the violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, which concerned only the period exceeding the reasonable time of the pre-trial detention and not the overall duration of the . Moreover, even if he were released pending trial the applicant would not have been able to return in the United States, being thus in any case obliged to provide for his daily life expenses outside prison and to receive visits from his family."], "id": "dbbad75a-38c2-4177-9bbb-4bc4c8a8d600", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicant repeatedly raised the argument that his detention had ceased to be lawful upon the expiry of an initial six-month period, both in his statement of appeal to the Regional Court and at the new detention hearing before the District Court (see paragraphs 19 and 21 above). This argument was undeniably an essential condition for determining the lawfulness of his in the period after 30 December 2013. However, both courts treated the argument as irrelevant and disregarded it in their decisions. The Regional Court first examined the merits of the applicant\u2019s grievance and ordered his release only on 11 March 2014, that is seventy days after his detention had ceased to be lawful. It follows that the scope of the judicial review was manifestly inadequate and that the proceedings were not \u201cspeedy\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "9ec1e0f1-7494-414c-823e-1ddd86991704", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant\u2019s was justified only if it was lawful, in particular on condition that it was not arbitrary and that it complied with one of the permissible grounds for deprivation of liberty listed in sub\u2011paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 \u00a7 1, in this case presumably sub\u2011paragraphs (b) or (c). The Court considers that the period of house arrest between 30 December 2014 and 5 January 2015 constituted a continuation of the house arrest applied as a provisional measure because of the court\u2019s definition of it as an extension of the \u201cpre-trial detention\u201d. It cannot accept the Government\u2019s claim that this period fell under sub\u2011paragraph (a) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 because the applicant was sentenced to a suspended prison term, which would normally entail release, and not to house arrest."], "id": "e9c993eb-5838-49ec-89fa-1c34154f5269", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant complained that in the proceedings brought for release under section 64 of the 1984 Act it was for the patient to satisfy the sheriff that he was no longer suffering from a mental disorder requiring his detention in hospital for medical treatment, arguing that under Article 5 of the Convention it was for the State to justify the ."], "id": "5e07b00e-8407-444c-a338-e42c3ad5238b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government contended that the applicants had been escorted to the police stations within two hours of their arrest, which had not been \u201cmanifestly unreasonable\u201d. The legal grounds for their escorting had been Article 27.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which had empowered the police to take individuals to a police station for the purpose of drawing up an administrative-offence record. Once the applicants had been issued the administrative-offence records, they had been administratively arrested (Article 27.3 of the Code). The term of such an arrest had to be calculated from the time a person had been brought to a police station and should not have exceeded forty-eight hours, in accordance with Article 27.5 of the Code. Both applicants had spent fourteen hours at the police stations, which had not exceeded the statutory limit. Overall, the Government considered that the applicants\u2019 had complied with domestic law and with the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "668467b3-0a19-426f-9d59-cef31818502e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant argued that, as a result of the belated service on him of the Bratislava-vidiek District Court\u2019s decision of 19 August 1993 he had been unable to challenge effectively the lawfulness of his and to seek his release. In any event, the overall length of the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his detention was excessive and incompatible with the reasonable time requirement laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "3596e08b-0994-47d7-864b-aab05ba1b605", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained that the suppression of the demonstrations and the arrests made by the police were in violation of their rights to freedom of expression and assembly as provided in Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. In respect of the events of 3 February 2009, the first applicant complained under Article 11 of the Convention that the State had not discharged its positive obligation to protect his right to freedom of assembly. The applicants also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that their had been unlawful. Article 5 \u00a7 1 reads as follows:"], "id": "2f8db063-a63e-4365-88c2-f41f3de44ff6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government alleged that the applicants had disobeyed the police officers\u2019 orders to stop the unauthorised march, and that it had been necessary to arrest them to put an end to their unlawful conduct and to take them to the police station so that an administrative offence report could be drawn up. Overall, they considered that the applicant\u2019s had complied with domestic law and that all the requisite formalities, such as the issuing of a lawful detention order, had been fulfilled. They argued that the first applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention had not exceeded three hours, and that the second applicant\u2019s detention had been within the statutory time\u2011limit of forty\u2011eight hours."], "id": "d7fe4188-58ea-48a1-a9a2-5e0acd1b0ef9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government argued, in particular, that the applicant\u2019s was justified as detention after conviction within the meaning of sub-paragraph (a) of Article 5 \u00a7 1. There was still a causal link between the applicant\u2019s conviction by the M\u00fcnster Regional Court and his continuing detention, as the applicant was still detained for the protection of the public. All medical experts, albeit using different terminology, had agreed that the applicant continued to suffer from the same mental illness, namely a pathological personality disorder with schizoid and dissocial elements and a sexual preference disorder including sadism. As he had been unable to address, in sex therapy, his condition and the most serious sexual offences he had committed, there was a high risk that he would commit further similar serious sexual offences if released."], "id": "d2f0b5f3-27a0-4a48-b13c-368b157a7fe8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["101. The applicant contended that, although under domestic law placement of people with mental disorders in a social care institution was regarded as \u201cvoluntary\u201d, his transfer to the Pastra social care home constituted a . He maintained that, as in Storck v. Germany (no. 61603/00, ECHR 2005-V), the objective and subjective elements of detention were present in his case."], "id": "56d1c236-d45d-42cd-b691-f8a32ac87946", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government submitted that the applicant could have sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage in respect of unlawful under Act no. 82/1998, which provided for the possibility of compensation for damage caused by exercise of public authority. Secondly, they contended that the applicant could have brought an action for protection of personality under Articles 11 and 13 of the Civil Code."], "id": "7e9285e4-de53-4453-9069-a07c664e5724", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government submitted that the Convention permitted only in those cases which were enumerated in Article 5 and only in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention provided for the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court. This category of permissible detention concerned any prisoner serving a sentence where \u201cthe lawful detention\u201d was based on \u201cconviction by a competent court\u201d. This normally referred to a prison sentence, although that was not specifically indicated in the text. The Government further observed that the execution of a prison sentence was, as a rule, dependent on a further decision which was not a matter for the courts but for the prosecution or prison authorities. The actual order to serve the sentence might not therefore emanate from a \u201ccompetent court\u201d but the detention would still be lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a). This would be so even where a prisoner's conditional release was revoked for a breach of the conditions, entailing re-imprisonment for the remaining term."], "id": "9fac4ce2-bf81-4905-b59f-9cf6abff467e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Government offered no explanation for the absence of any procedural steps on the part of the Idrija Local Court between 15 July and 8 August 2005. Still, they argued that the twenty-eight day delay in obtaining a second opinion and making an appropriate order \u2013 neither of which had eventually taken place \u2013 had been in accordance with the rules of domestic procedure. However, even assuming that the rules of domestic law were complied with, the Court considers that the legislation allowing for such an extensive amount of time to pass before a decision was made on confinement raises serious concerns under Article 5 \u00a7 1, as it implies a lack of procedural safeguards. The Court has already recognised that an inadequate legal framework allowing a hospital\u2019s healthcare professionals to assume full control of the liberty and treatment of a vulnerable individual solely on the basis of their own clinical assessments deprives an individual of sufficient protection against arbitrary (see H.L. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 121 and 124; and Storck, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 104-106)."], "id": "0d34d2fd-09e2-4908-9c0e-54ea57285c5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant conceded that, despite some practical difficulties, he could have brought a claim under section 2(2) of the SRDA. However, for him, such a claim would not have provided redress in respect of the complaints which he had raised before the Court. These complaints were all founded on his unlawful and unjustified detention between 10 and 14 July 2000, whereas a claim under section 2(2) of the SRDA would have been based exclusively on his eventual acquittal. In such proceedings the national courts would not have addressed the issues brought before the Court because they would have considered them irrelevant. Moreover, such a claim would have only been capable of providing compensation, not securing his release. Only remedies which could result in release could be considered effective with regard to . Similarly, a claim under section 2(2) could not have provided genuine redress for the breach of his freedom of expression."], "id": "e5209934-0932-4cf7-b43a-09102a100c02", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicants complain about their detention after they applied for asylum. In Malta, any prohibited immigrant subject to a removal order has to be detained until he or she is removed from Malta[91]. The detention of undocumented migrants is the rule and not the exception[92]. The application of the law is blind and is not carried out on a case-by-case basis. is not a measure of last resort, but a measure of first and sole resort."], "id": "1b5b9cbd-5382-49df-9aec-83ae007082ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["97. The applicant was transferred to the open ward on 8 August 2005 and remained there for four days. She was discharged and left the hospital on 12 August 2005 at her request. The Court notes that she did not provide any detailed statement to the effect that the Idrija Psychiatric Hospital prevented her from leaving the open ward. Although some of the applicant\u2019s general arguments to the effect that her stay in the open wards had constituted a \u2013 for example that the transfer to the open ward constituted a privilege for good behaviour, or that she could only leave the hospital grounds with her psychiatrists\u2019 permission \u2013 may be regarded as applying to both psychiatric hospitals in question, her specific complaints in this regard, as well as the arguments and evidence in their support all related to the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital."], "id": "94cad505-c2ce-4b35-ace9-c3e285068377", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["259. The applicant should accordingly have been able to avail himself of effective and practical remedies capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible and to an award of compensation, for the purposes of Article 13. For the reasons set out above (see paragraphs 186-94 and 242 above), no effective criminal investigation can be considered to have been carried out in accordance with Article 13 with regard to the applicant\u2019s complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The superficial approach which the public prosecutor took cannot be said to be compatible with the duty to carry out an investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment and unlawful . The Government have also confirmed the lack of an effective remedy at the relevant time (see paragraph 253 above)."], "id": "86d557c6-a8f9-48b6-9e39-09d6553837b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government contended that the complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention had been introduced out of time. In their opinion, the six\u2011month time-limit started running on 23 June 2006 (see paragraph 13 above), as that was the date of the final domestic decision concerning the lawfulness of the applicant\u2019s . As regards the subsequent compensation proceedings brought by the applicant, the Government maintained that they concerned his civil rights under Article 6 of the Convention only and were of no relevance for his complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "3726b962-29c2-4ff7-a157-b8cfa7b7d2c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["162. The applicant submitted that he had been held at the police station between around 6.30 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. on 1 March 2008 unlawfully and without any status. His so-called \u201cbringing-in\u201d (\u0562\u0565\u0580\u0574\u0561\u0576 \u0565\u0576\u0569\u0561\u0580\u056f\u0565\u056c\u0568), including the record drawn up in that respect, had been unlawful. Moreover, during that period he was questioned as a witness in the absence of a lawyer. The legal provisions regulating and defining the procedures of \u201cbringing-in\u201d and \u201carrest\u201d, relied on by the Government, failed to meet the requirements of certainty and foreseeability. In particular, in accordance with Article 128 of the CCP, as interpreted by the Court of Cassation in its decision of 18 December 2009 (see paragraph 123 above), the procedural status of a suspect was effective only from the moment when the record of his arrest was drawn up. Thus, the procedure of \u201cbringing-in\u201d, which was an initial stage of of a suspect largely practised in Armenia, lacked legal certainty. Article 153 of the CCP, which defined the concept of \u201cbringing-in\u201d, was not applicable in his case, while the only other Article of the CCP which mentioned that procedure was Article 180 \u00a7 2. As a result, after having been \u201cbrought-in\u201d at 6.30 a.m. on 1 March 2008, he was kept in a state of uncertainty as a non-suspect in a police cell until, at 10.30 p.m., the record of his arrest was drawn up. The lack of legal certainty had also been acknowledged by the Court of Cassation in its above-mentioned decision, whereby it attempted to add some certainty to the status of those who, like the applicant, were brought in but no record of arrest was drawn up to enable them to obtain the status of a suspect. The applicant lastly submitted that he had been taken into custody at around 6.30 a.m. on 1 March 2008 but taken before a judge only at 7 p.m. on 4 March 2008. Thus, he had been kept at the police station for an extra twelve and a half hours, in excess of the maximum 72\u2011hour period for arrest allowed by Article 129 of the CCP. In sum, his arrest had violated the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "fb3c6098-b282-43c9-b2e2-5cd743d5f0e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant contended that there were no arguments in favour of his and that neither the detention in custody nor the house arrest had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. He submitted that the absence of reasons for his deprivation of liberty was confirmed by his subsequent acquittal and by the fact that the Prosecutor\u2019s Office had not challenged the court judgment by which he had been acquitted."], "id": "4e6923ca-01c1-4485-9f7f-eef2299664d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants were not formally suspected of, or charged with, any offence and no criminal or administrative proceedings were instituted against them. The representative of the police station explicitly acknowledged in the domestic proceedings that \u201cno elements of an administrative offence [had been] established in the actions of the plaintiffs\u201d (see paragraph 15 above). The Court also observes that no records of an administrative violation, detention or arrest had been compiled (ibid.). It follows from the above that the applicants\u2019 arrest could not have been effected \u201cfor the purpose of bringing [them] before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) (compare with Makhmudov v. Russia, no. 35082/04, \u00a7\u00a7 82-85, 26 July 2007). Hence, the to which the applicants were subjected did not have any legitimate purpose under Article 5 \u00a7 1 and was arbitrary."], "id": "e25c6dfd-2a61-4563-93af-53bf54d7bf7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant replied that the SRDA did not provide an effective remedy for the complaints which he had raised before the Court. In his view, a distinction had to be made between the right to seek release from detention and the right to claim compensation for unlawful . A claim under the SRDA would not have led to his release, nor would it have led to the speeding up of the examination of his application for release."], "id": "38a04fd0-d33d-444e-999a-b6b622413ca3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant submitted that, since the case\u2011file of the proceedings against him had been destroyed, it was impossible to verify whether his conviction and the resulting had been ordered by a competent court and had not been arbitrary. The destruction of the case\u2011file had been unlawful, because section 91(4) of Regulation no. 28 provided that it should have been kept until the expiry of the limitation period for the enforcement of his sentence. The judgment, which was the only remaining document, was not enough to prove the regularity of his conviction. On 21 August 2002 he had filed a request for the restoration of the case\u2011file with the president of the Pernik District Court, but had received no reply."], "id": "5147afcd-bfed-483c-bcc7-5097daa34594", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["132. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s was required for the purpose of repatriation (until she was granted subsidiary humanitarian protection), at the same time they also submitted that it fell within the first limb of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f). They noted that practically all immigrants reaching Malta did not carry documents and thus ascertaining their identities upon entry was a lengthy process which was dependent on the cooperation of the migrants themselves."], "id": "dd06abf0-7064-4c81-8f12-0b7128d8ea58", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of liberty", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicants explained that under Italian law (Article 14 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, see paragraph 33 above), the only legal form of of an unlawful migrant awaiting return was placement in a CIE, subject to judicial supervision (validation of administrative detention decisions by a Justice of the Peace), as required by Article 5 of the Convention."], "id": "8f1d3fcf-9395-4205-9647-5266a1378ecb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "persons of unsound mind", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicant attempted to make use of the avenue open to him under Russian law. However, his appeal was never examined. The Court would like to reiterate that Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention requires that certain procedural rights of a detained person must be respected. These need not be the same as the guarantees of \u201ca fair hearing\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and they should take account of the possibility, in the context of the deprivation of liberty of , that those persons may be personally incapable of using their procedural rights. Accordingly, the prescribed minimum must ensure that that the mentally ill person has access to the courts and the opportunity to be heard either in person, if possible, or through a legal representative, where his condition demands this (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, cited above, \u00a7 60). The Court is prepared to tolerate certain limitations on the exercise of this right where justified by the circumstances (see, for instance, X. v. Belgium, no. 6692/74, Commission decision of 13 March 1975, Decisions and Reports (DR) 2, p. 108, concerning the introduction of a time limit on applications for release). In the present case, the Government did not cite any justification, apart from the applicant\u2019s mental illness, for the court\u2019s silence towards his appeal against the detention order. However, it would be inconceivable, in the opinion of the Court, that Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention should afford procedural guarantees to a party whose detention matter is pending before a court without also protecting what makes it in fact possible to benefit from such guarantees \u2013 that is, the possibility to access the court by making an application to review the lawfulness of the detention. The effective and expeditious characteristics of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention are of no value at all if there are no judicial proceedings. The Court will not accept the state of mind of a detained person, on its own, as an implied and blanket limitation on his right to institute judicial review proceedings for the purpose of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, particularly so when, as in the present case, no assessment of his ability to be personally involved in the proceedings leading to his detention was performed by the court and no formal court decision explaining the reasons behind the refusal to examine the appeal was issued. The importance of what is at stake \u2013 personal liberty \u2013 compels this conclusion."], "id": "e36c6179-fcba-48b0-b3cf-28ccf15fc9d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "persons of unsound mind", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant contends that Article 5 \u00a7 4 could only be complied with by creating a right of access to the Tribunal at the same time that detention was extended under section 29(4). It was no answer that there might not be a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 if the domestic authorities exercised their functions speedily. She further contends that the availability of judicial review and/or habeas corpus could not meet the difficulty raised by patients who lacked capacity to institute legal proceedings themselves. Neither procedure could, in practice, satisfy Article 5 \u00a7 4 because they were unsuitable for the resolution of complex factual issues and the relevant courts lacked specialist medical expertise and were not, therefore, well\u2011adapted to determining the lawfulness of the detention of . There was also no guarantee that a nearest relative, if there was one, would be eligible for public funding and the cost of privately instructing a solicitor could be a very real barrier to accessing the legal advice necessary to make such an application."], "id": "ea7b3bb2-b7eb-4736-9cd3-aaefd7ffa188", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "persons of unsound mind", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant took the view that his preventive detention at issue had violated Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In particular, his detention had not been justified under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e). The personality disorder he allegedly suffered from, which 80 to 90 per cent of the prison population could be diagnosed with, was, in any event, not pathological and not serious enough for his being classified as of \u201cunsound mind\u201d, that is, mentally ill as required by that provision. Furthermore, Schwalmstadt/Weiterstadt prisons, in which he had been detained, had not been suitable institutions for . He had not been offered sufficient therapies tailored to the needs of a mental health patient and had never been placed in a psychiatric hospital."], "id": "f132a9c0-2c49-4bb3-a9b4-7a35001ce181", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "persons of unsound mind", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government submitted that on his recall to prison the applicant had access to a court satisfying the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. The Parole Board which authorised his continuing detention was independent of the executive and the parties and had the power to direct the Secretary of State to order the applicant\u2019s release. While minors and were entitled to an oral hearing, with representation, this was not always the case. An oral hearing was not essential to the fairness of the proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case as he did not dispute the facts that led to his recall, as he had been provided with all the materials before the Board and had made written representations to the Board and on the basis of the facts admitted, the Board was bound to conclude that public protection required that he be confined. The review took place approximately six weeks after recall and was therefore prompt. The decision in October 1998 to direct release was based on the progress that he had made since his first recall to prison. The applicant\u2019s second recent recall on drug related matters to prison indicated that he continued to raise matters of grave concern having regard to the circumstances in which the original murder offence came to be committed."], "id": "3e33daf9-d830-4940-8c1d-af055aaabf4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "persons of unsound mind", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government argued that the competent national authorities had not relied on the exception set out in Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e) of the Convention allowing detention of to justify the applicant\u2019s apprehension, confinement in the police station and subsequent transfer to PH\u201113 for psychiatric examination. No decision was made by the domestic courts as to whether the applicant suffered from a psychiatric disorder necessitating her involuntary hospitalisation."], "id": "4d27da02-ed0e-4baf-99d9-e613538524cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "persons of unsound mind", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["106. The applicant submitted that his detention had been unlawful as the court had had no power to order for him to be held for the period until the judgment in his case had become final. He further submitted that in any event it had been arbitrary as the temporary detention facility which had accommodated him during that period had been unsuitable for the detention of ."], "id": "e2e84fb7-0166-4ad2-af8c-2e8e5df1d82d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "persons of unsound mind", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant further took the view that his preventive detention had not been justified under sub-paragraph (e) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 as detention of a person \u201cof unsound mind\u201d either. He submitted that following the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of M. v. Germany (cited above), difficult detainees were now \u201creclassified\u201d as being in order to allow their detention to be prolonged beyond the former ten-year maximum duration. His continuing preventive detention was no longer proportionate. He submitted that there was no very high risk that he would commit the most serious violent or sexual offences if released. The fact alone that he had not completed a therapy was insufficient to prove this. The domestic courts had only considered that there was a medium to high risk that he would commit further sexual offences if released. Moreover, he was ready to undergo a therapy and to take medication once released from prison and to comply with further orders such as to stay away from schools etc. Furthermore, he was of advanced age and in a poor state of health. His preventive detention therefore had to be terminated also under the requirements set by the Federal Constitutional Court in its leading judgment of 4 May 2011."], "id": "bb0fd372-a4d6-445c-bcd4-2828f483fb14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "persons of unsound mind", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government accepted that the applicants\u2019 placement in Drin amounted to a \u201cdeprivation of liberty\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, as had been established by the Constitutional Court. They submitted, however, that the placement had been lawful. The applicants are and were in a situation of social need. Their respective family circumstance did not allow for a proper care outside the social care home. The Government thus argued that the applicants\u2019 placement in a social care home had been intended to protect their interest in receiving social care."], "id": "3de77ef3-312b-4aa8-b79e-1fa7dd8a780c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "persons of unsound mind", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants submitted that their compulsory placement in Drin did not meet the conditions for deprivation of liberty of set out in Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (cited above, \u00a7 39). The social work authorities based their decisions to place them in Drin on the simple fact that their families were not prepared to take care of them and they needed social assistance. They had not examined whether the necessary assistance could be provided through alternative measures that were less restrictive of their personal liberty. Furthemore, the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention in the cases of Ms Had\u017eimejli\u0107 and Mr Crepulja. Subsequently, the competent civil court held that the current state of their mental health was not of a kind or degree warranting continued placement. However, despite these rulings, they were still in the social care home against their will."], "id": "0abbcf39-f956-4d5f-be2d-b61e1c7d3694", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "persons of unsound mind", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government have not invoked any of the permissible grounds for the applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty between 18 and 25 September 2014. They did, however, cite the Court\u2019s case-law relating to sub\u2011paragraph (e) of Article 5 \u00a7 1, namely the detention of . Since it is obvious that the applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty was not covered by sub\u2011paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) or (f) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the Court will ascertain whether the applicant\u2019s detention in the present case was justified under sub-paragraph (e) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "c4ca31c8-64d8-4102-a168-d3ac910d8cbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government maintained that the applicant had made his request for release on 24 February 1997, that is on the same day when the first instance court convicted him of an offence and sentenced him to a prison term. The Supreme Court later dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal against the judgment. In the Government\u2019s view, as from 24 February 1997, the applicant\u2019s detention was to be regarded as falling under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention, that is \u201cthe lawful detention ... after conviction by a competent court\u201d, despite the fact that at that time he continued being detained on remand in terms of domestic law. They considered that the guarantees of Article 5 \u00a7 4 did not, in general, extend to persons who were lawfully deprived of liberty after conviction by a . The Government concluded that Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention was not applicable to the applicant\u2019s case following the delivery of the Ko\u0161ice Regional Court\u2019s judgment of 24 February 1997."], "id": "e166a2ab-31cf-4b36-b858-57d7d42483a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant submitted that, since the case\u2011file of the proceedings against him had been destroyed, it was impossible to verify whether his conviction and the resulting deprivation of liberty had been ordered by a and had not been arbitrary. The destruction of the case\u2011file had been unlawful, because section 91(4) of Regulation no. 28 provided that it should have been kept until the expiry of the limitation period for the enforcement of his sentence. The judgment, which was the only remaining document, was not enough to prove the regularity of his conviction. On 21 August 2002 he had filed a request for the restoration of the case\u2011file with the president of the Pernik District Court, but had received no reply."], "id": "d81f5098-a87e-4039-b558-a214da568146", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["113. The applicant emphasised that the court order issued regarding her confinement in the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital had been quashed on appeal for lack of grounds justifying the necessity of the confinement. However, no new decision had been rendered establishing whether the conditions for involuntary confinement had been met in the three months that followed. In this regard, the applicant criticised the Ljubljana Higher Court\u2019s decision to remit the case to the lower court instead of deciding on the applicant\u2019s appeal itself. As to this second period of confinement, the applicant also submitted that the hospital had failed to notify the of her confinement within the prescribed 48-hour time-limit (see section 71 of the Non-Contentious Civil Procedure Act in paragraph 59 above). Lastly, the applicant complained that her father was allowed to participate in the proceedings in breach of the domestic procedure, as the hearings in her case should have been conducted in private."], "id": "471e9763-724d-4bf9-af81-dc8d62fb5251", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government submitted that the applicant had explicitly requested the house arrest to be carried out at Nagyteve camping site, and this following a warning that the site was not suitable for winter residence. Furthermore, the conditions at the camping site were continuously monitored by the local police department which indicated to the that the conditions were inadequate. Following this warning the applicant\u2019s placement had immediately been changed. He had been taken to hospital by the police and subsequently accommodated in a social care home."], "id": "7f8344ef-f0cb-4c20-83f0-ed8ae13b89ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government stressed that in 2003 the applicant had not been available to the police authorities, which was why the had lawfully ordered that he be remanded in custody. His detention was thereafter regularly extended because of the risk of flight, which could not be excluded given the high maximum sentence for the crime of which he had been accused as well as his behaviour prior to his deprivation of liberty on 6 February 2004."], "id": "499e1b8f-256c-4f5f-9237-dc88402f5f23", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government submitted that in the present case the applicant had been serving a prison sentence in Tarn\u00f3w Mo\u015bcice Prison following three separate convictions. The overall term of his imprisonment was due to come to an end on 6 January 2002. Thus, the Government maintained that his detention had been lawful in that it was based on a conviction by a ."], "id": "7b7e83c9-31ea-4e30-a59d-c6b995a48371", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant submitted that he had challenged his detention on several occasions and requested to be placed in an open reception centre; he had also lodged a request for termination of his detention with the District Court on 18 November 2010. In any event, since the had performed ex officio monthly judicial reviews of his detention on five occasions, and had had the obligation to examine all aspects of the lawfulness of the detention, it would have been superfluous for him to request judicial review on his own motion, or to expressly refer to all relevant legal arguments in the requests he had submitted."], "id": "021f19b7-31d2-431f-adc7-ef5dd2827967", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government contended that in the periods between 21 July and 4 October 2011, 2 February and 23 October 2012, and 18 December 2012 and 18 June 2013 the applicant had not been detained pending trial but on the basis of a conviction by a . The first of those periods had ended on 4 October 2011, when the execution of the applicant\u2019s prison sentence had been stayed, and the second on 23 October 2012 when the Supreme Court had quashed the first-instance judgment convicting the applicant. As the applicant had lodged his application with the Court on 13 May 2013, it followed that it had been introduced one year and six months after the expiry of the first period and seven months after the expiry of the second period. The Government further considered that the applicant had been detained pending trial only in the periods between 5 October 2011 and 2 February 2012, and 23 October and 18 December 2012. In view of the fact that the former period had ended on 2 February 2012 following the adoption of the first-instance judgment of the Osijek County Court, and that the applicant had lodged his application with the Court on 13 May 2013, the Government considered that his application in respect of that period had been lodged out of time. Accordingly, in the Government\u2019s view, only the period between 23 October and 18 December 2012 could be examined by the Court."], "id": "00ecee6e-ad42-4a4c-9b4a-a324df67a7c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicant also complained that his first appeal against detention had not been examined speedily. The appeal had been handed by his lawyer on 3 September 1997 to the duty prosecutor who, in accordance with usual practice, had handed it to the clerical staff. They had registered it on 8 September 1997. It was not until 16 September 1997, however, that the Prosecutor\u2019s Office had transmitted the appeal to the , which had listed it for hearing on 19 September 1997."], "id": "f535897f-0430-453a-a776-4792e5f620ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["123. The Government submitted that the applicant had had, at his disposal, an effective procedure to challenge his detention. In particular, by virtue of Article 165 of the CCP it had been open to him during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings to lodge an appeal against the court decision ordering and extending his detention, but he had not done so. They further submitted that the applicant had fully benefitted from the procedure required by the Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, as all of his requests for release had been promptly and duly examined by a . They also stated that the domestic court had reviewed the lawfulness of the applicant\u2019s detention on several occasions (on 18 March, 5 May 2004 and on 13 August 2005) and had reasonably upheld the preventive measure, having considered the arguments of all participants in the proceedings."], "id": "df59df5d-78f1-4f41-ad92-72e30f0d2dc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant's house arrest fell under Article 5 \u00a7 1(c) of the Convention, being deprivation of liberty for the purpose of bringing him before the on suspicion of having committed an offence. During the same period, in view of his mental illness, it was essential to conduct an assessment of his mental health (see paragraphs 8, 15 and 25-33 above). In the Court's view, remand in custody or house arrest under Article 5 \u00a7 1(c) of the Convention may be perfectly compatible with lawful confinement to a psychiatric hospital effected for the purpose of establishing whether or not the accused person's mental health has a bearing on his criminal liability for the offences with which he has been charged: deprivation of liberty may be justified on more than one ground listed in Article 5 \u00a7 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, X v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, pp. 17-18, \u00a7\u00a7 36-39)."], "id": "a01238e2-fecc-48b8-a191-0f1ead9c0be9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant\u2019s detention had been justified under sub-paragraph (a) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 as detention \u201cafter conviction\u201d by a . In particular, the fact that Article 66b \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code, on which the applicant\u2019s preventive detention had been based, had only been inserted in the Criminal Code in 2004 did not break the causal connection between his conviction and the deprivation of liberty. It was true that the Coburg Regional Court convicted the applicant in February 2000, that is, prior to the entry into force of the said provision. However, the fresh proceedings in which the applicant\u2019s preventive detention had been ordered retrospectively in 2008/2009 had to be qualified as akin to a reopening of the proceedings in relation to the assessment of the dangerousness of the perpetrator. New facts had been necessary which had only then disclosed the applicant\u2019s dangerousness. Therefore, the judgment of the Coburg Regional Court of October 2008 ordering the applicant\u2019s preventive detention retrospectively had to be qualified as a \u201cconviction\u201d, for the purposes of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a)."], "id": "a5f699d1-96a8-4880-9f2e-50b9b32161b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government submitted that the Convention permitted deprivation of liberty only in those cases which were enumerated in Article 5 and only in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention provided for the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a . This category of permissible detention concerned any prisoner serving a sentence where \u201cthe lawful detention\u201d was based on \u201cconviction by a competent court\u201d. This normally referred to a prison sentence, although that was not specifically indicated in the text. The Government further observed that the execution of a prison sentence was, as a rule, dependent on a further decision which was not a matter for the courts but for the prosecution or prison authorities. The actual order to serve the sentence might not therefore emanate from a \u201ccompetent court\u201d but the detention would still be lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a). This would be so even where a prisoner's conditional release was revoked for a breach of the conditions, entailing re-imprisonment for the remaining term."], "id": "79e295d2-186c-455f-a844-36a38accb237", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant submitted that his detention until 10 October 1994 had been a lawful detention after conviction by a and thus in accordance with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention. However, from 10 October 1994 when his TBS order \u2013 being of a non-punitive character and imposed on the basis of a finding that he was suffering from a mental disorder requiring treatment because it posed a threat to society \u2013 had taken effect, his detention had no longer fallen within the scope of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) but under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e)."], "id": "7c0c6044-9a4b-447b-8463-243946e8150f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["119. The Government submitted that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded and that the whole of the period of the applicant\u2019s detention had been covered by orders issued by the , the Vienna Regional Court, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These decisions had been repeatedly and carefully examined by courts of higher instance, the Vienna Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which had all concluded that the decisions given by the Regional Court had been issued in accordance with the law."], "id": "d2c57904-9dea-4811-82ea-c9e22c068221", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government submitted, firstly, that the law, as applicable at the material time, provided that proceedings concerning appeals against judicial decisions to prolong detention were to be held in camera. The purpose of such proceedings was to examine the lawfulness of detention, and therefore not all the guarantees of a fair hearing that were applicable to the proceedings on the merits of a criminal charge had to be observed. However, the had had to examine both compliance with the procedural requirements set out in domestic law and the reasonableness of the suspicion grounding the arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose of the arrest and the ensuing detention."], "id": "c4f62479-10a9-4e4b-94ab-566df0801c16", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government contended that the applicants\u2019 continued placement in the social care home had been intended to protect their best interest in receiving social care. In this connection, the Court notes that the Constitutional Court already examined these arguments and found that the domestic authorities had failed to comply with the requirements of the relevant domestic law concerning compulsory admission to an institution: any such placement must be ordered by the (see paragraph 29 above). The Court sees no reason to disagree with the findings of the Constitutional Court."], "id": "e181fd87-bfe1-4f7c-8c8d-95853082e5a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant submitted that his detention until 5 February 1998 had been a lawful detention after conviction by a and thus in accordance with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention. However, from 5 February 1998, when his TBS order \u2013 being of a non-punitive character and imposed on the basis of a finding that he was suffering from a mental disorder requiring treatment because it posed a threat to society \u2013 had taken effect, his detention had no longer fallen within the scope of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) but under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e)."], "id": "6031e633-e561-4522-a2d4-bb62634d2e4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["401. The applicants submitted that their detention was not lawful, since the judgment pursuant to which they had been detained, and in three cases still were detained, had not been given by a . They alleged that while in Tiraspol Prison they had not been able to correspond freely or receive visits from their families. They also complained of their conditions of detention."], "id": "63979501-b3b9-42d1-be13-40cc5a859c25", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the applicant had been deprived of his liberty between 7 June 2005 and 23 March 2006 in accordance with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention. His detention on remand had been ordered by a court decision, issued in accordance with domestic law for the purpose of bringing him before a . At the time of his arrest, the investigating authorities had gathered considerable evidentiary material. The witnesses\u2019 testimonies had clearly stated that the applicant had been violent towards his parents. In the Government\u2019s view the authorities had been under an obligation to ensure effective protection for victims of domestic violence. It had also been established that the applicant had been in possession of marijuana."], "id": "afc79c3c-2c55-43a4-a9af-324c6e491070", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant\u2019s situation was examined on 30 March 2008 by a , which found no grounds to deprive the applicant of his liberty during the criminal investigation against him. In the Court\u2019s opinion, it is obvious that the situation had not changed within the two days during which the applicant remained in custody. Accordingly, it finds that the investigating authorities\u2019 second application to a different court seeking the applicant\u2019s remand in custody was nothing but an attempt at forum shopping which degraded the administration of justice. Such actions are expressly proscribed by domestic law and, accordingly, warrant the conclusion that the applicant\u2019s remand in custody on 1 April 2008 was not \u201clawful\u201d or \u201cin accordance with a procecure prescribed by law\u201d. The fact that the judge of the Dedovichi District Court was aware of the situation and did nothing to rectify it is also a matter of serious concern to the Court."], "id": "bc361a89-3095-4579-9c03-7e2eb26b01dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["244. The Government claimed that the applicant should have challenged the refusal of 1 June 2012 by the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor\u2019s Office to take measures in respect of her allegations about her permanent surveillance in hospital and about the publication of her medical report before a higher-ranking prosecutor or a . She could also have challenged the same acts directly before the administrative courts."], "id": "f9dd1f4b-8ca9-484e-a434-c4b1c1b7ee94", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant contended that his pre-trial detention had been excessively lengthy and had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. He stressed that when extending his detention throughout the period at issue the domestic courts had failed to cite any compelling reasons justifying his deprivation of liberty. In fact, from the very beginning of his deprivation of liberty they had merely reiterated the same stereotyped wording without making the necessary assessment of the particular circumstances of the case. Moreover, following the submission of the indictment in the , the domestic courts had failed to set time-limits for the continued detention in their decisions extending his detention."], "id": "edc6aaba-766e-4514-95b8-ef23cbaffbc1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government concluded from the above that the review decisions had been taken speedily. The necessity of conducting an oral hearing or obtaining an expert opinion affected the duration of the proceedings. Under section 167(1) of the Execution of Sentences Act a detainee must be heard in person by the at least once every two years. That legal requirement was fulfilled in the instant case, as the applicant was heard in person on 15 March 2010 during the 2009/10 review proceedings, and subsequently on 23 January 2012 in the course of the 2011/12 review proceedings. Equally, an expert opinion had been requested by the domestic courts every second year, namely during the same review proceedings in which oral hearings were held (2009/10 and 2011/12)."], "id": "43007eb7-8e93-439c-b4b9-9ad37d96e06d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["102. The applicant further challenged the Government\u2019s reference to assurances that the trial against the applicant would be fair. He submitted, in particular, that at the very beginning of the proceedings against him the Uzbek authorities had been already regarding him as a criminal, in violation of the presumption of innocence. In fact, they had informed their Russian colleagues that the applicant was a criminal in their letter of 4 February 2010, in the absence of a conviction by a . Therefore, contrary to the Government\u2019s submissions, the fair trial guarantees were already not being observed by Uzbekistan at the earliest stage of the proceedings. Furthermore, the Prosecutor\u2019s Office of Uzbekistan requested the applicant\u2019s extradition in February 2010, whilst their assurances that the applicant would not be subjected to any form of prohibited treatment only reached the Russian authorities on 19 April 2011. Therefore, at the initial stage of the extradition proceedings there was a risk of the applicant being returned to Uzbekistan in the absence of any assurances from the Uzbek authorities."], "id": "cde938ae-eaaf-4817-8dd0-5edf63588e4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government did not submit any comments with regard to the applicant\u2019s complaint about the circumstances surrounding his arrest. As to the allegedly unlawful period of detention, the Government stated that this period had complied with the provisions of the CCP. On 7 July 2004, after the investigation had been concluded, the prosecutor had sent the bill of indictment and case file to the , in accordance with Article 416 of the CCP. Afterwards, the court had committed the applicant for trial in conformity with Article 419 of the CCP."], "id": "bf299a50-8824-4171-a45b-28ecc9783b6c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty had been decided by a in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. As the applicant had been dangerous, the court had issued a temporary injunction before hearing the applicant and appointing a lawyer to represent her. Thereafter, a lawyer had promptly been appointed for her and she had been heard at the earliest opportunity that her condition had allowed. According to a forensic psychiatric examination report which had been ordered in the course of the criminal proceedings and which had been drawn up on 17 November 2006 \u2013 that is, between the court ruling on the applicant\u2019s admission (8 November 2006) and her hearing by the court (23 November 2006) \u2013 the applicant had been mentally incompetent and unable to participate in the pre-trial investigation, give evidence in court or serve a punishment. Accordingly, the Government argued that the applicant\u2019s mental disorder had not allowed hearing her earlier."], "id": "e50021c4-864f-4d6b-973b-ffda3dba2d77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government took the view that the applicant\u2019s preventive detention had complied with Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention also after expiry of the two-year time-limit on 23 December 2009. The detention had been justified under sub-paragraph (a) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 as being detention after conviction by a . There remained a sufficient causal connection between the applicant\u2019s conviction on 26 November 1997 by the Berlin Regional Court and his preventive detention at issue. The Regional Court had ordered the applicant\u2019s preventive detention following his conviction of rape and sexual assault without any maximum duration. Therefore, the fact that the time-limit for review of the applicant\u2019s preventive detention had been exceeded by 27 days did not break the causal connection between the applicant\u2019s conviction and his continued preventive detention."], "id": "dc61e5bb-2847-4ffe-80f8-36a466ae5aba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s detention had been ordered and extended in accordance with the relevant rules of criminal procedure and had therefore been lawful. The impugned decision of 10 June 2011 had been adopted by a . Even though that decision had not set a time-limit for the applicant\u2019s detention, that was prescribed by law, namely Article 106 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulated two months."], "id": "180fdda3-8c4c-4a4c-adf0-6c5699b728bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "competent court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government submitted that the applicant's contention that his trial for and conviction of rape and attempted rape had been meant as a repression for his having emigrated from Bulgaria was completely unsubstantiated. Moreover, this contention sounded implausible in view of the applicant's numerous previous convictions. On the contrary, the applicant had been tried and convicted by a and his detention in February 2000 had been effected for the purpose of enforcing his lawful sentence of imprisonment."], "id": "266d2b19-d54b-4dd6-ae06-ebfcec4fe90b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "order release", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["131. The Government also submitted that Article 109 of the CCrP authorised up to eighteen months of detention for serious criminal offences (which is a category of gravity between minor and particularly serious offences). All detention ordered had indicated the authorised period of detention. The applicant had failed to use the procedural means available to appeal against decisions taken by a prosecutor or a court. An appeal court was empowered to . The applicant\u2019s detention after May 2011 had been justified with reference to the Court\u2019s indication under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. All detention decisions had been issued in the presence of various lawyers appointed as defence counsel."], "id": "31ae52d6-2906-4956-ba67-fd6ef36dda92", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "order release", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted that the purpose of Article 5 \u00a7 3 was to provide a safeguard against arbitrary detention by providing an independent scrutiny of the reasons for an accused\u2019s detention and to ensure release if continued detention was not justified. The judicial officer concerned had to be independent and have the power to . However, nothing in the text of Article 5 or in the Court\u2019s jurisprudence required that the court before which an arrested person was to be brought had to be the same court that had the power to grant bail. The detained person had to be brought promptly before a court or officer authorised to exercise judicial power; he also had to have the opportunity to apply for bail. Only the first was required to be automatic; the second, the question of bail, only came into play when the arrest and detention were lawful and did not necessarily form part of the prompt automatic review of the merits."], "id": "51518776-5cd4-4416-8694-2138e82492b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "order release", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that there had been no breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 as the applicants were legally entitled to release when and if the MHR Tribunal so recommended. They were entitled to have the merits of their continuing detention considered by the Tribunal, which had the power to recommend release and was independent. While it had no power to , this was a matter of form not substance as in the case of technical lifers such as the applicants the practice and policy of the Secretary of State was to follow the recommendation of the Tribunal under section 74 of the 1983 Act in relation to discharge. They argued that compliance with Article 5 \u00a7 4 could be achieved by administrative practice and policy, citing the cases of Leander v. Sweden (judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, \u00a7 51) and Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, \u00a7\u00a7 88-89). "], "id": "f7c22c12-d368-4b51-aae4-9f3bff730599", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "order release", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government argued that as the Secretary of State followed a practice of following the Tribunal's recommendation this did not deprive the Tribunal's review of an effective decision-making function. While they have referred to previous cases concerning the relevance of administrative practices and policies, the Court observes that these judgments examined complaints under Article 8 of the Convention where issues arose as to whether certain measures were \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d. In that context, the existence of administrative practices may indeed have a bearing on the conditions of lawfulness of measures. Under Article 5 \u00a7 4 however, the plain wording of the provision refers to the decision-making power of the reviewing body. In this case, the power to lay with the Secretary of State, even though he may have been under some constraints of administrative law as regarded the situations in which he could or could not depart from a policy that had created legitimate expectations. The ability of an applicant to challenge a refusal by the Secretary of State to follow his previous policy in the courts would not remedy the lack of power of decision in the Tribunal. Article 5 \u00a7 4 presupposes the existence of a procedure in conformity with its provisions without the necessity to institute separate legal proceedings in order to bring it about. Similarly, although both parties appear to agree that the Secretary of State, following entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, would not be able lawfully to depart from the Tribunal's recommendation, this does not alter the fact that the decision to release would be taken by a member of the executive and not by the Tribunal. This is not a matter of form but impinges on the fundamental principle of separation of powers and detracts from a necessary guarantee against the possibility of abuse (see, mutatis mutandis, Stafford v. the United Kingdom, [GC] no. 46295/ 99, 28 May 2002, ECHR 2002-..., \u00a7 78)."], "id": "f6db2e20-6f40-4cea-adc0-f8ebbfe2cb5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "order release", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government considered that the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention were met by the original trial and appeal proceedings and that no new issues of lawfulness concerning the applicant's detention arose requiring the possibility of recourse to a court or similar body with power to . The Secretary of State's determination of the tariff was an administrative procedure governing the implementation of a sentence and not part of the imposition of the sentence itself. Adult mandatory life prisoners convicted of murder were in a distinct category in domestic law, as was recognised in the Court's case-law (see, for example, Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell and V. v. the United Kingdom, cited above). The sentence was imposed because of the inherent gravity of the offence and not because of the presence of factors susceptible to change with the passage of time, such as mental instability or dangerousness. Parliament had decided that all adult murderers must be sentenced to life imprisonment, whether or not they were dangerous and whatever their circumstances, because such a grave crime deserved to be punished by loss of liberty for life. In any event, the Government pointed out that, when the applicant was recalled to prison on revocation of his life licence, the Parole Board enjoyed a power to direct the Secretary of State that he be immediately released. No such direction was made. That was sufficient in itself to ensure compliance with Article 5 \u00a7 4 in the circumstances of the case. "], "id": "5dbcfd31-3e8f-4cd0-a3be-6f8ce36522cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "order release", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant referred to domestic case-law which showed that, domestically, the only questions which had to be addressed by the Court of Magistrates at the first hearing were whether the prosecution had a reasonable suspicion, whether what was alleged was according to Maltese law an arrestable offence and whether the person charged had been brought promptly before such court. It followed that the reasonable suspicion did not have to be shared by the magistrate. The applicant noted that in the cases of Aquilina v. Malta (see GC judgment of 29 April 1999, Reports 1999-III) and T.W. v Malta (see GC judgment of 29 April 1999, Reports 1999-III) the Court found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention on the ground that the Court of Magistrates had no power to establish whether the deprivation of the individual\u2019s liberty was justified and to . The Maltese law had consequently been amended, but the practice before the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry had remained substantially the same, as shown by the events in his own case. Appearing before a duty magistrate was a ritual and a mere formality. Indeed, the applicant failed to see how such a fundamental issue as jurisdiction could be considered as having no impact on the lawfulness of the arrest, given that an arrest not justified by jurisdiction was clearly unlawful. If there was no jurisdiction, then the courts lacked competence, and if the issue of jurisdiction was postponed then the element of promptness required by Article 5 \u00a7 3 would be disrespected."], "id": "de0b21bd-da46-4c56-9b19-0d6bf912eaee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "order release", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicant complained that, notwithstanding the new amendments to the law adopted pursuant to the Court\u2019s judgments in Aquilina v. Malta ([GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999\u2011III) and T.W. v. Malta ([GC], no. 25644/94, 29 April 1999), which conferred on the Court of Magistrates the power to establish whether the deprivation of an individual\u2019s liberty was justified and to , the applicant remained in detention. In his case the Court of Magistrates had refused to take cognisance of the question of jurisdiction, and this was further confirmed by the Constitutional Court judgment declaring that the question of jurisdiction could only be dealt with by the Criminal Court."], "id": "3c3ad5fb-e9dd-48b7-9153-67531a18af28", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "order release", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government did not dispute that the lawfulness of the applicant's continued detention was not reviewed by a body with the power to or with a procedure containing the necessary judicial safeguards as required by Article 5 \u00a7 4. Insofar as they referred to the fact that the applicant in Stafford had been re-detained due to the likelihood of further non-violent offending rather than any risk of violence, this element was relevant rather to the Court's finding of insufficient causal connection for the purposes of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) between the original conviction and the subsequent re-detention and is not a material ground of distinction concerning this applicant's complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 4. Similarly, the fact that the Parole Board has never in fact recommended this applicant's release does not deprive him of the right to have a review by a body offering the requisite guarantees."], "id": "eabe00f6-7de7-4f89-8ab2-d2e6427c8443", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that there had been no grounds to detain him and that the domestic courts had not had due regard to the defence\u2019s arguments. Under Article 5 \u00a7 3, he complained of a violation of his right to and alleged that the detention orders had not been based on sufficient reasons. The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows:"], "id": "a0c94757-0485-4e91-8bd6-e4130cc3f6b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings. However, he failed to lodge a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki)."], "id": "7a304df7-3af1-4128-ae04-766e7f071697", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that there had been no grounds to detain him and that the domestic courts had not had due regard to the defence\u2019s arguments. Under Article 5 \u00a7 3, he complained that his right to had been infringed and alleged that the detention orders had not been founded on sufficient reasons. The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows:"], "id": "39ff00d6-8657-47fe-a081-02cba306fbc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant complained that her right to or release pending trial had not been respected and that the gravity of the offences she had been charged with could not be regarded as a relevant and sufficient reason for the domestic courts repeatedly to extend her detention. She relied on Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:"], "id": "2b2b2e8b-9fde-478d-8634-e4004e9beeb8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. He had failed to lodge a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a (\u201c2004 Act). He also had not lodged a civil action for damages under Article 417 of the Civil Code in respect of the length of the proceedings."], "id": "7bd28c5f-fa89-4a70-b516-cca0058fdb05", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that there had been no grounds to detain her and that the domestic courts had not had due regard to the defence\u2019s arguments. Under Article 5 \u00a7 3, she complained of a violation of her right to and alleged that the detention orders had not been based on sufficient reasons. The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows:"], "id": "b7377ef8-5bb1-4aee-9d43-e4e4dd09d75b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant failed to avail himself of any remedy provided for by Polish law. He had several remedies at his disposal, namely a complaint under sections 5 and 18 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a as well as a civil action under Article 417 of the Civil Code read together with section 16 of the above-mentioned Law (as to the effectiveness of the latter remedy, see Krasuski v. Poland, judgment of 14 June 2005, no. 61444/00, \u00a7 72, ECHR 2005\u2011V (extracts)."], "id": "bacc0bd6-d914-44f2-90dc-921589a2a67a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant\u2019s complaint concerns the detention pending trial, in respect of which this Court has constantly held that the presumption under Article 5 is in favour of release. As established in Neumeister v. Austria (27 June 1968, \u00a7 4, Series A no. 8), the second limb of Article 5 \u00a7 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to or granting him provisional release pending trial. Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (as confirmed in McKay, cited above, \u00a7 41)."], "id": "25ac476b-57b9-4f4d-8f06-c6e70f0b8b23", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicant complained that his right to or release pending trial had not been respected and that the reasons relied on by the national authorities for ordering and extending his detention could not be regarded as relevant and sufficient. He relied on Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:"], "id": "99356ec3-972f-4630-b81d-3fa011382bf0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant\u2019s complaint concerns the detention pending trial, in respect of which this Court has constantly held that the presumption under Article 5 is in favour of release. As established in Neumeister v. Austria (27 June 1968, \u00a7 4, Series A no. 8), the second limb of Article 5 \u00a7 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to or granting him provisional release pending trial. Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (as confirmed in McKay, cited above, \u00a7 41)."], "id": "aedcd3e8-97aa-4fae-8de9-f7e9a8accc0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that there had been no grounds to detain him and that the domestic courts had not had due regard to the defence\u2019s arguments. Under Article 5 \u00a7 3, he complained that his right to had been infringed and alleged that detention orders had not been founded on sufficient reasons. The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows:"], "id": "d8d9f4a1-9983-4cbd-aeb7-20f6e5e749f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government contested that argument. They argued that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been reasonable. The case had been complex. It had concerned seven defendants. The case file materials comprised 191 volumes. The trial court held ninety-eight hearings, which were scheduled and held regularly. There had been no unjustified adjournments or delays. The court had to examine voluminous evidence, including statements by over 400 witnesses. Lastly, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, as of 4 May 2010 the applicant could have applied for compensation had he considered that his right to a had been infringed."], "id": "94339c1d-170d-41c2-9dac-606476cdc6ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Government argued that the first applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because he had not appealed to the courts against the decisions extending his detention after 2 June 2001. The Court reiterates that in the context of an alleged violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies requires that the applicant give the domestic authorities an opportunity to consider whether his right to has been respected and whether there exist relevant and sufficient grounds continuing to justify the deprivation of liberty (see Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, \u00a7 35, 14 December 2006)."], "id": "9b6b3a59-82f1-4dd5-a00b-90fda71709fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["114. The applicant claimed that he had not benefited from a fair . He complained that the District and City Courts had presumed him guilty because they had refused his requests for release by reference to the gravity of the charges, and that the trial judge had held personal prejudice against him. His co-defendant and the witness for the prosecution Mr E. had not been heard in the second trial because he had absconded, and the trial court had read out the written statements by the police officers. Finally, the applicant complained about allegedly unfair decisions on admissibility and assessment of evidence, and inaccuracy of the trial record."], "id": "ef9efe41-d932-46f8-86eb-7ad965aaf653", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that there had been no grounds to detain him and that the domestic courts had not had due regard to the defence\u2019s arguments. Under Article 5 \u00a7 3, he complained about a violation of his right to and alleged that detention orders had not been founded on sufficient reasons."], "id": "3394c377-5b9b-4c1b-8aef-435fe1ab8ccb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["192. The applicant's pre-trial detention infringed his right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power (see paragraph 167 above), his right to or release pending trial (see paragraph 175 above) and his right to take proceedings by which all elements relevant to the lawfulness of detention could be decided by a court (see paragraph 187 above)."], "id": "d5da886a-0fb7-4322-aecf-162f7802f938", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that there had been no grounds to detain him and that the domestic courts had not had due regard to the defence\u2019s arguments. Under Article 5 \u00a7 3, he complained that his right to had been infringed and alleged that detention orders had not been founded on sufficient reasons. The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows:"], "id": "bf419d0f-be89-4748-90e6-6e317b49de45", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that there had been no grounds to detain him and that the domestic courts had not had due regard to the defence's arguments. Under Article 5 \u00a7 3, he complained that his right to had been infringed and alleged that detention orders had not been founded on sufficient reasons. The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows:"], "id": "158d1301-2cc3-4c03-a912-a65f54b39da8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that there had been no grounds to detain him and that the domestic courts had not had due regard to the defence\u2019s arguments. Under Article 5 \u00a7 3, he complained of a violation of his right to and alleged that the detention orders had not been based on sufficient reasons. The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows:"], "id": "f80d4774-3e98-4418-9f03-d366a7157d29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained further under Article 6 \u00a7 1 about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him. However, the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies available to him under Polish law, i.e. the 2004 Act, giving him the possibility of lodging a complaint about a breach of the right to a with a domestic court. He made a complaint under the 2004 Act only in respect of the prolonged non-examination of his appeal against the decision of 28 October 2002 extending his pre-trial detention but not in respect of the overall length of the trial. For that reason the complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings must be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies."], "id": "4901ef6c-2f1d-4a57-b4ba-872cc52a534b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "trial within a reasonable time", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant contended that the requirement in section 22(3) of the 1985 Act (see paragraph 46 above) that the prosecution conduct itself with \u201call due diligence\u201d amounted to the same requirement as \u201cspecial diligence\u201d in the context of Article 5 \u00a7 3. He recalled the need to interpret the provisions of the Convention in a manner which was practical and effective and not theoretical or illusory. It was open to Judge Norris, on 7 June 2002, to find that there had been prosecutorial delay but that this had not impacted on the ability to try the applicant within a reasonable time. The applicant pointed out that under the applicable domestic law at the time, it was clear that not every finding of a lack of diligence would result in the domestic courts refusing to extend the custody time limits (citing R (Quereshi and Others) \u2013 see paragraph 49 above). He submitted that in that case, Lord Bingham CJ's reference to the requirement for due diligence operating as a protection for defendants by ensuring that they were not kept in custody pending trial for longer than was justifiable was identical to the requirement in Article 5 \u00a7 3 that a defendant is entitled to or release pending trial. The applicant argued that this must have been the approach adopted by Judge Norris on 7 June 2002 and that his refusal to extend the custody time limits must therefore have been due to his conclusion that the lack of due diligence by the prosecution had adversely impacted upon the possibility of his trial taking place within a reasonable time."], "id": "75b8062d-90e4-4f97-9563-8b448675a24c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["170. The Government referred to Article 466 of the CCrP, which allows a prosecutor, in cases where a request for is accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court, to detain a person whose extradition is sought \u201cwithout seeking confirmation of the validity of that order from a Russian court\u201d (see paragraph 86 above). The Court notes, however, that the prosecutor\u2019s detention order of 10 December 2009 did not refer to Article 466 of the CCrP, apparently because that Article, as follows from its wording, started to apply from the moment of the receipt of the extradition request. In the applicant\u2019s case the extradition request was not received until 30 December 2009. The Court must therefore first examine what the legal basis for the applicant\u2019s detention from 9 to 30 December 2009 was."], "id": "412794c1-88e5-4a84-9d08-8a90ed9c6915", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["227. The Government contested this argument. They stated that the second applicant\u2019s detention with a view to had been fully in accordance with the procedure and time-limits provided in domestic law. The second applicant and her lawyer had been present at all court hearings concerning her detention. Accordingly, the second applicant\u2019s detention had been in compliance with both domestic law and Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention."], "id": "7de8f5d4-3c69-4905-9ed7-59507a901c50", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant asserted that the Government had not provided any detailed explanations regarding the alleged violation of this provision. He insisted that he had been deprived of \u201cspeedy\u201d judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention on account of the delays in examining his appeals against the extension orders of 25 December 2012 and 25 March 2013 of forty-seven and fifty-six days, respectively. Furthermore, he alleged that Article 125 of the CCrP did not provide a reviewing court with the competence to order the release of a detainee, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. Lastly, the applicant claimed that Articles 108-10 of the CCrP did not allow him to apply for release on his own initiative and pointed out that he had been detained for two-and-a-half months after the final decision upholding the order in his respect had been issued on 19 June 2013, which he asserted had amounted to a breach of his right to judicial review of his detention at \u201creasonable intervals\u201d."], "id": "9261fd3d-c573-427d-a6d2-8d89bd2228ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant complained that his detention pending had been in breach of the requirement of lawfulness and in violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. He also claimed that he had lacked access to judicial review of his detention, in breach of the provisions of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. Article 5 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "21d8586d-7552-4bef-ae76-c230510a792a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant replied that diplomatic assurances by the Uzbek authorities did not refute his arguments about high risk of ill-treatment (he referred to the Court\u2019s established case-law: Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, \u00a7\u00a7 149-150, 2 October 2012, and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, \u00a7\u00a7 147-148, ECHR 2008). The Government\u2019s claim that they had no information about anyone being ill-treated in Uzbekistan appeared to be false in the light of the recent reports by Amnesty International about the destiny of Mr Khamidkariyev who had been abducted in Russia and forcibly returned to Uzbekistan where he faced an unfair trial based on his confessions obtained by torture (see paragraph 33 above and the facts of application no. 42332/14). The mere fact of ratification of international human rights treaties by Uzbekistan does not in itself provide sufficient safeguards against ill-treatment because of the absence of any control mechanisms in relation to the country\u2019s compliance with its commitments (here the applicant referred to the Court\u2019s findings in: Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, \u00a7 204, 7 November 2013, and Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, \u00a7 98, 12 May 2010). The applicant deemed illogical the Government\u2019s argument that his had been refused in respect of some of the charges. What is important is that it was authorised for the offence of participation in an extremist organisation which put him in a vulnerable group systematically subject to torture. In view of the recent publications by international human rights organisations, the applicant submitted that there were no improvements in the sphere of human rights in Uzbekistan and that torture of persons suspected of prohibited religious activities had remained a widespread practice. However, the applicant\u2019s allegations of an increased risk of torture were not examined at any stage of the domestic proceedings."], "id": "775bfd86-02b4-4121-a0ff-4a8bbbe087e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant submitted that he had raised the issue of his risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if returned to Uzbekistan in the , expulsion and refugee-status proceedings, advancing a number of specific arguments, such as an increased risk of ill-treatment of persons who were, as was the applicant, accused of participation in a banned religious activity. The Russian courts failed to analyse the nature of the charges against the applicant, disregarded the link between the charges and the risk of ill-treatment and did not examine the information from various international organisation and from the Court\u2019s judgments. The applicant rejected the Government\u2019s argument that the decision on his administrative removal did not necessarily mean that he would be expelled to Uzbekistan. No other possibility had ever been discussed in the course of the administrative proceedings and, furthermore, there was no reason to believe that any other country would be willing to accept him. His placement in the detention facility foreclosed the possibility of his voluntary and independent departure from Russia and prevented him from choosing the country of destination."], "id": "fbb49c7e-0d44-4146-8852-cf2eaa71d38e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant also complained under Article 3 about the conditions of his second detention, under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 5 that his first detention pending had been unlawful and that the authorities had failed to grant him compensation, and under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that the high amount of the state fee in the proceedings under the 1988 Act had obstructed his right to access to a court."], "id": "2fcd1660-beed-4044-9f75-5493e4d6578b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government further contended that the applicant's detention pending complied fully with the domestic legislation, in particular with the provisions of Article 466 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Referring to Constitutional Court decision no. 333-O-P of 1 March 2007 (see paragraph 73 above), they argued that the relevant provisions had been predictable, clear and foreseeable and had enabled the applicant to estimate the length of his detention pending extradition."], "id": "7fcde29d-5c11-4f55-a9bc-9fd789d33826", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["329. The applicants' representatives also contended that the assurances provided by the Russian authorities to their Georgian counterparts had no value and that the undertakings given to the Court by the Russian Government were no more than signed pieces of paper. They pointed out that the CPT itself had stated in one of its statements that Russia was failing to respect the undertakings that it had signed (see paragraph 267 (e) above). In their opinion, the Georgian authorities had not ensured that the assurances provided had any real value. On the contrary, they had actively cooperated with their Russian counterparts to facilitate the extraditions. Thus, they had sent photographs of the applicants which were subsequently used to support the request, and had kept the Russian authorities informed of changes in the applicants' identities. Assisted in this way, the Russian authorities had \u201cupdated\u201d their extradition request, altering the applicants' names to reflect the changes in identification. The Georgian authorities had not taken the measure of either the political nature of the accusations made against the applicants by the Russian authorities or the latter's clear bias in the disputed extradition proceedings. They had not required any prima facie evidence of those accusations. The letters referred to by the Georgian Government (see paragraph 324 above) did not contain a guarantee that the applicants would not be sentenced to death, but simply an assurance that a moratorium was in force in Russia."], "id": "fad9d9be-cd63-48ac-9c3e-5d143c77a12a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,600 for the legal costs incurred before the domestic courts. He informed the Court that his lawyer had spent sixteen hours on his case and that her hourly rate was EUR 100. The applicant also claimed EUR 112 for postal expenses. He produced a detailed timesheet indicating the tasks performed by the lawyer, specifying the relevant dates and the time spent on each task. All of the tasks performed by the lawyer were related to the applicant\u2019s detention pending in 2011."], "id": "06df72e0-308f-473b-9a1e-cdbbb41cd157", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government lastly submitted that although in the past the Court had not excluded that an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article 6 of the Convention by an decision in circumstances where the fugitive had suffered or risked suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting country, the facts of the present case did not disclose such a risk. In particular, there were no grounds to question the reasonableness and lawfulness of the decision of the Supreme Court of Belarus of 18 May 2002 and the applicant\u2019s statements about the risk of an unfair trial were explained by his unwillingness to stand trial. The Government further referred to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Belarus on the presumption of innocence and indicated that this provision was a sufficient guarantee against an unfair trial in the applicant\u2019s criminal case."], "id": "f1d3636d-370c-4d88-b6ea-06a6cd62b93e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government pointed out that in normal circumstances they complied with the measures indicated by the Court. Their failure to do so in the instant case was owed to the fact that the applicant had requested the interim measure too late, and had not given the Spanish authorities time to take the necessary steps to avoid the . The application had been made on 6 August, whereas the applicant\u2019s transfer was scheduled for the next day. The Government considered that there was no violation of Article 34 where, as in the instant case, they were given less notice than could objectively be considered necessary and reasonable."], "id": "0a36bc1e-a97a-473c-9e7d-5da782ea368b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae. They submitted that the applicant had not been extradited by the Russian authorities to Uzbekistan, the measure at issue had not been applied to him, his had been suspended and therefore he could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3."], "id": "ddd408de-32a9-4d2a-9e74-104a3320ebe4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government further claimed that while certain prejudices towards ethnic Uzbeks persisted in the requesting country, there was no \u201cflagrant denial of justice\u201d for the Uzbek minority in Kyrgyzstan. The diplomatic assurances given by the Kyrgyz authorities in the applicants\u2019 respective cases excluded the possibility of their ill-treatment upon . The Court had not yet allowed demonstrating the effectiveness of Russian authorities\u2019 diplomatic supervision mechanism for the protection of the rights of those extradited to Kyrgyzstan because it had indicated interim measures precluding such extraditions."], "id": "df9f1310-bf9b-4a9a-b8ec-cccc68c2af22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["117. The applicant disagreed with the Government. He submitted that the domestic legislation required that his detention with a view to should have been authorised by a domestic court within 48 hours of the arrest. Referring to the Court's case-law, he asserted that Russian laws concerning detention pending extradition did not comply with the Convention criteria of quality of law; that the length of his detention had been excessive as he had spent more than nineteen months in custody whereas the maximum length of detention under the domestic legislation could not exceed eighteen months. He further emphasised that the application of the interim measure by the Court had implied the suspension of his extradition to Uzbekistan, but it had not obliged the Russian authorities to prolong his detention. The applicant reiterated that his detention between 6 and 27 March 2008 had been unlawful as it had not been based on a court order and pointed out that at the time of his arrest the proceedings concerning his Russian passport had been pending and the issue of his nationality had not been clarified and that his arrest and detention in view of extradition had therefore been unlawful from the outset."], "id": "6082f52e-0a60-4ebf-ad13-88d5b392668a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["125. The applicant further contended that the prosecutor\u2019s order of 2 June 2011 to detain him with a view to his to Uzbekistan (see paragraph 46 above) could not serve as a sound legal basis for his detention, as under Article 466 \u00a7 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure a prosecutor was only entitled to detain a person with a view to extradition if an extradition request was accompanied by a detention order issued by a court of the requesting country. A copy of the decision of the Gizhduvanskiy District Court of Uzbekistan of 14 September 2010, to which a Russian prosecutor had referred in his order of 2 June 2011, had not been duly signed by the judge who had issued that order or sealed with that court\u2019s official stamp, and therefore, in the applicant\u2019s view, could not be regarded as a valid court decision for the purposes of Article 466 \u00a7 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant further pointed out that the prosecutor\u2019s order of 2 June 2011 had been set aside by a court decision of 30 August 2011 as unlawful and unjustified (see paragraph 48 above). Lastly, the applicant submitted that his detention pursuant to a prosecutor\u2019s order had been unlawful in any event as the Court had held in the case of Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 38124/07, \u00a7\u00a7 72-74, 17 December 2009) that only a Russian court\u2019s decision could form a proper legal basis for a person\u2019s detention pending extradition."], "id": "45cbe888-57b0-4a3a-b736-e91da796dfb9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant maintained that he had argued before the Russian courts that there was a real risk that he would be ill-treated and persecuted politically in Uzbekistan. He had submitted reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and international NGOs, confirming that torture was widespread in detention facilities and that this information had not been properly assessed by the Russian authorities. He pointed out that the courts had rejected his arguments without giving any reasons other than the reference to the assurances given by the Uzbek authorities. Finally, he referred to a number of cases examined by the Court in which it had been established that to Uzbekistan of a person sought for political crimes would constitute a violation of Article 3."], "id": "7f866965-8e24-4d77-886b-36f6ce81b2af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant maintained that he had argued before the Russian courts that there was a real risk that he would be ill-treated and persecuted politically in Uzbekistan. He had submitted reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and international NGOs, confirming that torture was widespread in detention facilities and that this information had not been properly assessed by the Russian authorities. He pointed out that the courts had rejected his arguments without giving any reasons other than the reference to the assurances given by the Uzbek authorities. Finally, he referred to a number of cases examined by the Court in which it had been established that to Uzbekistan of a person sought for political crimes would constitute a violation of Article 3."], "id": "83cbec65-5dc2-4ffd-bd17-b0b24024d12a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicant claimed that his detention pending had been in breach of both domestic and international legal provisions. The decision of the district prosecutor\u2019s office of 9 June 2009 authorising his remand in custody had been unlawful as, contrary to the requirements of Article 466 \u00a7 2 of the CCrP, the Russian authorities had not received either a copy of the Almaty City Court\u2019s arrest warrant or an extradition request by the time they had taken the decision in question. Furthermore, the applicant insisted that he should have been released no more than two months after his initial remand in custody since, pursuant to Article 466 \u00a7 2 of the CCrP, a term of detention authorised by a prosecutor could not be longer than two months. In the absence of any judicial decision covering his detention between 3 May 2009 and 30 April 2010, his detention had therefore been in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. During his lengthy detention he had not been protected against arbitrary deprivation of liberty."], "id": "7eb1467b-22b2-485d-8f36-3e1041970ab2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["109. The Government recalled that the High Court had accepted that, upon to Florida, there was a realistic possibility of prosecution under the felony murder rule. It was not the Government\u2019s position that the case against the applicant was one of premeditated killing. It had been accepted by the Government in the High Court proceedings that the case against the first applicant might be put on the basis that he killed Mr Hayes in the course of the robbery without the prosecution having to prove that the first applicant intended to kill Mr Hayes. It was not accepted by the Government that the fact that it was open to the prosecution to put the case on this basis demonstrated that the killing was accidental or that the first applicant did not intend to kill Mr Hayes."], "id": "1d550bcf-752b-47ad-919f-63a24ae07335", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government maintained that the of individuals from Ukraine to Turkmenistan was regulated by the Minsk Convention 1993, which had been ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament and had become part of Ukrainian legislation under Article 9 of the Constitution. They further noted that under the Minsk Convention, a Contracting State had to recognise official documents issued by the other Contracting State. Therefore, the Ukrainian Government could not call into question the official documents issued by the relevant Turkmen authorities in the applicant\u2019s case. The Government maintained that by detaining the applicant, the Ukrainian authorities had acted in accordance with their international obligations under the Minsk Convention and that his detention was for the purpose of extradition."], "id": "c4831a6a-9520-4f60-b805-d20c77f911ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government also submitted that the length of the applicant\u2019s detention was accounted for by the pending requests for asylum and refugee status, the court proceedings challenging the refusal to grant him refugee status; the ongoing \u201c check\u201d in order to verify his citizenship and legal basis for residing in Russia; and the fact that, before deciding on the extradition request, certain additional documents and clarifications as to the charges against the applicant had been requested from the Uzbek authorities. The Russian migration authority had had to carry out an inquiry into the applicant\u2019s allegation of possible persecution on religious grounds in the event of his being returned to Uzbekistan. The migration officer had had several interviews with the applicant in order to fill in the asylum application. During those interviews the applicant had not complained about the conditions of his detention in the Russian remand centre. Having regard to the medical report in respect of the applicant, the migration authority had refused the asylum request as unfounded."], "id": "87cf0aa5-7ff2-47b9-bfe0-146c1e728bef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicant maintained that he had argued before the Russian courts that he faced a real risk of ill-treatment and political persecution in Uzbekistan. He had submitted reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and international NGOs confirming that torture was widespread in detention facilities and that this information had not received proper assessment from the Russian authorities. He further maintained that the authorities had failed to take into account the information from the Russian Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees confirming that the risk of his being ill\u2011treated in Uzbekistan was justified and substantiated. He pointed out that the courts had rejected his arguments without giving any reasons except a reference to the assurances given by the Uzbek authorities. Finally, he referred to a number of cases examined by the Court in which it had been established that to Uzbekistan of a person sought for political crimes would constitute a violation of Article 3."], "id": "cefd9d17-0bf4-414e-94ba-0c48d3bcd4cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["104. The applicant maintained that he had argued before the Russian courts that there was a real risk of his ill-treatment and political persecution in Uzbekistan. He had submitted reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and international NGOs, confirming that torture was widespread in detention facilities and that this information had not been properly assessed by the Russian authorities. He pointed out that the courts had rejected his arguments without giving any reasons other than the reference to the assurances given by the Uzbek authorities. Finally, he referred to a number of cases examined by the Court in which it had been established that to Uzbekistan of a person sought for political crimes would constitute a violation of Article 3."], "id": "6fc18b56-aa90-4ac6-a89c-ea4e0328daea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention pending expulsion had been lawful within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f). The applicant was detained with a view to enforcement of the court order for his administrative removal from the country under Article 18.8 \u00a7 1 of the CAO. Referring to the reasons given by the courts for the applicant\u2019s expulsion and detention, the Government argued that the expulsion proceedings had nothing to do with the proceedings. The law on detention pending expulsion was sufficiently clear and foreseeable. The applicant\u2019s detention was necessary to ensure the administrative removal, because he could have absconded from the authorities if released."], "id": "93587fc0-9782-43a2-bfa8-40960a2c7b70", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicant maintained that on 12-13 March 2013 he had not in fact been released from detention, and that his detention had constituted an uninterrupted period from 13 September 2012. He argued that administrative\u2011removal proceedings had been initiated only when the authorities had faced the need to release him and the administrative detention had been aimed solely at keeping him under the authorities\u2019 exclusive control after the expiry of the term of his detention pending . Further, after 9 April 2013, the date of the formal refusal of his extradition to Uzbekistan, he had been kept in detention so that the authorities could organise his removal to the requesting country. He further argued that the Russian law on detention pending expulsion was not sufficiently clear and foreseeable. In particular, he submitted that his arrest for the purpose of expulsion had been ordered in order to circumvent the requirements of the domestic law, which prescribed a maximum time\u2011limit for detention pending extradition. In contrast, detention pending expulsion was not limited in time under Russian law."], "id": "d0b0d2f9-8c43-4075-a61f-59c6ffe58513", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["180. The Government confirmed that by the date of the applicant\u2019s arrest with a view to he was living in Moscow with his wife and three of their six minor children, while the other three children remained in Uzbekistan. They argued that the decision to extradite the applicant to his home country did not constitute an interference within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1. The decision was in accordance with law, namely Article 466 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and Article 61 \u00a7 1 of the 1993 Minsk Convention. It served a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society. First, it was justified by a pressing social need to ensure that the proceedings against the applicant in Uzbekistan were conducted with reasonable grounds to suspect him of having committed particularly serious crimes in Uzbekistan. It was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, because neither the applicant\u2019s wife nor their children held Russian nationality. They were Uzbek nationals. The applicant\u2019s wife and three children could follow him to Uzbekistan if the applicant was extradited."], "id": "b084660d-f278-46c7-b672-b87a159f7232", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["133. The Government argued that, according to the information of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the FSB, there were no circumstances which would preclude the applicant\u2019s to Uzbekistan. Whilst noting that the Government failed to elaborate on that point, the Court reiterates that in cases concerning aliens facing expulsion or extradition it is entitled to compare material referred to by the Government with information from other reliable and objective sources (see Salah Sheekh, cited above, \u00a7 136, and Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, \u00a7 129, 21 October 2010)."], "id": "e17d1765-2ccf-4146-92d7-1d6486e4f29e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant further submitted that the provisions of the Russian criminal law on detention of persons with a view to fell short of the requirement of legal certainty and the Convention principles. He also noted that his detention after 22 October 2001, when the extradition request had been dismissed, had lacked any grounds whatsoever. The applicant found it unexplainable that it took three days to deliver the Prosecutor General\u2019s decision of 22 October 2001 from Moscow to St. Petersburg."], "id": "32864976-6147-46d3-8bad-a97667b31bdf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government submitted, on the one hand, that the applicant had had not requested refugee status immediately on his arrival in Russia and had also omitted to raise the issue of the risk of ill-treatment within the administrative-removal proceedings. According to them, where applicants raised an ill-treatment argument before the authorities in proceedings, the domestic courts duly verified those allegations. To demonstrate the existence of an \u201cestablished practice\u201d in that regard, they referred to the case of Zokhidov (cited above), where the applicant had brought his ill-treatment argument to the attention of the domestic authorities and the extradition order had been set aside. In any event, the applicant in the present case had failed to provide any reliable evidence demonstrating that if he was removed to Uzbekistan he would run the risk of being subjected to ill\u2011treatment. On the other hand, they maintained that the applicant had various remedies available to him to raise the ill\u2011treatment issue and had \u201cmade use of them in full\u201d. The domestic authorities had carefully examined the potential risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, as well as the applicant\u2019s family situation, in the administrative-removal and the refugee-status proceedings and had dismissed his allegations. They also noted that it had remained open for the applicant to challenge the latest court decisions in the refugee-status and the administrative\u2011removal proceedings by lodging a further complaint with the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court by way of cassation appeal and with the Supreme Court by way of supervisory review and concluded that the complaint was manifestly ill\u2011founded."], "id": "fab84e65-6110-47fc-950f-1cb5f9075591", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant further maintained that there were no effective remedies that he was required to exhaust in order to challenge the GPO of Ukraine's decision to extradite him to Kazakhstan. In particular, the applicant stated that he had complained on various occasions to the domestic courts about the unreasonable length of his detention and its unlawfulness, the unlawful inactivity of the Governor of Kharkiv SIZO no. 27, who refused to release him, and about the decision itself. The proceedings concerning these complaints and their unfavourable outcome showed that there were no domestic remedies available to the applicant."], "id": "0f92cd05-bb69-4292-9ee0-293c93f510c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant submitted that by contacting Interpol, the Maltese authorities sent the message to the wrong address and by means of the wrong courier. At the time, before the coming into force of the European Arrest Warrant, a request for was conducted through diplomatic channels, and only the Minister had the power to halt such requests. However, the AG failed to advise the Minister to withdraw the extradition on the basis of the rescinded warrant. Thus, the Spanish authorities were obliged to continue with the extradition proceedings unless they were halted by the Spanish Minister."], "id": "3983521f-5738-465a-9375-2b00d4460748", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant pointed to inconsistency in the Government's submissions. On the one hand, the Government had claimed that, by virtue of the 1993 Minsk Convention, detention with a view to was unlimited in time; on the other, they had cited the Constitutional Court's decision of 4 April 2006, which confirmed that Chapter 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should apply to extradition proceedings. Since Article 109 in Chapter 13 limited the period of detention to two months, the applicant's detention had been unlawful already after 13 October 2003. In any event it had been unlawful after the expiry of the maximum eighteen-month period of detention mentioned in paragraph 4 of Article 109. That view had been endorsed in the Moscow City Court's decision of 21 August 2006, which had ordered the applicant's release by reference to the expiry of the maximum detention period."], "id": "b0872a9f-b4e8-418a-8af4-e3069d69bdfa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention had been lawful and complied with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. Prior to the applicant\u2019s arrest the Russian authorities had received a request for from the Office of the Prosecutor General of Kazakhstan, an arrest warrant approved by the Ust-Kamenogorsk Town Prosecutor and a decision on the applicant\u2019s placement on the list of fugitives from justice."], "id": "23b0cda8-85a8-4233-882f-5f0d03daee20", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["106. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention that his ongoing detention pending had been \u201cunlawful\u201d: first, until 21 December 2007 he had been detained in the absence of an official request for extradition; secondly, the term of his detention had not been extended by the domestic courts. He also invoked Article 5 \u00a7 2, complaining that he had not been promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest. Lastly, he relied on Article 5 \u00a7 4 arguing, first, that his detention had not been subject to any judicial control and, secondly, that he had been deprived of the right to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed by a court owing to lack of access to a lawyer during the first two weeks of his detention."], "id": "bc879d26-2625-4751-8962-de81a25892dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant maintained that the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 did not dispense the State from fulfilling its international obligations regarding , since such a ground for detention was clearly provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f), which only required the detention to be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by the domestic legislation. The applicant submitted that the Minsk Convention did not provide for such a procedure. He further observed that the unlawfulness of his detention between 4 and 10 January 2007 had also been admitted by the State authorities themselves."], "id": "cdeb0b54-b1da-406b-b7a3-7a15ec9e943a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government submitted that the applicant's detention had been lawful and compatible with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. On the day of her arrest the Russian authorities had had in their possession a confirmation from the Belarus authorities that a request for would be sent shortly, an arrest warrant approved by the Minsk prosecutor and a decision on her inclusion on the list of fugitives from justice. The domestic courts had reviewed and confirmed the lawfulness of the custodial measure."], "id": "4d906556-c284-4523-8537-f430835890a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["179. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage. He argued that he had suffered severe distress as a result of being held in detention for twenty-seven months so far and facing a real risk of being returned to Tajikistan following the and administrative removal orders being upheld by the courts. He noted that his detention pending administrative removal was not limited in time. He had no remedies against that detention and did not know when he would be released."], "id": "09bf247f-1dce-41cd-8ece-bcbf3954963b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["130. The applicant was detained in Russia pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by a prosecutor's office in Uzbekistan. As the Court has found above, the applicant's detention was not authorised by a Russian court, in violation of the relevant domestic provisions. The Tyumen regional court and subsequently the Supreme Court did not examine the complaints concerning the lawfulness of the applicant's detention pending (see paragraphs 44 and 48 above). Thus, the lawfulness of the applicant's detention during the period in question was not examined by any court, despite his appeals to that effect."], "id": "1d00b105-240b-416a-a983-4a26926d17b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government observed that the applicant should have foreseen that until such time as her applications for asylum, complaints about the alleged unlawfulness of her detention and other petitions had been decided \u201cthe issue of her , and thus of her future\u201d could not have been solved by the authorities. At the same time the Government maintained that the applicant could have estimated the term of her detention as the domestic courts had applied Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to regulate it. The applicant had been released from custody following the decision of 14 October 2004 due to the expiration of the maximum possible term set by paragraph 3 of Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, despite the absence of specific provisions regulating the term of the applicant\u2019s detention pending extradition, the legislation had provided the applicant with an opportunity to estimate rather clearly the maximum period of her detention: she either had to remain in custody until the decision on her extradition had been taken by the Prosecutor General, or she had to be released when the general term of detention provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure had expired."], "id": "5c8dfe9e-a6d2-490d-a280-e12fe0677bd6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["283. The Government pointed out that the applicant\u2019s transfer to Uzbekistan had not taken place through the procedure, which had been immediately stayed following the Court\u2019s decision of 22 September 2010. The Court is not convinced by the Government\u2019s argument. While the measures taken to stay the extradition may be indicative of the Government\u2019s initial willingness to comply with the interim measures, they cannot, in the Court\u2019s view, relieve the State of its responsibility for subsequent events in the applicant\u2019s case. Nor can the Government legitimately pretend, as their argument may suggest, that the applicant\u2019s forcible return to Uzbekistan was not prevented by the interim measures which were formulated by the Court in the present case."], "id": "a63094d8-08c9-4398-8391-e9d7b35f6d72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["158. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention pending expulsion had been lawful within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f). The applicant was detained with a view to enforcement of the court order for his administrative removal from the country under Article 18.8 \u00a7 1 of the CAO. Referring to the reasons given by the courts for the applicant\u2019s expulsion and detention, the Government argued that the expulsion proceedings had nothing to do with the proceedings. The law on detention pending expulsion was sufficiently clear and foreseeable."], "id": "65e67fb9-07c1-4b43-b32f-62cd45b279dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government initially submitted that in the course of the proceedings the Government of Uzbekistan had provided assurances that, if returned to Uzbekistan, the applicant would not be persecuted, in particular, on religious or political grounds. According to the Government, the arguments submitted by the applicant had not been \u201cobjectively confirmed\u201d. The applicant had failed to adduce evidence that he risked being subjected to ill-treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan. Furthermore, the courts had carefully examined his allegations regarding the risk of his being subjected to ill-treatment if he were returned to Uzbekistan. In the Government\u2019s view, the decision on the applicant\u2019s administrative removal was well-founded, as he had failed to regularise his stay in Russia, despite being well aware of the applicable procedure. The Government also pointed out that the decision did not specify that the applicant was to be expelled to Uzbekistan, but merely stated that he was to be removed from the territory of the Russian Federation."], "id": "1026bf6d-d453-43da-878b-a0c061fe5b8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant also complained under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention about the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan and various aspects of the proceedings. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "7b39c0d8-7775-4b92-830c-a91004ce3e11", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant complained that the appeal proceedings in respect of the detention orders of 25 December 2012 and 21 March 2013 had not been speedy and effective. He further complained that he had not had a legal remedy at his disposal enabling him to apply for judicial review of his detention on his own initiative following new developments in his case, in particular, following the indication of interim measures by the Court on 17 June 2013. He cited Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "c812bedf-631c-407e-afc1-8c2cf0c34495", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicants further asked the Court not to limit its examination to the establishment of the Government's failure to assess properly the risk of ill-treatment before taking the decision. They argued that they had submitted sufficient information for the Court to rule that their extradition to Uzbekistan would be incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. As additional proof of an increased risk of ill-treatment, they had produced a list of their relatives and business partners who had been convicted to long terms of imprisonment in connection with the Andijan events. They also maintained that the Uzbek authorities knew about their application for asylum and their application before the Court, which had further intensified the risk of torture."], "id": "69f39143-7864-40b9-a772-4e5b810c1831", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["130. The applicants submitted that Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure set the initial time-limit for detention at two months. As no extension of the applicants' detention had been ordered after the expiry of the two-month time-limit, the applicants' subsequent detention had been unlawful. The applicants referred in that respect to the Government's submissions in which it had been confirmed that the detention pending was to be extended following the procedure established by Russian law for the extension of detention during the investigation and that that procedure had not been respected in the applicants' case (see paragraph 133 below)."], "id": "fd1e865b-090d-4761-b830-0caa12b2fa6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government relied on the reasoning of the House of Lords in Wellington and the Canadian Supreme Court in Burns and Ferris (see paragraphs 34\u201342 and 44 and 45 above). On the basis of those cases, the Government submitted that, in the context, a distinction had to be drawn between torture and other forms of ill-treatment. A real risk of torture in the receiving State should be an absolute bar on extradition. However, for all other forms of ill-treatment, it was legitimate to consider the policy objectives pursued by extradition in determining whether the ill-treatment reached the minimum level of severity required by Article 3. This was the appropriate means of resolving the tension that existed between the Court\u2019s judgments in Soering, on the one hand, and Chahal and Saadi, on the other. Article 3 could not be interpreted as meaning that any form of ill-treatment in a non-Contracting State would be sufficient to prevent extradition."], "id": "57073131-521e-45d1-a61a-e290ae403e70", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["117. The applicant submitted that he had brought his fears of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan to the attention of the domestic authorities during the refugee-status and proceedings. He had relied on reports by UN agencies and respected international NGOs which clearly demonstrated that individuals who, like him, were suspected of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir were at an increased risk of ill-treatment. However, the domestic authorities had not taken into account the evidence he had submitted and had dismissed his fears as unsubstantiated without a thorough assessment of the general situation in Uzbekistan or his personal situation, relying on the diplomatic assurances provided by the Uzbek authorities. Yet, those assurances were unreliable on account of the absence of any mechanism of compliance monitoring or any accountability for their breach (he referred to Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, \u00a7 189, ECHR 2012 (extracts))."], "id": "eef8dd17-e6a1-4b65-8829-baaf649e02c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government insisted that the entire period of the applicant\u2019s detention pending had been lawful, and that the domestic provisions governing detention pending extradition were sufficiently accessible and clear. The applicant\u2019s detention had been based on detention orders issued by the competent courts. The Government also submitted that, pursuant to the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Russia, the provisions of Chapter 13 of the CCrP were fully applicable to persons detained with a view to extradition under Article 466 of the CCrP. The applicant\u2019s placement in custody had been ordered and repeatedly extended in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the CCrP. The domestic courts had referred to those provisions in their decisions. Upon the expiry of the authorised detention term, which had not exceeded the maximum period of eighteen months authorised by Russian law, the applicant had been released. Hence, the applicable legislation had enabled him to estimate the length of his detention."], "id": "a3a21cb2-0583-4cc1-8373-47a2439e84ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant, an ethnic Uzbek charged by the Kyrgyz authorities in absentia in connection with the Jalal-Abad riots, belonged to a vulnerable group even in the absence of a formal request. The fact that Kyrgyzstan had ratified international human rights instruments did not exclude the possibility that the applicant as a member of a vulnerable group would face a serious risk of ill\u2011treatment if returned to the country owing to the fact that there was an administrative practice of ill\u2011treatment of ethnic Uzbeks as reported, in particular, by Amnesty International and the UN Universal Periodic Review."], "id": "a4ac1a1d-d4ed-485a-bc61-79bee1836895", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s provisional detention, which had transformed into detention pending the outcome of the proceedings, was prompted by the obligations the Bulgarian State had undertook under the 1975 Treaty and had been in line with the applicable legislation, the 2005 Act. In the Government\u2019s view, the detention ordered by the prosecutor for a period of seventy-two hours had been mandatory under the 2005 Act. The domestic courts had assessed the necessity of the detention and taken the applicant\u2019s arguments into account. The Government further argued that the national authorities had correctly applied the national legislation, which contained sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness. Lastly, the Government stated that the only authority competent to decide if the extradition request had been identical to an older one had been the court which examined the extradition request. Such an assessment had only been possible at the end of the extradition proceedings."], "id": "bae02f05-9537-46b4-b9a6-6765c8f7d4cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government observed that on 15 May 1998 the applicant was placed in detention with a view to (see paragraph 25 above) and that the first set of the extradition proceedings ended on 12 May 1999 (see paragraph 33 above). Few days later, on 4 June 1999, another warrant for the applicant\u2019s arrest was issued in the ambit of the second set of extradition proceedings, which came to an end on 3 November 2000, after the applicant\u2019s conviction (see paragraphs 35 and 40 above)."], "id": "7d137956-7294-49bb-9324-a1fd736ae3c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant complained under Article 6 that he did not understand the charges against him during his deportation. The Court notes that there were no judicial proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s removal from the territory of Ukraine and that any such proceedings would fall outside the scope of Article 6 of the Convention (see Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, \u00a7 40, ECHR 2000\u2011X). Despite its findings that the applicant\u2019s expulsion has appearances of in disguise (see paragraph 58 above), the Court considers that this does not preclude it from examining the question of whether the removal of the applicant from the territory of Ukraine, which was formally presented as expulsion, complied with the Convention requirements. Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, the Court decides to examine the problem raised by the applicant under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, which reads as follows:"], "id": "66658671-216b-4ecf-8ac3-ba0dc939d810", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government submitted that the matter of to Belarus was covered by the Constitution of Ukraine, the CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters 1993 (the \u201cMinsk Convention\u201d), the Code of Criminal Procedure and Resolution no. 16 of the Plenary Supreme Court of 8 October 2004 on certain issues relating to the application of legislation governing the procedure and length of detention (arrest) of persons awaiting extradition. The relevant provisions of these instruments were clear, understandable, foreseeable and accessible to the person concerned. They further noted that under the Minsk Convention, a Contracting State had to recognise official documents issued by another Contracting State. Therefore, the Ukrainian Government could not call into question the official documents issued by the relevant Belorussian authorities in the applicant\u2019s case. The Government maintained that by detaining the applicant, the Ukrainian authorities had acted in accordance with their international obligations under the Minsk Convention and that his detention was for the purpose of extradition. Moreover, according to the Government, the applicant could have challenged his arrest before a court. The Government lastly noted that since the applicant\u2019s arrest and detention were lawful, he did not have a right to any compensation."], "id": "b71016cb-3c9b-4fbf-bc3b-7f766abd014d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["83. The applicant argued that there had been insufficient reasons for his detention since he had had no intention to abscond, and that the courts should have considered less stringent preventive measures such as house arrest. He also argued that the provisions of the CCrP on detention in cases were unclear and unforeseeable because they allowed arrest and detention without a detention order issued by a Russian court. Such provisions did not specify the circumstances in which detention could be replaced by house arrest, which remained an illusory option."], "id": "4c2e2b2e-62d3-41e7-8863-87467b16084c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government maintained that the interview between the applicant and the prosecutor had been held in the context of the ordinary activities of the prosecution service, whose task was to supervise the observance of the law by the prison authorities. They also maintained that the conversation had been necessary in the context of proceedings against the applicant. They further noted that the applicant had been informed of his right to remain silent. Therefore, they concluded that the prosecutor had acted within the law and his interview with the applicant could not be considered as putting pressure on the applicant because of his application lodged with the Court."], "id": "3c68df83-4187-45ba-bdb6-a9bc867e4d65", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["161. The applicant submitted that the proceedings had lasted for more than eight years and the authorities had therefore had plenty of time to examine the extradition request and to fulfil all necessary formalities while he had been serving his prison term. By resuming the extradition proceedings only after the end of his prison term, the authorities had failed to exercise due diligence and had made him languish in detention for many additional months after he had finished serving his sentence."], "id": "8debc731-bf8b-49d4-9a17-e3238aee2a0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["168. The Government further stated that the applicant could have complained to the courts about his detention under section 17 of the Custody Act, but they failed to elaborate on that assertion. In any event, the Court has already held that the Custody Act derives from the Code of Criminal Procedure and concerns persons suspected or accused of criminal offences in Russia, and there is no indication that this Act applied at the material time to persons detained pending . Hence, the Court is not certain that the remedy suggested by the Government bore any relation to the breaches alleged (see Muminov, cited above, \u00a7 115)."], "id": "dbab6dec-32e3-466d-9ea5-7c42420e2c95", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicant maintained that in the event of his he would face a strong risk of being denied a fair trial. He noted that the Government had failed to give any explanations about the domestic judicial system in Turkmenistan, probably because they considered this problem beyond their responsibilities. The applicant drew attention to the Government\u2019s acceptance that they could not consider the probability of a flagrant denial of a fair trial in Turkmenistan."], "id": "862f8f98-d6ce-48db-8fc5-0a5b67b2b19c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government noted that the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan had expressly undertaken to ensure that Russian diplomatic representatives would be given access to the applicant in the event of his . They further noted with regret that, by forbidding extradition in cases similar to the present case, the Court had not yet given the Russian authorities an opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of such \u201cdiplomatic supervision\u201d in practice. At the same time, within the framework of the above mechanism, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Kyrgyz Prosecutor General\u2019s Office had provided information to the Russian Prosecutor General\u2019s Office concerning the fate of several ethnic Uzbeks previously extradited to Kyrgyzstan for criminal prosecution. The information in question proves that the Kyrgyz authorities had abided by their assurances not to subject these persons to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, thus demonstrating the unbiased attitude \u2013 and in certain cases even specific loyalty \u2013 of Kyrgyz justice towards this category of persons. The Government cited the examples of three individuals of Uzbek ethnic origin who had received a suspended sentence and had been released on parole, or whose criminal case had been dismissed. The Government further informed the Court that on 30\u201131 July and 21 November 2014, and again on 24 February 2015 the diplomats of the Consulate General of Russia in Osh and of the Russian Embassy in Kyrgyzstan had visited six non-Kyrgyz persons (two of them ethnic Uzbeks charged with particularly grave crimes including aggravated murder, and one of whom had also been charged with participation in mass disorders) extradited to Kyrgyzstan earlier. The latter were satisfied with the conditions of their detention and denied having been subjected to any form of ill-treatment during preliminary investigations. No violations of their procedural rights, including the right to defence, had been recorded by the Kyrgyz law-enforcement bodies."], "id": "fe871525-04d1-4e7a-8987-eeedafe1af62", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["191. The applicant argued that execution of the order against him would entail \u201csignificant and irreparable\u201d consequences to his relationship with his wife and children, especially his daughter who required health care in Russia. The extradition order and judicial review decisions had not properly taken into account various aspects relating to his family life. In particular, the appeal court provided no reasoning in response to his related arguments. His extradition would not pursue any of the aims set out in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the Government\u2019s reference to their other international obligations being insufficient to outweigh their obligations under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "0df82466-8710-4d77-9b6e-11e48fe3ceec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government referred to the information from the PGO, according to which there had been no reason to expect treatment contrary to Article 3 in Turkmenistan. While in detention pending the applicant had not alleged that he was in danger of such treatment and had submitted such complaints only after the extradition. The Government also noted that the applicant's extradition had been found unlawful by a domestic court on 5 December 2002."], "id": "8811c5b5-956c-4f2b-b868-d34053848e87", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful. He further complained that since the date when he had received refugee status his detention could not be considered to be with a view to and that none of the grounds listed in Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention was applicable to his detention, as the domestic law prohibited the removal of refugees from the territory of Ukraine. The applicant also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention that he had had no possibility to challenge his arrest and detention. The applicant finally complained of a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention because he had not been able to receive any compensation for the allegedly unlawful detention."], "id": "c2ff1a97-31e0-446d-bc46-c495a8d66fbb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["204. The Government argued that the impugned decisions clearly stated that the applicant was charged with having committed certain crimes and that his was sought with a view to prosecuting him on those charges. Moreover, the authorities explicitly stated that the issue of the applicant's criminal responsibility for the crimes for which his extradition was being sought was to be decided only by the courts of the requesting country."], "id": "74a01701-a512-4590-b02d-6a827e468ae6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["135. The applicant argued in reply that he did not have at his disposal a procedure by which the lawfulness of his detention could be examined by a court and his release ordered. He argued that the procedure set out in Article 125 of the CCrP did not comply with the requirements of an effective remedy, since that provision conferred standing to complain about alleged infringements of rights and freedoms within criminal proceedings solely on parties to those proceedings and thus was ineffective for obtaining judicial review of the lawfulness of detention pending and moreover a court could not instruct an investigating authority to release the detainee. In any event, the ineffectiveness of the procedure set out in Article 125 had been amply demonstrated in practice in his own case, since on 23 December 2010 the Sverdlovskiy District Court had refused to consider such complaint the merits. Furthermore, the complaints regarding the unlawfulness of the two persecutor\u2019s orders, even though submitted on four occasions in two sets of proceedings, including the extension proceedings, had remained unexamined by the domestic courts. He further reiterated the Court\u2019s earlier findings that neither Article 108 nor Article 109 of the CCrP entitled a detainee to initiate proceedings for examination of the lawfulness of his detention. He concluded therefore that the only available way of challenging the lawfulness of his detention was an appeal against the extension decision. However, he submitted that during his six months of detention the domestic court had examined the issue of his placement into custody on one occasion only, within the extension proceedings of 27 December 2010, and the interval between the extension and the release was manifestly excessive."], "id": "2e885e8b-fc1d-4cf1-b240-f28edd8da944", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government submitted that the matter of to Belarus was covered by the Constitution of Ukraine, the CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters 1993, the Code of Criminal Procedure and Resolution no. 16 of the Plenary Supreme Court of 8 October 2004 on certain issues relating to the application of legislation governing the procedure and length of detention (arrest) of persons awaiting extradition. The relevant provisions of these texts were clear, understandable, foreseeable and accessible to the person concerned. Moreover, according to the Government, the applicant could have challenged his arrest in court. The Government further argued that at the material time the applicant had not acquired refugee status because the relevant decision of the State Migration Committee had been challenged by the GPO in court. The Government finally noted that since the applicant's arrest and detention were lawful, he did not have a right to any compensation."], "id": "47c52d3e-e96e-43ec-9d3f-ae046cbb8ea8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["92. The Government argued that the applicant had had ample opportunities to challenge the lawfulness of his detention but had failed to use them. The applicant's lawyer had challenged the lawfulness of detention before the Prosecutor General on 11 October 2002 and before the Moscow City Court on 18 October 2002. The PGO had replied to the applicant's lawyer on 11 November 2002. The Moscow City Court had refused to consider the complaint because it should have been submitted to a competent district court. The applicant himself had not made any complaints. He had been informed of the decision to extradite him on 24 October 2002 and had not requested to contact a lawyer. The Russian legislation did not provide for notification of the lawyer of the person whose was under way."], "id": "eb39b0f2-7165-4dc7-acee-68cfd99b2cff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government further submitted the following arguments to demonstrate that human rights protection mechanisms in Kyrgyzstan had been improving: Kyrgyzstan was a party to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Optional Protocol to it; the Kyrgyz Constitution guaranteed fair trial and proscribed capital punishment, torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment; the Kyrgyz Criminal Code criminalised torture and was based on the principles of lawfulness and equality before the law; Kyrgyzstan was a vice-president of the UN Human Rights Council and rapporteur of its bureau; since June 2010 the country had undergone positive changes, including adopting a new Constitution, parliamentary and presidential elections, the setting up of domestic and international commissions to investigate the Jalal\u2011Abad violence, reform of legislation in order to bring it into compliance with UN standards and on 7 June 2012 a law had been adopted with a view to creating a national anti-torture centre. The Government suggested that the overall human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan had not called for a total ban on from the Council of Europe\u2019s Member States."], "id": "1310f744-ccdd-42de-9a6c-bbc68d8cf0d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["97. The applicant complained that he was detained in violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3. He maintained that prior to 30 January 2007, when the General Prosecutor\u2019s Office had received the official request for his , his detention had fallen within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c). Only after that date, in his view, could the detention be qualified as being \u201cwith a view to extradition\u201d."], "id": "0102bf1b-576d-4d22-8240-baac42ecb31c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government alleged that the applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies, as he failed to make use of the so-called habeas corpus procedure provided by Article 137 of the Criminal Code. They moreover pointed out that the applicant had decided not to await for the decision of the Magistrates' Court's on the merits of the request. In its decision on admissibility the Court considered that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies was linked to the substance of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention and that it should therefore be joined to the examination of the merits of the case."], "id": "93c39362-bc38-4d69-93e5-8bb9a14f5fcb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained about the unlawfulness of his preventive detention since it had exceeded the time-limits imposed by law, namely the 1939 Convention and/or the 1957 Convention as the Italian authorities had submitted a late request without requesting an extension of time. The applicant complained that the extradition request had not been submitted to the relevant authority, in that it had been submitted by the Italian Ministry to the CL and not by diplomatic channels to the CR. He invoked Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "30cb1908-662b-4e87-8f7b-6781518ea784", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["235. The applicant maintained his complaint. He agreed that there had been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 in respect of his detention pending and his house arrest. In response to the non\u2011exhaustion argument, he submitted that the Government had failed to demonstrate that an ordinary appeal against the decision of 13 May 2011 constituted an effective remedy. The relevant CCrP provisions were not clear enough. Chapter 45 of the CCrP did not contain specific provisions on appeals against a preventive measure. It was not clear from Article 108 \u00a7 11 of the CCrP that an appeal court could order an applicant\u2019s immediate release. He referred to the case of a Mr V., where an extension of Mr V.\u2019s detention pending extradition by the first-instance court had been found unlawful by the appeal instance. However, the appeal court had remitted the case for fresh consideration and had not ordered the applicant\u2019s release; as a result, V.\u2019s detention had been again extended by the lower court."], "id": "691f553c-ff2d-425d-83e3-7e0235f29ebe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["87. The Government argued that the applicant did not have victim status, as enforcement of the order had been and remained suspended due to the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Uzbek authorities had provided assurances that the applicant would not be prosecuted for offences other than those indicated in the extradition request; that he would not be surrendered to another State without Russia\u2019s consent; and that he would not be subjected to ill-treatment. The offences for which the applicant was being prosecuted did not entail the possibility of a sentence of capital punishment. The Russian courts had delved into the issue of the possible risk of the applicant\u2019s ill-treatment and had dismissed it."], "id": "5bdd3ba1-07e4-4508-88a3-9feb39b25f27", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["127. The applicant maintained that the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 did not dispense the State from fulfilling its international obligations regarding , since such a ground for detention was clearly provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 1(f), which only required the detention to be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by the domestic legislation. The applicant submitted that the Minsk Convention did not provide for such a procedure. He further stated that his detention, from the moment of his apprehension on 23 August 2004 until the present date, lacked a legal basis, had been groundless and in breach of the procedure prescribed by law. He stated that his detention until 16 September 2004 should fall within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1(c) of the Convention and after that date \u2013 it should be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 1(f)."], "id": "236d3b30-8d2d-44fe-93b0-c6131ea194d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant argued that the orders for his detention with a view to were unlawful and could not be taken into account. These orders not only contained wrong data about his nationality, but also failed to properly address the issue of limbo incarceration. Moreover, even if the orders in issue had not been adopted, the applicant would not have been released before 7 October 1999. His detention on remand was in fact never revoked and the execution of his extradition was suspended awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceedings pending in Italy."], "id": "627019a5-bafd-42cd-a337-2a40ac3d94fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["113. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his detention pending between 6 and 27 March 2008 had been unlawful as it had not been based on a court order and that the court order authorising his detention as of 27 March 2008 had not set any time\u2011limits for the duration of the detention, in violation of the relevant provisions of the domestic law. The relevant parts of Article 5 \u00a7 1 read as follows:"], "id": "aef783fe-6cdc-4c3e-8e84-dd8fa16e7b95", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant complained against San Marino in relation to the unlawfulness of his order as a result of the procedural irregularities relating to the extradition. He argued that the 1939 Convention was applicable to his extradition and not the 1957 Convention which San Marino adhered to after his extradition proceedings had initiated. He complained that the extradition request had not been submitted to the relevant authority, in that it had been submitted by the Italian Ministry to the CL and not by diplomatic channels to the RC. It followed that his extradition and transfer to the Italian authorities had been unlawful."], "id": "e570c90e-06b2-4fa3-841e-6b3ab84f957e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government insisted that the applicant's detention pending had been lawful as it had been based on the decision of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of 1 November 2007. They submitted that after that his detention had been authorised by the same court on 30 January 2008 and that it fully complied with the provisions of Article 466 \u00a7 1 of the CCP. They further stated that the duration of the detention had lengthened owing to the applicant's request for refugee status and the application of the interim measures by the Court."], "id": "b91e35c3-2e90-4be2-9bb6-79817ba07e95", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["234. The Government acknowledged, without further details, that there had been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) in respect of both the detention pending and the house arrest. However, in the same set of observations they argued, as regards the complaints under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 about house arrest, that the applicant had failed to lodge an ordinary appeal under Articles 107 \u00a7 2 and 108 \u00a7 11 of the CCrP against the court decision of 13 May 2011 ordering his house arrest, despite the fact that such an appeal constituted an effective remedy in respect of the complaint."], "id": "1b4ad2e1-416a-4b03-ba23-d2761bdaa9f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant maintained that his detention between 29 December 2004 and 6 January 2005 fell within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention because there had been no request for his to Belarus; therefore he considered himself arrested on the basis of Article 61 \u00a7 2. He considered that only from 6 January 2005 when that request had been received by the Ukrainian authorities did his detention fall within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f). For the Government, the detention fell within Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) throughout."], "id": "ba13a551-f02d-4eed-9ca0-be93b25800ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations concerning the risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan had been subject to examination in the course of the refugee status and temporary asylum proceedings. Moreover, the Russian Prosecutor General\u2019s Office, the Moscow City Court and the Supreme Court of Russia had thoroughly examined the allegations in the course of the proceedings. For instance, in the course of the hearing before the Moscow City Court on 16 April 2013 the applicant and Ms Ryabinina, an expert on refugee law, had made submissions regarding possible ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan. However, the claims had been dismissed, as the applicant had only referred to the general human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan and had thus failed to demonstrate any individualised risk of ill-treatment. The courts\u2019 decisions upholding the extradition order had been fully and properly reasoned."], "id": "60f5dd7b-f764-4ad3-a010-70b7fe4f8188", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["167. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention that the review of his detention pending had not been effective in that none of the arguments raised by his counsel in the appeal against the detention order of 19 March 2012 had been examined by the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow in its decision of 3 May 2012 and that, therefore, the proceedings that had ended with the Moscow City Court\u2019s decision of 23 July 2012 had been in breach of the principle of equality of arms and had not been adversarial. Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "974d3542-cdea-4644-893c-68e60d34cee8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["205. The applicant submitted that in stating that his actions were \u201cpunishable under the Russian criminal legislation\u201d the Russian authorities had declared him guilty before trial, which was further proved by the reply of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office of 30 December 2009, stating that it \u201chad granted their Tajikistani counterpart's request for the applicant's with a view to prosecuting him in connection with his participation in a prohibited religious organisation\u201d. In the applicant's opinion, the wording used by the Russian authorities was even capable of influencing the Tajik courts."], "id": "8dfd96d9-1ea2-4d3d-ae70-54ad45f6a6ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government submitted that the applicant had never raised his complaints about the risk of his ill-treatment in the event of to Turkmenistan with the domestic courts or the General Prosecutor\u2019s Office. The Government considered that the domestic legislation provided the applicant with an opportunity to do so. They noted in particular that Article 55 of the Constitution guaranteed to everybody the right to challenge any decision, act or omission of the State authorities in the courts. Furthermore, Article 2 of the Code of Administrative Justice made it possible to challenge not only the prosecutor\u2019s decision on the applicant\u2019s extradition but any action the prosecutor took in the process of the extradition proceedings. Therefore, they considered that the applicant had failed to exhaust the remedies available to him under Ukrainian law."], "id": "24463e54-5af2-4c70-a604-d15449edd4d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government relied on two legal approaches which they had obtained from the PGO and from the Supreme Court of Russia. The PGO stated that the applicant's detention prior to had been based on the provisions of the Minsk Convention of 1993 and the relevant Russian legislation. The Supreme Court agreed with the applicant that from 27 September until 24 October 2002 he had been detained unlawfully. However, the decision of the Moscow City Court of 5 December 2002 had corrected the violation by declaring the extradition and the detention unlawful so the applicant's rights had thus been restored."], "id": "77b03a1a-fd84-4527-aa3a-977ccc4f36a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government contended that the application should be declared inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae. They submitted that the applicant had not been extradited by the Russian authorities to Uzbekistan, the impugned measure had not been applied to him, his had been suspended and therefore he could not claim to be the victim of a violation of Article 3."], "id": "17826cef-5137-49cb-89ff-140fe6fb51ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["129. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s to Uzbekistan would not expose him to any risk of ill-treatment or political persecution. His allegations of such risks, raised for the first time in his judicial appeal against the prosecutor\u2019s extradition order, had been examined and rejected by the Russian courts. The Government reiterated the domestic courts\u2019 reasoning and relied on the diplomatic assurances provided by the Uzbek Prosecutor General\u2019s Office."], "id": "97d6d0e2-e4e8-41a0-b2ec-fce1eab26cf8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["130. The applicant submitted that he had brought his fears of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan to the attention of the domestic authorities as early as December 2009 in his application for refugee status. He had consistently reiterated his fears during the refugee status and proceedings. He had relied on reports by UN agencies and respected international NGOs which clearly demonstrated that individuals who, like him, were suspected of membership of banned religious organisations were at an increased risk of ill-treatment. He had also argued that the wording of the charges brought against him showed that they had been motivated by political and religious considerations. However, the domestic authorities had not taken into account the evidence submitted by the applicant and had dismissed his fears as unsubstantiated without a thorough assessment of the general situation in Uzbekistan or his personal situation, relying on the diplomatic assurances provided by the Uzbek authorities. Yet, those assurances were unreliable due to the absence of any mechanism of compliance monitoring or any accountability for their breach (he referred to Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, \u00a7 105, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V, and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, \u00a7 147, ECHR 2008)."], "id": "5b5cc7f7-0249-4780-b2ce-f676286cd90b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government maintained that they could not doubt the information provided by the Turkmen authorities, as the proceedings were being conducted in accordance with international agreements. They further noted that they had neither the possibility of checking this information nor any legal basis for doing so, since the proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case would be conducted by the foreign country\u2019s authorities. They noted that all countries were interested in having a good international reputation, and that it was not in a country\u2019s interests to worsen its external relations with its partners by violating its obligations. In the Government\u2019s opinion, it was more important for the State to have a good international reputation than to violate its international obligations."], "id": "dd67e796-907e-4850-92c1-0a273b303ba2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government contested this claim. They argued that the provisions of the Russian law governing the detention of persons pending were clear enough and foreseeable. In accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court of 4 April 2006 No. 101-O, the provisions of Article 466 and Chapter 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were applicable to such detention. The Government noted that the first applicant had been brought before a judge within forty-eight hours of her arrest. Under Article 109 of the Criminal Procedural Code, her detention could not exceed twelve months, while she had spent eleven months and twenty-five days in detention. In so far as the first applicant complained about the absence of review of her detention, the Government noted that she had made use of the relevant provisions of the Russian criminal procedural legislation and appealed to higher courts against the decisions by which her detention had been ordered. She could also make use of Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allowed the parties to the proceedings to seek judicial review of decisions of the investigation."], "id": "0ad80a8d-c4bb-4108-a271-f0ca094c3693", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["197. The applicant further stressed that the extraordinarily precipitated enforcement of the deportation order against him and the fact that the authorities hid him from his lawyer on that day strongly contradicted the Government\u2019s assertion that the domestic bodies had not intended to act in breach of the interim measure and Article 34 of the Convention. Lastly, he contested their argument that the scope of the interim measure had been limited to . He averred that it had been aimed at preventing the irreparable damage which he risked suffering if he was removed, in any form, to his country of origin, at allowing him to pursue the proceedings before this Court, and at securing him effective Convention protection."], "id": "bd99505d-dd0d-4b8e-82e5-b685fa72e611", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s arrest had been lawful and effected on the basis of the relevant information at the disposal of the Russian authorities concerning the pending criminal proceedings against the applicant in Uzbekistan, the Uzbek decisions to impose on him a preventive measure (arrest and detention) and to add his name to the wanted list. The Government also specified that the applicant\u2019s subsequent detention had been authorised by a Russian court, which verified that the essential conditions for such detention were complied with: that the alleged criminal acts were punishable under both Russian and Uzbek criminal law; that they could entail a sentence equal to or exceeding one year of imprisonment (as required by the Minsk Convention) and that the relevant limitation periods for prosecuting the relevant offences had not expired. The initial detention order had contained a time-limit, which was in compliance with the requirements of Article 466 and Chapter 13 of the Russian CCrP. The applicant\u2019s detention had been extended by a court on several occasions, within the time-limits specified in Article 109 of the CCrP. The applicant had made use of legal assistance in the detention proceedings and the courts had assessed all the relevant factual and legal circumstances, dismissing the possibility of applying a less stringent preventive measure. The applicant had been able to foresee the maximum statutory period of his detention with a view to , that is until a decision was taken by the Prosecutor\u2019s General Office on the extradition request or until expiry of the time-limits set in the detention orders. The applicant could have realised that the \u201cfinal decision\u201d concerning his extradition could not have been taken before his application for refugee status, appeals against detention orders or against an extradition decision had been examined."], "id": "a569a6cc-896d-46f9-9565-3a6cdd4564a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s allegations. They argued that the detention in question had been ordered in compliance with the rules, as the Italian courts had found, and that its sole purpose had been for the applicant to be surrendered to the courts of the requesting State. They added that the applicant had not given his consent to the extradition, pointing out that consent would have accelerated the proceedings, and that the delay in the scheduling by the Court of Appeal of a hearing on the merits could be explained by the three applications for release that the applicant had filed within a period of three months. Lastly, they took the view that the proceedings in question, which had led the Italian authorities, both judicial and administrative, to authorise the extradition, had been conducted within the time-limits provided for by the rules of domestic and international law."], "id": "a738bdfc-9608-44df-b214-e87c2b80c3eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicant claimed that the Constitutional Court did not provide an adequate remedy. Notwithstanding its decision recognising a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 and declaring the arrest warrant defective, it nonetheless kept in force its effects, thereby negating its own conclusion on the unlawfulness. He submitted that the Spanish authorities\u2019 activity and his arrest were triggered and kept in place as a result of Malta\u2019s request for his . Thus, in order to be effective the Constitutional Court should have ordered the applicant\u2019s release, as did the court of first instance by issuing an order to the Maltese authorities to take all necessary steps through diplomatic channels to reverse the effects of the unlawful warrant. Furthermore, the applicant submitted that the European Extradition Convention, which was applicable in the present case, required as a basis for an extradition request a valid arrest warrant issued according to the laws of the requesting Party."], "id": "2a9dc86c-8e0b-42b5-ab99-fb8ea8e99361", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant complained that his to Kazakhstan would subject him to a risk of ill-treatment. He formulated his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and vaguely referred to Article 6 of the Convention without making a specific detailed complaint in this respect. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "40e96939-4ff2-404e-a69d-69460d77fa85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant maintained that his detention between 29 July 2005 and 3 August 2005 fell within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention. He considered that once the request for his had been received by the Ukrainian authorities on 3 August 2005, his detention fell within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f). For the Government, the whole period of detention fell within Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f)."], "id": "4420b6ac-9a56-44fa-a323-730ba9fe451e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government emphasise that when the Magistrates' Court, whether as a court of criminal inquiry or as a court of committal for the purposes of , arrives to the conclusion that the arrest is unlawful, it has the authority to order the immediate release of the person in custody. During the extradition proceedings, the primary function of the Magistrates' Court is to decide whether there are legal obstacles to the requested extradition. It has also the competence to determine any collateral issue which may arise, such as the lawfulness of the arrest of the person brought before it. Its President is in fact a Magistrate who is bound by his duties to attend to any complaint of an unlawful arrest. If he fails to do so, he may be held criminally liable for the offence punished by Article 137 of the Criminal Code. Should the Magistrates' Court find that the arrest is unlawful, it is obliged to order the immediate release. The extradition proceedings will then continue with the person requested free from arrest. The Government refer, on this point, to the decision given on 27 February 2001 in the case of The police v. Pierre Gravina (see paragraph 28 above) and underline that according to Article 15(1) of the Extradition Act, the court of committal in extradition proceedings should have the same powers, as nearly as may be, as the court of criminal inquiry."], "id": "4b4369d7-cc12-43e1-a4e0-29212fb35af7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government pointed out at the outset that the applicant had lodged his appeal against the judgment of the Zamokvoretskiy District Court outside a ten-day time-limit set out in the domestic law. However, the domestic courts granted an extension of the period for introduction of the grounds of appeal. They examined the appeal against the refusal to grant the applicant refugee status. Furthermore, the applicant made use of the procedure for challenging the order by the Prosecutor General. In each set of the proceedings, his arguments were examined by the courts at two levels of jurisdiction. Therefore, the applicant had an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 3 and was able to make use of it."], "id": "969e6f7b-94c6-4450-a90e-8498bb77ef6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["187. The Government submitted, with reference to Articles 1 \u00a7 3 and 125 \u00a7 5 of the CCrP and Article 46 of the Constitution, that a court examining a complaint by a person detained pending against detention orders issued by a prosecutor had authority to release such detainee, should it find the underlying detention orders unlawful or unjustified. The Court notes, however, that none of the legal provisions relied on by the Government explicitly provides for the court\u2019s competence to release a detainee in the applicant\u2019s situation (see paragraphs 85 and 90 above). As regards, in particular, Article 125 \u00a7 5, it only states that a court examining a complaint lodged under that provision can declare a decision issued by a law-enforcement authority unlawful or unjustified and instruct that body to rectify the indicated shortcomings (see paragraph 93 above)."], "id": "f0aafd5f-fc23-4593-a8b2-fc5a5f48baf2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention could not be considered excessive because of the complexity of the case. They argued that the domestic authorities had taken all the necessary steps for the proper administration of justice and that there had been no distinguishable period of unexplained activity on their part in examining the case. Moreover, the domestic courts had repeatedly examined and extended the applicant\u2019s detention, taking into consideration his arguments and providing relevant and sufficient reasons, such as the that he had committed the offences, the seriousness of the offences, that he was a danger to society, that he was preparing to abscond or that he needed to be prevented from intimidating other witnesses."], "id": "6903ce81-d400-4a18-9cee-75186e4fedaa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s pre\u2011trial detention could not be considered excessive because of the complexity of the case. They argued that the domestic authorities had taken all the necessary steps for the proper administration of justice and that there had been no distinguishable period of unexplained activity on their part in examining the case. Moreover, the domestic courts had repeatedly examined and extended the applicant\u2019s detention, taking into consideration his arguments and providing relevant and sufficient reasons such as the that he had committed the offence, that he was a danger to public order or that he was preparing to abscond."], "id": "63a8b08b-45c5-46b5-b952-e495b4f7f9f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant maintained that his pre-trial detention had not been based on sufficient and relevant reasons. He alleged that the prosecution had no of his having committed a criminal offence and that there had been no sufficient grounds to believe that he might re-offend, abscond, influence witnesses or obstruct the investigation. He further claimed that the prosecution and the courts had failed to take into account the facts of his family commitments, including an underage child, or of his job and permanent place of residence. He also refuted the Government\u2019s contention that he had delayed studying the case file. He noted that the domestic court had not imposed any deadline on him in that regard."], "id": "39de6d59-5337-44f7-8406-07da30b9d29a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government were of the opinion that the whole period of the applicant\u2019s detention had been justified. They stressed that the domestic courts dealing with the applicant\u2019s case had found his detention to be compatible with the provisions of Article 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that no grounds warranting the applicant\u2019s release from detention as provided for by Article 259 of the Code had been established. The evidence obtained in the proceedings indicated that there was a that the applicant had committed the offences."], "id": "c3146765-2d21-4adc-87bb-94e782dcd920", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government argued that domestic courts had given \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds for the applicant's detention since they had relied on the that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged, the heavy sentence which could be imposed on him and the need to take evidence from several witnesses. Moreover, the courts considered that the applicant's case had not disclosed any of the grounds for release from detention as provided in Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."], "id": "5f8da3d4-7c87-4fed-8240-7a8fbb6e4732", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["106. The applicant argued that when ordering and extending his pre-trial detention the domestic courts had essentially relied only on those circumstances which were constitutive elements of the offences he had been charged with. In his view, the same circumstances could not also serve to justify his detention, as this would mean that a that an offence had been committed was in itself sufficient to justify the prolonged periods of detention, which was contrary to the Court\u2019s case-law. In any event, the applicant considered that the domestic courts had failed to display the necessary diligence in the conduct of the proceedings. He pointed out that the first-instance judgment of the Rijeka County Court of 8 June 2010 had been quashed by the Supreme Court on 10 May 2011 and that after that there had been no activity in the conduct of the proceedings, while at the same time he had been held in detention. The decisions of the domestic courts did not indicate, nor did they justify, such protracted proceedings, although his detention had been extended twice beyond the maximum statutory time-limits. The applicant also pointed out that it had taken the Rijeka County Court one year and ten months to adopt a first-instance judgment, after which it took one year for the case to be decided on appeal before the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court had quashed the first-instance judgment no hearing was held in the proceedings, no evidence was taken and there was no other activity. However, during that whole period he had been kept in detention. Therefore, the applicant considered that the domestic courts had not acted with due diligence and had not given sufficient weight to his arguments that his detention was no longer reasonable or necessary; nor had they given any consideration to releasing him by imposing less severe preventive measures such as bail or police supervision."], "id": "12445ccf-e989-4025-b17d-7faa4b8c091c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant argued that the USD 30,000 found in his bag had not belonged to him and had been placed there during the time that the bag had been with the airport employees. He claimed that, despite his persistent requests, no video tapes from the X-ray security monitor, which had allegedly been the initial source of suspicion, had been produced. He further argued that the paperwork documenting the search was flawed. According to the applicant, the grounds for his arrest had been fabricated and premeditated, as confirmed inter alia by the fact that some of the officials that participated in his arrest had been at work earlier than their normal working hours. The applicant concluded that the domestic authorities had failed to demonstrate that there had been any lawfully obtained evidence against him that was sufficient to found a that he had committed any criminal offence."], "id": "238b0cab-7e06-40c1-8ba3-d01dd777c6d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government argued that there had been valid reasons for holding the applicant in detention for the entire period in question. They stressed that the applicant\u2019s detention had been justified by the persistence of a that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the fact that the charges against him attracted a heavy sentence. The domestic courts had also relied on the risk that the applicant and other defendants might interfere with the proceedings. The Government further justified the length of the applicant\u2019s detention by the particular complexity of the case. They submitted that the investigation concerned several counts of burglary and armed robbery which the applicant and other suspects had allegedly committed in various locations throughout the country to the detriment of 30 victims. They also referred to the significant volume of evidence obtained and examined in the course of the proceedings. Lastly, the Government maintained that the authorities displayed adequate diligence in dealing with the applicant\u2019s case."], "id": "2236da4c-0905-4409-b3fa-06ad369794b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants raised a number of generic complaints which can be summarised as follows: (i) that no against them had been established with a basis in admissible evidence to justify their detention; (ii) that they had not been brought before a judge within twenty\u2011four hours of their arrest as required under the Charter of Basic Rights and Freedoms; (iii) that, on account of the discrepancy in the applicable time-limits, the relevant law lacked the required quality; (iv) that they had arbitrarily been denied release pending trial; (v) that the decisions in respect of their remand and first request for release had lacked adequate reasoning and the procedure preceding them had fallen short of the applicable requirements; and (vi) that the procedure in respect of their appeal against detention and their request for release had not been speedy."], "id": "83535652-bfc7-47d7-b2f5-840c4d707d2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["134. The Government submitted that Article 5 of the Convention required compliance with domestic law. The applicants had breached the law by wilfully abandoning the places of their service. Since they were subject to all the obligations prescribed by the Constitution, the investigating authority, based on a that they had committed acts prohibited by law, filed motions for detention. Furthermore, the investigating authority applied Section 21 \u00a7 2 of the Alternative Service Act which was in force at the material time. Accordingly, the investigating authority and the District Courts had issued lawful decisions and detained the applicants for having committed an act prohibited by law. Hence, the applicants\u2019 detention was lawful. They had been charged for their actions under Articles 361 and 362 of the CC. Following an examination of the applicants\u2019 cases on the merits and after additional investigation, the domestic authorities found out that the acts committed by the applicants lacked corpus delicti, the prosecutor terminated the proceedings and released the applicants. According to the Court\u2019s case-law, detention was in principle lawful if carried out pursuant to a court order. A court error under domestic law in making the order would not necessarily retrospectively affect the validity of the intervening period of detention. In conclusion, there was no violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention."], "id": "0e0c050e-7b69-4648-9c89-77c8451b4b10", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government submitted that the applicant's lawyer had been regularly informed by the investigator about all procedural steps and had had full knowledge of the relevant material. The applicant replied that he had been refused access to the case file and that as a result the material pertaining to the investigation carried out between 27 December 1997 and 5 January 1998 had remained inaccessible despite the fact that it contained relevant information about the existence of a against the applicant."], "id": "32d4c3d2-2c65-4ab8-a993-bc62cb824ff6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicant submitted that the proceedings were not adversarial, that the courts, in accordance with the applicable legislation and judicial practice, had not examined all aspects relevant to the lawfulness of his detention and that they had not decided his case speedily. He referred to the Commission\u2019s report in the present case and to the judgment in the case of Nikolova v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II). He further noted that Bulgarian courts persistently refused to examine questions concerning the existence of a against the detainee in habeas corpus proceedings, especially when the criminal case was at its trial stage. The trial judges considered that that would amount to pre-judging the merits of the criminal case."], "id": "dfbe882d-60bd-4431-a117-28f503e79eba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government noted, referring to Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 24, \u00a7 10, that the reasonableness of continued detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features. They further noted that according to the Court's case-law the principal grounds for detention besides are the danger of absconding, the risk of collusion and the need to prevent the accused committing further offences (see W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254\u2011A, p. 14, \u00a7 31). The Government submitted that when imposing detention as a preventive measure in respect of the applicant the investigation authorities and the courts had taken into consideration the fact that in 2001 she had sought to evade the investigation, had had no place of residence and, therefore, being free could evade the trial. Furthermore, she had been accused of having committed a grave offence. In the Government's view the domestic authorities and courts had sufficient grounds to consider the applicant's detention necessary to prevent her from committing further offences and evading justice."], "id": "a6b7ef88-bfe6-4827-bc46-f115e32c1cb2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicant further complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 that he had been arrested on of having committed the offences, but that the repeated refusals of the courts to grant him bail, coupled with the fact that there was no time-limit under domestic law for keeping him in custody, had made his detention unlawful. Moreover, when he was eventually granted bail, the financial guarantees imposed were so high that his actual release on bail had been impossible."], "id": "5d3548f3-e98b-4caa-9f59-ca0a1120ac74", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant argued that the length of his detention was clearly unreasonable. He submitted that the courts had justified his detention by repeatedly relying on the same grounds: the that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the risk of obstruction of the proceedings. As regards the latter, the applicant averred that the authorities had not specified any concrete grounds justifying that risk. Moreover, one of the main prosecution witnesses (M.S.) had been in custody during the relevant time. The applicant also argued that the courts had not taken into account that he had had an unblemished reputation. Lastly, he submitted that there had been delays in the proceedings and that hearings had been held infrequently."], "id": "fbbeb926-5cc0-4ae2-ba75-9b34ed65a9b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the applicant's detention, throughout its entire length, was based cumulatively on all the prerequisites of detention listed in the Code of Criminal Procedure as applicable at the material time, in particular on the persistence of that he had committed the offence in question. They underlined that the present case concerned offences committed in an organised criminal group and that the applicant had been charged with establishing and leading that group."], "id": "c55995b6-7e77-4ebe-ae56-8c40e134a72b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government considered that the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention had satisfied the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3. Throughout its entire period it had been justified by \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds, in particular the existence of a that he had committed the offences he had been charged with. Moreover, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s protracted detention pending trial was justified by the complex nature of the case and a genuine public interest requirement, namely the fact that the applicant had been charged with serious offences and was facing a lengthy prison sentence. Finally, the Government noted that the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention was justified by the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings and tamper with evidence."], "id": "ccb3715d-f0e4-4e5b-8168-76f6b9cb38fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government submitted that Article 96 \u00a7 2 of the then current Code of Criminal Procedure (\u201cCCrP\u201d) provided for placement in custody on the sole ground of the gravity of the charges. As the investigative authorities had a that the applicant had committed manslaughter, her placement in custody was lawful. The Government claimed that the investigators had authorised the applicant's detention having regard to her high social status, which could have afforded her an opportunity to exercise pressure on witnesses, and to her family situation. They noted that her underage son was in care of her relations. The global term of the applicant's detention did not exceed the maximum period of eighteen months authorised by Article 97 \u00a7 2 of the CCrP in case of serious and especially serious criminal offences. The lawfulness of extensions was confirmed on several occasions by the domestic courts."], "id": "6bf21901-643d-4a4b-9079-beadd052156c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["110. The applicant complained that his initial pre-trial detention and its continuation were arbitrary. He argued that there had been no evidence grounding a that he had committed a criminal offence necessitating his pre-trial detention. He also complained that insufficient reasons had been given for the judicial decisions ordering and extending his detention. The facts on which the suspicions against him had been based were linked to his criticisms of the country\u2019s leaders. Furthermore, he had been kept in pre-trial detention despite the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding of a violation of his right to liberty and security in its judgment of 11 January 2018. He complained that in those respects there had been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "id": "9e6204a5-78ad-4c9b-a0f2-3279b248a9d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention pursuant to the above-mentioned decision had been lawful within the meaning of the domestic law and had been justified by the that he had committed a crime. They added that there had been \u201cadequate\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds for the applicant\u2019s continued detention and that its duration had not been excessive. They thus considered that his detention had been in compliance with Article 5 of the Convention."], "id": "7fb6bb6a-4127-4fe1-b89e-39c130a130c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant considered that the existence of a against him and the complexity of the case had not been sufficient to justify his lengthy detention. Neither had been the seriousness of the charges, relied upon by the authorities as their main argument. The authorities had applied law and practice incompatible with the Convention. According to that law and practice the seriousness of the charges had triggered automatic detention."], "id": "15e1b166-7222-4df8-992d-0dbbaa7692bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant further alleged that the investigation of his complaints of ill-treatment did not meet the minimum standards of effectiveness. The investigation was not sufficiently independent, was directed at exonerating the police rather than at establishing the objective facts, and featured numerous delays. For instance, although the authorities were notified of the applicant\u2019s injuries within twenty-four hours of their infliction, they took ten days to initiate a formal investigation (on 1 August 2005) and ten more days to question the officers implicated in the ill-treatment in question (on 9 August 2005). This delay could have been used by the officers to coordinate their statements and destroy evidence. Furthermore, it was only in November 2005 (nearly four months after the events complained about) that the applicant was granted the status of an injured party in connection with the investigation of his complaint of ill-treatment. The first attempt to reconstruct the events leading to the applicant\u2019s injuries was made only in January 2006 (some six months after the events complained about) and the first confrontation between the applicant and the police officers was held only in February 2006 (seven months after the events in question). Notwithstanding that there was sufficient evidence to give rise to a that the police officers identified had committed a crime of violence, they were not summoned as defendants or even as suspects, but were always questioned only as witnesses. No procedure by which the applicant could have identified the other concerned officers, whose names he did not know, was ever set up."], "id": "ce498730-8c22-4786-81d9-3a2626fef883", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government further stated that the applicant had been arrested on a of having committed an offence and that there had been no circumstances excluding any danger of him absconding or committing an offence. In particular, the applicant had previously committed criminal offences and the charges concerned a serious offence. The courts had taken these facts into account in their decisions. Therefore, there had been relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the applicant's deprivation of liberty pending trial."], "id": "4e64ed90-febd-4936-9824-710bdf55b602", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicant argued that, as in the case of Grinenko v. Ukraine (no. 33627/06, \u00a7\u00a7 83-84, 15 November 2012), his arrest report had contained a formulaic phrase referring to unidentified \u201cwitnesses\u201d. Such wording would not have persuaded an independent observer that there had been a against him. The applicant further stated that his detention under the court order of 23 February 2005 had not been necessary as he had been a minor at the time."], "id": "89f4b974-3d97-4815-a35e-c0fa6a56622e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government contended that the report of the applicant\u2019s arrest had been based on the that the applicant had committed the crime. That suspicion was based on the statements of D.K., who had identified the applicant as the person who had attempted to arrange the murder. The Government maintained that the applicant\u2019s detention on the basis of the arrest report had been lawful and compatible with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention."], "id": "cfa2e5d9-8035-4a62-a89a-8aff2a9439da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government asserted that the applicant\u2019s arrest fell within paragraph (c) of Article 5 \u00a7 1. They noted that the applicant had been arrested within the framework of the criminal proceedings instituted against him and that the domestic authorities had had a that he had committed a crime. They stressed again that the applicant could have challenged the lawfulness of his arrest before the courts if he had considered his arrest unlawful."], "id": "e27578e8-03e3-4a92-97f1-bfe90d6098ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["197. The Government maintained that the reasons for extending the applicant\u2019s detention had been relevant and sufficient, and that the fear that he might abscond had persisted throughout the proceedings. In particular, the that he had committed the criminal offences of which he had been accused, as well as the fear that he might abscond due to the severity of the penalty he had been facing, had not been substantially brought into question (dovedeni u pitanje). Also the fact that S.\u0160. had been brutally murdered in his official capacity, for profit, on his doorstep clearly indicated that the applicant\u2019s detention was justified within the meaning of Article 175 \u00a7 1(4) of the CCP."], "id": "aa5808c0-e0c9-41f0-9ba6-7d8bb6e7db7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["134. The applicant complained that his initial pre-trial detention and its continuation were arbitrary, for two main reasons. Firstly, he argued that his initial pre-trial detention had not complied with domestic legislation in that he had been a member of the National Assembly enjoying parliamentary immunity. He further contended that there had been no evidence grounding a that he had committed a criminal offence necessitating his pre-trial detention. He complained that in those respects there had been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "id": "cf8dcebd-f917-4cf8-b1e1-0268bab9ba36", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant argued that his detention had not been lawful and/or based on a that he had committed the offence of pimping. At the time that he operated his business there were no legal provisions in the Criminal Code making it clear that the provision of erotic video-chat services could be considered prostitution. The two cases relied upon by the Government came before the domestic courts one year later, so it had been impossible to foresee that his activity might be held to be criminal in nature."], "id": "d4b367c5-b885-4608-b0c1-3796935d9818", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["174. The Government submitted that the first applicant had been arrested on 20 May 2004 on suspicion of a drug offence and that his arrest had been in compliance with Article 263 of the Code of Administrative Offences. They noted that he had been held under administrative detention without a prosecutorial or judicial warrant for the three-day period permissible under the aforementioned legal provision, after which he had been released (on 23 May 2004). As regards the subsequent three days of the first applicant's detention (from 23 to 26 May 2004), the Government maintained that they had been based on a of his involvement in a murder and had been in compliance with the criminal procedure legislation."], "id": "8246c77c-122a-4158-9665-5ac3df120409", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant\u2019s lawyer argued that the length of the applicant\u2019s detention had been clearly unreasonable. She submitted that the courts had justified his detention by repeatedly relying on the same grounds; the that he had committed the homicide with which he had been charged, the severity of the anticipated penalty, the risk of obstruction of the proceedings and of absconding. The applicant\u2019s lawyer further submitted that the applicant had not contributed to the overall length of the proceedings; on the contrary, he had always been at the disposal of the domestic courts."], "id": "2e9b617a-36e1-44d0-8a34-08f6ffe86b02", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that he had spent approximately 23 hours at the police station following his arrest on 10 January 2007. He argued that there had been no grounds for his arrest and detention and that they had been carried out in the absence of any that he had committed a crime. The Government had not shown any proof that the \u201coperative\u201d information referred to by the police officers, and allegedly giving rise to his arrest, had ever existed."], "id": "0bfc6460-475f-4238-a909-f4e4edf14e37", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government considered that the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention satisfied the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3. It was justified by \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds, in particular the existence of a throughout the entire period of the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention that he had committed the offences he had been charged with. Moreover, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s protracted detention pending trial was justified by the complexity of the case, a genuine public interest requirement, namely the fact that the applicant had been charged with serious offences and was facing a lengthy prison sentence. Finally, the Government noted that the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention was justified by the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings and tamper with evidence."], "id": "61b19ceb-9991-47cb-9931-f04f90da6b01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained that his detention between 3 March and 27 April 2015 had not been lawful and/or based on a that he had committed a criminal offence or on relevant and sufficient reasons, as required by Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention. Article 5 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "0f78ebde-8508-494b-b63f-68c3e6671f75", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government submitted that on 19 April 2007 the National Bolshevik Party had been recognised as an extremist organisation by a Russian court and had been banned. Since the party no longer existed, the applicant could not continue to be a member of it. They further argued that the decisions to remand the applicant in custody had been lawful and justified. He had been charged with a serious offence, had absconded from the crime scene and had been arrested a month later in the attic where he had been hiding. He had been armed with a gas gun and had offered resistance to the police. The Government disputed the applicant's allegation that he had been arrested at the assembly of the National Bolshevik Party. In their view, after the party had been dissolved it could no longer hold assemblies. Moreover, at the time of the arrest no criminal proceedings had been pending against the applicant, he had not been formally recognised as a suspect and therefore had not enjoyed the rights that suspects enjoyed under domestic law. Once the applicant had been brought to the police station a witness had identified him as one of the perpetrators of the assault. That had raised a that the applicant had committed a criminal offence, so he had been remanded in custody."], "id": "aab6363f-98b8-4ba1-a3e6-88ec10222dda", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["218. The Government of Cyprus, as the third-party intervener, maintained that the first applicant had not been arrested on \u201c of having committed an offence\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1, as alleged by the respondent Government, but had been abducted from within SBA territory, in violation of both international law and the law of the SBA. He had then been remanded on fabricated charges in order to procure the release of Mr Teko\u011ful by the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus."], "id": "9c27326d-cff2-4f30-a661-0133ffccf575", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted that the applicant's detention, throughout its entire length, was based cumulatively on all the prerequisites of detention listed in the Code of Criminal Procedure as applicable at the material time. Throughout its entire period the measure in question had been justified by \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds, in particular the existence of a that he had committed the offences he had been charged with. Moreover, the Government considered that the applicant's protracted detention pending trial was justified by the gravity of the charges which the applicant was facing and the severity of the anticipated penalty, as well as the fact that the case involved numerous co\u2011accused and witnesses. As a consequence, there was a risk that the applicant, if released, would attempt to induce them to give false testimony."], "id": "e479d942-b338-4873-8d39-636461f7fc64", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["120. The Government argued that throughout the applicants\u2019 detention there had been a that they had committed the offences with which they had been charged. Their detention had initially been based on the grounds of a risk of collusion and the gravity of the charges. The assessment of the risk of collusion had been based on the possibility that they might try to influence the witnesses and thus hinder the proper conduct of the proceedings. However, once the witnesses had been questioned, the applicants\u2019 detention was no longer extended on that ground."], "id": "c580d23f-8ed3-4830-a8f7-6c5c44019e7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that the applicant's pre-trial detention satisfied the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3. They stressed that the applicant's detention had been justified by the persistence of a that he had committed the offences in question and by the complexity of the case as demonstrated by the volume of evidence obtained in the investigation, the number of accused and the gravity of the charges against them."], "id": "a6cb5587-915d-4f48-9d28-aa263b9cf39c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant said that on 29 November 2000 he had been detained in the absence of any of him having committed an offence. The fact that he had gone to the police station voluntarily did not mean that he had surrendered his right to liberty. What made the situation particularly grave was his position as a lawyer."], "id": "d2e8acc3-7482-4809-a615-1427c040ef17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government submitted that the applicant's arrest had been lawful and justified under Article 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP) on account of A.'s statement and the evidence seized at the applicant's home. The against him concerned an offence falling within the scope of Article 122 of the CCrP and was thus covered by Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention. A record of his arrest had been drawn up and the prosecutor had been notified. The duration of the applicant's detention had complied with the requirements of the CCrP. The Government indicated that the registers of arrested persons kept by the police station and the detention centre had been destroyed in November 2002 after the expiry of the retention period. As investigator S. had explained in 2007, the record of the applicant's arrest had been lost. There had been no malice or bad faith on S.'s part. The applicant should not have waited for nearly two years before bringing proceedings in the national courts; he had thus made it difficult, if not impossible, to establish the relevant circumstances."], "id": "c251b06a-fb8c-4b8b-95b5-bd4d61d567d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government further submitted that the allegation that the burden of proof of the lawfulness of the arrest was placed on the applicant was unfounded. The applicant\u2019s allegation was based on the expression used by the court \u2013 \u201cthe court, having heard the parties, and in view of the fact that nothing was brought to the notice of this court which would enable this court to say that the person charged was brought before it without his arrest being justified\u201d \u2013 and not on any real procedural defect. As transpires from the minutes of the proceedings, the court took its decision after hearing both parties, whose views regarding the warrant were subsidiary to their main arguments regarding the justification of the arrest. Moreover, the Government contested the applicant\u2019s interpretation of domestic case-law (see paragraph 47 above) and stated that it was clear that the existence of a had to be shared by the magistrate too."], "id": "c7d736cc-9b9b-4a7b-90a4-8e2dc4c2412f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government maintained that in the present case, all the criteria for the application and extension of pre-trial detention had been met. The applicant\u2019s detention had been justified by the that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the serious nature of the offences and the severity of the anticipated penalty. The Government indicated that the applicant had been accused of acting as a re\u2011offender."], "id": "25241f09-38b6-4ec0-8383-604544bf5059", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant complained that there was no on which to arrest him and that his detention was unlawful. He contended that the incriminating statements of the two members of PKK dated back to 1992, over three years before his arrest. These statements were subsequently withdrawn by the suspects before the trial court since they were given under duress. Moreover, the applicant alleged that he was interrogated by the police despite the circular of the Ministry of Justice dated 14 February 1994, which required that any investigation of alleged criminal conduct on the part of a lawyer had to be carried out by a public prosecutor."], "id": "f0a8e5b9-77e5-451f-a036-022c012bab23", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that their detention by the police had not been based on that they had committed criminal offences, and under Article 5 \u00a7 2 that they had not been informed of the reasons for their detention. They complained that while in custody they had not been allowed to contact their lawyers. Relying on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants also complained that they had had no means at their disposal to challenge speedily the lawfulness of their detention and obtain release. They considered that the judicial review proceedings initiated by them had been unfair because the national courts had reached wrong conclusions. The applicants also referred to Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention."], "id": "68737d31-4098-4e85-be0c-67bd2b064d94", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant submitted in particular that, as the investigation progressed, the against him should have become more substantiated \u2013 which, however, had not been the case. His individual circumstances, rendering his absconding implausible, had not been duly considered; and the prolongations of his detention had taken place in a rather automatic manner. This was particularly striking after the conclusion of the investigation and the applicant's indictment, when the danger of collusion had virtually lost relevance. Nevertheless, his arguments, presented with a view to being placed under house arrest rather than in pre-trial detention, had remained largely unanswered by the courts. Although between the termination of the investigation and his actual release, nothing changed in his circumstances in the context of the danger of his absconding, he was only released on 30 November 2006 against the consignment of a large sum of money as bail."], "id": "2c99e37b-2d7f-4bfb-b007-41318201f6da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that the substantive conditions for the applicant\u2019s detention on remand under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention had been met. There had been a that he had aided the commission of aggravated fraudulent conversion, corruption, corruption in commercial practice and aggravated tax evasion, and there had been a risk that he might abscond. They noted that the review proceedings had commenced on 24 October 2014, when the prosecution authorities had applied to the Court of Appeal for the continuation of the applicant\u2019s detention on remand, which was therefore less than three months after the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision of 28 July 2014. The running of time had been suspended under domestic law from that moment. There was no fixed time\u2011limit under domestic law or the Convention for the Court of Appeal to render its decision."], "id": "4cc2fe34-ecf1-4ddd-b0ed-2bbb5e6981c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention pursuant to the court\u2019s decision had been justified by the that he had committed a crime, the fact that he had been convicted in the past and that, if released, he might abscond in order to avoid trial or obstruct the investigation. They thus considered that the applicant\u2019s detention had been in compliance with Article 5 of the Convention."], "id": "18110be9-c13e-4528-80bb-96c6ac1f054f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["103. The Government submitted that the extension of the applicant\u2019s detention on remand after 10 November 2002 was not contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They further argued that the Court ought to give due consideration to the fact that for part of the time he had been remanded in custody in connection with the second criminal case, the applicant had also been deprived of his liberty in the framework of the first set of criminal proceedings against him. The Government relied on the principle set out in the case of Kud\u0142a v. Poland that \u201cin view of the essential link between Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention and Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c), a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained \u201cfor the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on of having committed an offence\u201d, as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty \u201cafter conviction by a competent court\u201d (see Kud\u0142a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, \u00a7 104, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, and B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, \u00a7 36-39, Series A no. 175)."], "id": "2cc8c673-86e0-4a9c-9109-a157acc2e07a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government claimed that the applicant's pre-trial detention was compatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. The applicant was arrested on the basis of a . Furthermore, he had been charged with several serious crimes and, if released, could have put pressure on other defendants and witnesses, abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. Those grounds for the applicant's detention had persisted throughout the whole period he had been in custody."], "id": "bb6b8f5d-8f3f-41e2-8edd-c64431f70226", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government submitted that when the bail decision was made, the Court of Appeal was fully apprised of the facts and circumstances of the applicant\u2019s case. It took into account that the applicant had been on bail prior to her conviction and had honoured her conditions of bail. However it also took into account the applicant\u2019s conviction and subsequent detention. It also considered the fact that the conviction had been quashed due to a material irregularity in the trial judge\u2019s direction to the jury and that a prompt retrial was envisaged. It was significant that the applicant had been convicted by a jury since this suggested the case against her was a strong one and she knew that if convicted at the retrial she faced a sentence of life imprisonment with a likely minimum period of fifteen years\u2019 imprisonment. In addition there was a persistence of a that the applicant had committed a serious offence and she had also been in custody for 17 months prior to the bail hearing. In the Government\u2019s view, these factors were sufficient to provide good reason to believe the applicant might abscond if granted bail. It was irrelevant that the third trial judge granted bail since the Court of Appeal made its decision on the basis of the facts before it at the time. Equally, it was irrelevant that the prosecution did not object to bail since according to Article 5 \u00a7 3, the decision to grant or refuse bail was for a \u2018judge or other officer\u2019. The Court of Appeal had therefore properly exercised its discretion and correctly concluded that there were relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the applicant\u2019s detention pending her retrial."], "id": "d6d5c903-9cb7-468f-8b6d-bc3e5d566822", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government submitted that, in accordance with the Constitution, as amended in 2012, there had been no requirement for Parliament to issue authorisation for the GPO to institute criminal proceedings against members of parliament. Such prior authorisation was only required for, inter alia, placing members of parliament under arrest or in detention. Further, the Government stated that the GPO had acted in compliance with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention. The arrest of the applicant had been lawful, considering that there had been a of a risk of flight and that the applicant had been charged with criminal offences punishable by at least two years\u2019 imprisonment. The reasonable suspicion had been supported by evidence. In conclusion, according to the Government, the applicant\u2019s placement under arrest had been in full compliance with Article 229 of the CPC and Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention."], "id": "bc80edd5-fe16-418a-8598-9ff193f57128", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant complained that the detention hearing of 12 December 2006 had not been adversarial and had failed to ensure equality of arms. Furthermore, his arguments concerning the lack of a had not been adequately addressed. Lastly, the Court of Appeal had refused to examine his appeal of 27 January 2007. He invoked Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "65c4fc72-f41d-45d7-9d38-09ef1b9b0a5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his detention by the police had not been based on a that he had committed a criminal offence. He considered that the judicial review proceedings as to the lawfulness of his detention had been unfair because the national courts had reached the wrong conclusion. The applicant also complained under Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest. Relying on Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (although not explicitly on Article 5 \u00a7 4), he complained that he had not had any means at his disposal to challenge speedily the lawfulness of his detention and to obtain release. Lastly, without raising any separate complaints, he referred to Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention."], "id": "d1433227-5c03-489b-b427-655f6684f4df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["101. The applicant submitted that at the time of his arrest he had had a permanent residence, an established business, a network of family and social contacts. There had been no indication that he would abscond, commit an offence or impede the course of justice. Moreover, he had returned from the United States of America knowing that criminal proceedings had been opened against him. At the time of his arrest there had existed no relevant and sufficient reasons for his placing in custody other than the that he had committed an offence. The lack of such reasons was apparent from the reasoning of the prosecution authorities which had denied his requests for release. In particular, the Chief Prosecutor\u2019s Office had been very laconic and had expressly relied on Article 152 of the CCrP. Referring to the Court\u2019s judgments in the cases of Nikolov v. Bulgaria (no. 38884/97, 30 January 2003) and Shishkov (cited above), the applicant concluded that his detention had not been justified. It was therefore unnecessary to examine whether the authorities had acted diligently in the case against him."], "id": "e815e203-b42c-4f19-9012-51aaa8ce9e4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his detention was imposed in the absence of a that he had committed an offence. Moreover, the applicant argued that the prolongation of his detention was unlawful because the prosecutor's request for prolongation of 4 October 2006 had been time-barred. The relevant part of Article 5 reads as follows:"], "id": "cb1319e5-c63e-469a-8859-c23dd964c7de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant argued that there had been neither any legal basis nor practical need for her arrest. Given the vague wording of Article 297 of the Criminal Code, it was far from obvious that her actions amounted to desecration of a tomb. Accordingly, her arrest could not be regarded as based on a that she had committed a crime."], "id": "70563852-edcc-492c-9dc2-c370a0070118", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["146. The applicant was apprehended on suspicion of participating in multiple acts of organised armed robbery. The Court is satisfied that this suspicion was reasonable. For an initial period at least, its existence justified the applicant's detention. However, the Court reiterates that the persistence of that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but with the lapse of time this no longer suffices. Thus, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, \u00a7 44, ECHR 2006\u2011...). Where such grounds were \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d, the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed \u201cspecial diligence\u201d in the conduct of the proceedings."], "id": "8cdb3e9d-8f77-4eee-a579-6b2cbcb290e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government maintained that the applicant's detention between 9 August and 19 November 2006 had been motivated by a that he had committed offences set out in Articles 195/2 and 328/3 (d) of the Criminal Code, on the ground that he had sent the Ministry of Finance the letter of 25 March 1998 asking it to issue a Treasury bond in Oferta Plus's favour while knowing that the energy supplied to Moldtranselectro with the latter's participation had not been consumed by state institutions. The Government further submitted that the applicant's detention had had no other purpose than that provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c), that is to bring him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence."], "id": "75234ffa-95c2-4099-91ae-1d33bcc12376", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention had been based on specific facts related to his specific case. The existence of against the applicant had always been examined and supported by evidence. Likewise, the possibility of applying less stringent measures had not been overlooked, and as soon as they had been found sufficient, their application had been ordered. The applicant\u2019s health condition had not excluded his detention, since it could be properly treated in the penitentiary institution."], "id": "16cc3a2c-7f7e-42f9-8dcb-60e6171df8ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government asserted that the applicant's arrest had been based on the presence of a that he had committed an offence. Furthermore, the Izmir Assize Court had dismissed the applicant's claims of compensation for the allegedly unlawful deprivation of liberty given that the circumstances of the applicant's case had not been prescribed by Article 1 of Law no.466. Accordingly, the applicant's arrest and detention and the domestic courts' refusal to grant him compensation complied with Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 5 of the Convention."], "id": "7c14c16c-6944-4fe6-a708-560f6e351917", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant complained under Article 3 that he had not been provided with adequate medical care in relation to the cyst found in his salivary gland. He alleged, under Article 5 \u00a7 1, that no written order had been issued for his arrest on 2 July 1999 and that his arrest had not been justified by well-reasoned decisions establishing a against him. Relying on Article 5 \u00a7 3 he complained that upon his arrest he had not been brought promptly before a judge."], "id": "a8759fb0-88cd-4cbd-bde6-31676e556f85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government argued that the authorities had been justified in placing the applicant in pre\u2011trial detention. Their decisions had been based on a of his having committed a very serious offence and the existence of the other prerequisites for remanding him in custody. In all their decisions rejecting his requests for release they had had regard to the continuing risk that he would flee, hinder the investigation or commit an offence. They had also acted with the utmost speed possible under the circumstances."], "id": "6a3c3899-e47b-4185-b569-c02c96d9d0ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant\u2019s detention was subsequently supervised by the courts at regular intervals. In their decisions prolonging the detention the domestic authorities further relied on a that the applicant had committed the offences concerned and on the severity of the likely penalty. However, they also took into account new elements that emerged in the course of the proceedings as well as the conduct of the trial court. In particular, the courts pointed to the risk of trickery and obstruction of the proceedings by the applicant, who had influenced the testimony of a witness in another case. Finally, the applicant\u2019s aggressive attitude during the subsequent hearings and the persistent risk of collusion and unlawful obstruction of the proceedings justified the courts\u2019 findings that no other preventive measure would sufficiently secure the proper conduct of the proceedings."], "id": "13bc4555-ba6b-4816-97d0-1b2bd6aee7ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant submitted that he had been held in detention without a judicial decision for more than seventy-two hours and the prosecuting authorities had brought him to court after the above maximum period of detention without a court order allowed under domestic law had already expired, in violation of the Convention and the domestic law. Therefore he considered the court\u2019s decision on his arrest to be unlawful. He further maintained that there had been no or other grounds for holding him in custody."], "id": "683dc0e0-ed02-48c5-8d40-638bd8dbb2d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government contended that the applicant\u2019s detention had been in compliance with the domestic legislation. Having regard to the circumstances of his apprehension on 6 January 2006, the Government noted that there had been a to justify the applicant\u2019s arrest as a criminal suspect on 9 January 2006. As to his detention from 9 to 12 January 2006, which was not covered by any court order, they submitted that under the Ukrainian Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, no such order was obligatory for the first seventy-two hours following arrest."], "id": "3f4c51f6-f88d-42a0-9340-a16000a86316", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 that his arrest and detention had not been based on a that he had committed an offence. He further complained that his detention on 22 June 2007 between 12.15 p.m. and 4 p.m. after the expiry of the 72 hours' period of detention without a warrant as required by the Constitution should also be considered unlawful. He further alleged that he had been unlawfully detained since 22 June 2007 as his status as a suspect had ceased on that date, whereas the indictment had been filed on 28 June 2008. He further maintained that his detention had been unlawfully prolonged since between 17 September and 14 December 2007 the proceedings had been suspended and during that period the courts could not adopt any decision in his respect. The relevant part of Article 5 reads as follows:"], "id": "efcabbb9-e4ea-4080-99db-8f7af02004cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government further submitted that the applicant had been protected from arbitrariness. They stated that there had been no bad faith on the part of the domestic authorities, and that the applicant\u2019s arrest had been based on a that she had committed a crime. The Government also submitted that at the time of her apprehension the applicant had not been suffering from any serious illnesses and that her age alone could not have been a barrier to arrest. They noted that domestic law provided the applicant with safeguards against arbitrariness: her rights had been explained to her, she had had the assistance of a lawyer and the possibility to complain against the decision to arrest her, as well as to claim damages. Lastly, relying on the Court\u2019s case-law, the Government submitted that the subsequent discontinuation of the investigation against the applicant had not made that investigation and the applicant\u2019s arrest arbitrary."], "id": "561797ad-20e5-46f5-8bab-7ebe505768da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government stated that the applicant's pre-trial detention was based on the that he had committed the murder of 2 December 1997. They further contended that the authorities had acted as diligently as possible in the present case and that the length of the detention was the result of a number of objective factors. In particular, the case was extremely complex and required the examination of numerous witnesses, commissioning of various experts' opinions, performing DNA tests and conducting a crime-scene experiment. Thus, the Government considered that there were no unreasonable delays attributable to the authorities."], "id": "90fe958b-439f-4a25-a2ce-4fe7b40f05c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that the applicant's detention had been duly justified over the entire period. They argued that, apart from the that he had committed the offences concerned, the applicant's detention had been justified by the severity of the anticipated penalty, the fact that he had been a recidivist offender and the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings. The Government emphasised in the latter respect that following his release under police supervision he had failed to appear at 4 out of 6 hearings and that the applicant had apparently changed his place of residence without having notified the authorities. That, in their view, confirmed that detention on remand had been the only remedy that could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings."], "id": "043e4db1-0719-48d1-9e32-c02ac5e5d1a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicants complained that there had been no justifying their arrest and that their detention in police custody lasted too long. Moreover the first applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand which lasted for almost five months and about the fact that his detention on remand was not reviewed speedily by the Istanbul State Security Court. They invoked Articles 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1(c), 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "273f4327-5e81-4258-9d3c-3f567cb9d1ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicant argued that the domestic authorities and the Government had failed to furnish sufficient facts and information to found a that he had committed any criminal offence. He claimed that his detention was justified by vague assertions and, in reality, was motivated by political considerations. As to Mr Yusifov's statements, the applicant appeared to argue that they had been false or misinterpreted and claimed that, later in the course of the criminal investigation, Mr Yusifov had retracted some of his statements."], "id": "05cb5110-8148-46b9-90be-8f2ac938aad2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government argued that there had been valid reasons for holding the applicant in detention for the entire period in question. They stressed that the applicant\u2019s detention had been justified by the persistence of a that he had committed the numerous offences at issue and by the gravity of the charges against him, which attracted a heavy sentence. They also referred to the fact that the offences with which the applicant had been charged concerned activities of a group of persons in a significant area of the country. The Government further argued that there had been a risk that the applicant, if released, might obstruct the proceedings or go into hiding. The continued detention of the applicant was aimed at preventing the possibility of collusion and of exerting pressure on P.S., a co-defendant who had incriminated other defendants."], "id": "adc690d6-16ae-42bf-af30-8839a9fa3827", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["231. The applicants contended that Article 6 was the lex specialis of the fair-trial guarantee. The regime under consideration represented the most serious form of executive measure against terrorist suspects adopted within the member States of the Council of Europe in the post-2001 period. It was adopted to enable the United Kingdom to take proceedings against individuals on the basis of alone, deriving from evidence which could not be deployed in the ordinary courts. That alone warranted an analysis under Article 6. The proceedings were for the determination of a criminal charge, within the autonomous meaning adopted under Article 6 \u00a7 1, and also for the determination of civil rights and obligations. The use of closed material gave rise to a breach of Article 6."], "id": "e5826086-a311-442f-b761-05a0e89dc0b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["180. The applicant alleged that his arrest and detention were not based on a of his having committed an offence, arguing that the charges against him had not been substantiated with any facts or evidence and that the police had initiated a clash with peaceful demonstrators, as a result of which activists like himself were taken to police stations, criminal cases were trumped up against them and the courts ruled unjustly on their detention."], "id": "66d8d899-a8ce-44f7-95b3-ce7975f2410e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant referred to domestic case-law which showed that, domestically, the only questions which had to be addressed by the Court of Magistrates at the first hearing were whether the prosecution had a , whether what was alleged was according to Maltese law an arrestable offence and whether the person charged had been brought promptly before such court. It followed that the reasonable suspicion did not have to be shared by the magistrate. The applicant noted that in the cases of Aquilina v. Malta (see GC judgment of 29 April 1999, Reports 1999-III) and T.W. v Malta (see GC judgment of 29 April 1999, Reports 1999-III) the Court found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention on the ground that the Court of Magistrates had no power to establish whether the deprivation of the individual\u2019s liberty was justified and to order release. The Maltese law had consequently been amended, but the practice before the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry had remained substantially the same, as shown by the events in his own case. Appearing before a duty magistrate was a ritual and a mere formality. Indeed, the applicant failed to see how such a fundamental issue as jurisdiction could be considered as having no impact on the lawfulness of the arrest, given that an arrest not justified by jurisdiction was clearly unlawful. If there was no jurisdiction, then the courts lacked competence, and if the issue of jurisdiction was postponed then the element of promptness required by Article 5 \u00a7 3 would be disrespected."], "id": "d9ae9b1c-b5d9-4a0e-ad22-8e460f1bad28", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention had been lawful within the meaning of the domestic law and had been justified by the that he had committed a crime. They added that there had been \u201cadequate\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds for the applicant\u2019s continued detention. They thus considered that his detention had been in compliance with Article 5 of the Convention."], "id": "3390f18f-8e9d-451a-a033-c5a9c0aba69b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant alleged that there had been no that he had committed a criminal offence, and that the domestic authorities had failed to furnish sufficient facts and information to found a reasonable suspicion that he had committed any criminal offence. In this connection, he submitted that on the day of his arrest, 10 November 2007, there had been no reliable evidence that he had caused V.H.\u2019s injuries, because the forensic report of V.H. dated 9 November 2007 had been unreliable. For this reason, on 10 November 2007 the investigator himself had ordered a new forensic examination of V.H."], "id": "5faa7867-e71e-4d92-b9a8-65d7071ee8c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant agreed that his initial detention might have been justified by the of his having committed serious crimes. However, after the completion of the pre-trial investigation and submission of the case for trial the reasons advanced by the domestic court for his continued detention up to his conviction on 17 February 2006 had no longer been sufficient. Factors that ran counter to the presumption that he would reoffend were: the applicant\u2019s personality, his having a permanent place of residence and employment, his having a family, including two dependent children, his advanced age, his heart condition, and the absence of any previous criminal record. The detention orders of 15 September and 15 November 2005 had been very brief; they had failed to address the applicant\u2019s situation in any detail and had mostly relied on the gravity of the charges against him. Further, it did not appear from the text of these detention orders that the domestic court had considered the possibility of applying an alternative preventive measure. The applicant drew the Court\u2019s attention to the fact that on 17 February 2006 he had been convicted and given a suspended sentence of four years\u2019 imprisonment, which confirmed the argument that he had never posed any serious danger to society."], "id": "8880dbeb-f665-4b38-9988-0f1f88a0dc62", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant also considered that his detention had been contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as there had been no legal basis for his detention pending trial and he had been arrested in the absence of a that he had committed a crime. Article 5 \u00a7 1, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "4093ae25-9b22-4bfc-aea2-773aae182c79", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["133. The applicants submitted that their detention had not been based on a of their having committed an offence. The law at the material time did not prescribe an offence for unauthorised abandonment of the place of alternative service, which was also confirmed by the General Prosecutor who found that their actions lacked corpus delicti. Thus, their detention was in violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention."], "id": "2e93ec98-a03d-4203-8258-1d59d95787a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government submitted that the applicant had been arrested on the basis of the investigative measures taken following the institution of criminal proceedings. The investigation was able to collect initial evidence proving the applicant\u2019s participation in the misappropriation of a large amount of money and tax evasion in the amount of AZN 19,000 (approximately EUR 17,850 at the material time). That material and information had been further corroborated by the expert opinions and testimonies of other defendants in the criminal case, which had been sufficient to justify the applicant\u2019s arrest under domestic law. In this connection, the Government referred to documents, dated 16 December 2013 and 19 March 2014, indicating that various expert opinions had been passed on to the applicant by the investigation. Accordingly, the Government argued that there had been sufficiently specific information to justify a that the applicant had committed an offence."], "id": "472726a1-e334-421a-8b5b-403edf366315", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant complained that he had been beaten up by police officers during his arrest, that he had been arrested in the absence of a that he had committed the criminal offence he was charged with and that he had not been provided with a lawyer on the same day; also that he had not been promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest or brought promptly before the prosecutor. As regards his pre-trial detention, the applicant complained that his counsel had not attended the hearing concerning the extension of his detention on 8 October 2003 and that he had been unable to appeal against the detention order of 14 August 2003. He further alleged that the investigator had presumed him guilty and had refused to examine certain witnesses for his defence, and that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair and unreasonably long. He complained that his numerous complaints had received no response from the authorities; that the administration of remand prison no. 77/1 had destroyed some of his written complaints, and that an officer at remand prison no. 77/6 had forced him to stop complaining about the conditions of his detention. Lastly, he submitted that he had been detained in appalling conditions from 13 to 20 August 2003 and from 18 to 31 May 2005. The applicant relied on Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention."], "id": "bdb8dced-bd63-4726-9a76-b85b441c45c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant disagreed and argued that he had complained about the lack of for his arrest and detention in relation to the whole remand proceedings. He argued that the period between 19 and 28 June 2007 should be considered as a whole, in light of the fact that this period was covered by the investigating judge's detention order of 22 June 2007."], "id": "9fb33e1d-5231-4bc6-a3c9-507a14ddd893", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s arrest was warranted by a that he had organised an assault in the context of a financial conflict that had existed between him and the victims. The courts\u2019 decisions to remand the applicant in custody and subsequently to extend his detention were based on valid considerations, such as the applicant\u2019s personal history, his criminal record, his ties to the criminal underworld, his financial resources, and so on. The courts correctly concluded that the applicant was liable to reoffend, abscond and obstruct the investigation. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the Russian courts carried out an effective exercise of balancing the applicant\u2019s right to liberty and the interests of justice, having also carefully studied his medical history and having been satisfied that he was receiving the necessary medical assistance in detention."], "id": "d36ee30e-1eb4-4cff-a14f-64ac89018b66", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant maintained that he had been detained on 13 November 2008 in Kharkiv, had been escorted to Kyiv and then questioned. He argued that his further detention between 14 and 24 November 2008 pursuant to the decisions of the investigator and court was not based on ; it was unlawful, arbitrary and contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "842de070-0170-4475-bb0b-69296693862e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["362. The applicants claimed that almost the entire male population of Ormani\u00e7i had been arbitrarily taken into detention in that, except in the case of those villagers who were taken to \u015e\u0131rnak, there had been no that they had been personally involved in any crime, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 1. They further considered that it had been established that there had been a violation of Article 5 on account of the length of time the apprehended villagers had spent in custody before they were brought before any judicial authority; the absence of custody records in G\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fckonak and the inaccuracy of the custody records in \u015e\u0131rnak, together with the lack of any evidence of authorisation from the public prosecutor for the detention of any of the villagers; the length of the unacknowledged custody of those men who were transferred to hospital while still in custody; and the duration of the pre-trial detention of Mehmet Nuri \u00d6zkan and Ali Erbek. The applicants further claimed that, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention, the domestic authorities had failed to undertake any investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attack on Ormani\u00e7i in February 1993 or to institute any proceedings on the basis of the complaints raised before the Eruh public prosecutors in relation to the detention of the villagers in G\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fckonak and \u015e\u0131rnak and their treatment during that time."], "id": "b115251c-597f-4f20-b718-78d66b4a8071", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant's detention had been justified by the that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the fact that the charges against him attracted a heavy sentence. The domestic courts had also relied on the risk that the applicant might interfere with the proper course of the proceedings. In this respect, they referred to the applicant's leaving the country and the need to issue an international arrest warrant for him."], "id": "509641bf-b596-4a8c-b7fc-93ac361db565", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["651. The applicants claimed that no evidence had been provided by the Government as to the reasons for the decisions to apprehend them. The evidence on which the Government relied did not disclose any against them. The true motive of the measure was the authorities' hostile attitude to the applicants' work as defence lawyers before the State Security Court and their role in assisting individuals to denounce human rights abuses in Turkey. The authorities demonstrated flagrant bad-faith and a desire to intimidate the applicants as a result."], "id": "5b343db7-c0a6-4981-a1bb-118f2f6b46c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and robbery following a search of his flat and the seizure of evidence (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above). Moreover, he made admissions in connection to the above criminal offences. The Court is satisfied in the circumstances that the suspicion against the applicant was a reasonable one and that the existence of this suspicion justified the applicant's arrest and the initial period of detention. The jury verdicts were quashed on appeal. In the Court's view, the appeal court, having full knowledge of the case, could be said to have made its decision on both occasions on the basis of the facts before it, that there was still a case for the applicant to answer and one sufficient to warrant a retrial. The persistence of may therefore be said to have derived from the same basis as the decision to order a retrial. It has not been alleged that this suspicion was dispelled at any point in the subsequent proceedings or ceased to be \u201creasonable\u201d on account of any change in the relevant circumstances. The Court finds no reason to reach a different conclusion."], "id": "a1d817b5-2871-4b5b-9da7-66f80c11cd55", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government considered that the applicants\u2019 pre-trial detention satisfied the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3. It was justified by \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d grounds, in particular, the existence of a throughout the entire period of the applicants\u2019 pre-trial detention that they had committed the offences they had been charged with. Moreover, the Government considered that the applicants\u2019 protracted detention pending trial was justified by a genuine public interest requirement, namely the fact that the applicants had been charged with serious offences and were facing a lengthy prison sentence. The Government also emphasised that the authorities had relied on the serious risk that the applicants would abscond, particularly since they had gone into hiding immediately after they had committed the offences and had been sought pursuant to a \u201cwanted\u201d notice. Finally, the Government noted that the applicants\u2019 pre-trial detention was justified by the risk that they would obstruct the proceedings and tamper with evidence, especially in view of the facts that the victim was a minor, a number of witnesses had been coerced into providing the defendants with false alibis, there were as many as four suspects in the case and that the identity and whereabouts of one of them had remained unknown until the final stage of the investigation."], "id": "8dcf1bb3-b1b8-479f-b385-110635cb03f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government contended that the applicants\u2019 complaint of a lack of a that he had committed an offence of abuse of official authority was manifestly ill-founded in so far as the items of evidence that had been collected at the early stage of the investigation had been more than enough for the domestic courts to confirm the need to keep the applicant in pre-trial detention. They also stated that the court decisions in question had been properly reasoned."], "id": "06cc221c-7ef3-4164-bf1f-6dc106e7de87", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant contended that his pre-trial detention in the period between 10 December 2010 and 5 July 2012 had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons as there was nothing in the domestic courts\u2019 decisions showing that his release from detention would run counter to an important public interest or that it would threaten public order. This was particularly true given his impaired state of health, which the domestic courts had not properly assessed or taken into account when ordering and extending his pre-trial detention. Moreover, in the applicant\u2019s view, there was never a that he had committed the offences at issue, and throughout the proceedings he had been exposed to a virulent media campaign."], "id": "2aee1ef2-0b20-46c7-b0e9-0c6b8a016f7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant was charged with murder. The Court accepts that the against the applicant of having committed a serious offence could initially warrant his detention. The Court notes that the latter was amplified by the fact that during the domestic proceedings the applicant admitted to having committed the offence he had been charged with. It was therefore reasonable to believe for the authorities extending the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention that a severe sentence could be imposed on him."], "id": "1c035717-001d-472f-94ae-e2f7eddc275f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government contended that the deprivation of the applicant\u2019s liberty had been compatible with the Convention, there being a that he had committed the criminal offence of aggravated fraud. The authorities ordering the applicant\u2019s custody and pre-trial detention had found that there had existed a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d against the applicant, supported by concrete information emerging in the investigation, in particular the fact that the applicant had used a false identity during the hand-over of the goods, which had gone missing following that hand-over."], "id": "8d7d7f6a-8b9c-456c-a8a1-fc1c6ba923f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government submitted that on 12 June 2004 the District Court had taken a decision to remand the applicant in custody in view of a of his involvement in the commission of a particularly serious criminal offence and having concluded that the applicant might abscond or otherwise obstruct the proceedings. In coming to such a conclusion the District Court took into account that previously, on 23 October 2001, the applicant had been convicted of attempted bribery and sentenced to five years\u2019 imprisonment, suspended for three years. By the same judgment the applicant, a former officer of the criminal investigations department in police operational work, had also been deprived of the right to work in the police force for three years. The custodial measure in respect of the applicant was chosen and extended by the competent domestic authorities in compliance with the procedure established by domestic law and in accordance with the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention. On each occasion the court took into account circumstances which gave grounds to believe that, if released, the applicant might obstruct the course of justice by putting pressure on victims and witnesses. The Government particularly emphasised the fact that the grounds warranting the choice of custodial measure had remained unchanged throughout the proceedings. They concluded that the applicant\u2019s remand in custody had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons and had been in line with the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention."], "id": "9410ecc8-239e-4e82-b37e-fc2f6f4966de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that the applicant had been arrested and detained in police custody in compliance with the law and on account of that he had committed an offence. In this latter respect, they referred to the scope of the work and terms of appointment of the Director of the Intelligence Service which, they said, served as an irreversible presumption that the latter had had \u201ccertain operative indications\u201d about the applicant's alleged involvement in committing the offence. They further maintained that the gun found in the applicant's possession had confirmed those allegations initially. They noted, too, that the applicant had been released when the police failed to find any evidence of his involvement in the commission of an offence."], "id": "db2a95ea-710e-499f-92a2-ac8160b5f686", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that they wished to refrain from taking a position in respect of the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. At the same time they underlined that the applicant\u2019s detention had been justified by the that he had committed the serious offences with which he had been charged and the fact that the charges against him attracted a heavy sentence. The Government also stressed that the authorities had displayed special diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant."], "id": "0eabaf38-de41-43ce-948c-c9c62d8380fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government submitted that the High Court had given relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant\u2019s detention. In particular, it had taken into account the that he had committed the criminal offence at issue, the circumstances, gravity, and the consequences thereof, the manner in which it had been committed, as well as the principle of subsidiarity. All these reasons justified detention, as accepted by the Court in its case-law. The Government relied on Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, in this regard. All these decisions were upheld on appeal. The Government also submitted that the length of the applicant\u2019s detention had not been excessive in view of all the circumstances of this complex case related to international organised crime."], "id": "f3b62606-3bae-4633-a44c-10d3e9151c29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable suspicion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government stated that the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention had been based on a of him having committed serious and violent criminal offences. Furthermore, there had been no specific facts excluding the presumed danger of his absconding or committing offences if released. In the Government\u2019s view, the applicant had failed to prove before the national courts that there had been no danger of him absconding or committing offences."], "id": "73d75572-2288-4b31-a0bc-6d1edb3ae6ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "length of pre-trial detention", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicant submitted that the Supreme Court of Cassation's judgment should not be taken into account in the present proceedings, as doing so would allow the national authorities to prevent rulings on the merits of the complaints brought before the Court by using stratagems such as ruling on issues not properly before them in actions brought by the applicants before the domestic courts in respect of other matters, as had happened in the instant case. The judgment did not mirror the cause of the applicant's action, which was different from the length of his pre-trial detention and the duration of the criminal proceedings against him. Despite being a welcome development, it was an isolated incident and did not represent the established case\u2011law of the Bulgarian courts in respect of claims relating to or of criminal proceedings. One could not deduce from it that there existed effective remedies in respect of such violations. On the contrary, it could be used to bar the successful prosecution of a claim under section 2(2) of the State Responsibility for Damage Act of 1988 on res judicata grounds. It failed to specify how much money was awarded in respect of each of the breaches of the applicant's rights identified in it. In any event, the sum total of the award was clearly inadequate in view of the gravity of the violations which it was intended to redress. The applicant would therefore not try to obtain the payment of this award by the authorities."], "id": "2cd43894-ab93-40a8-8e06-69929f3f5155", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "length of pre-trial detention", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention that both the length of his detention in police custody and the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive. He further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated because he had been detained on remand for an excessive length of time. The applicant maintained that the postponement by Law no. 5320 of the date of enforcement of Article 102 of the new CCP, which regulates the maximum authorised , to 31 December 2010 for certain types of offences including his own, violated Article 14 of the Convention. He claimed under Article 13 of the Convention that there had been no effective remedy for his grievance under Article 14. The Court deems it appropriate to examine all these complaints from the standpoint of Article 5 \u00a7 3 alone as they mainly concern the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention (Ayhan I\u015f\u0131k v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33102/04, 16 December 2008, and Can v. Turkey (dec.), no.6644/08, 14 April 2009)."], "id": "e2f31284-e97e-4a9e-a7af-5910922f95c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "length of pre-trial detention", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant submitted that the Constitutional Court had authoritatively found that the relevant provisions of the 2001 Act had not ensured the real and effective independence of assessors. In the light of the relevant jurisprudence of the Court there was also no doubt that the assessor who had ordered the applicant to be detained on remand had not offered the guarantees of independence from the executive and the parties as required under Article 5 \u00a7 3. The applicant further referred to the Court\u2019s finding in the case of Kauczor v. Poland (no. 45219/06, \u00a7 60, 3 February 2009) that \u201cfor many years, at least as recently as in 2007, numerous cases have demonstrated that the excessive in Poland revealed a structural problem consisting of a practice that was incompatible with the Convention\u201d. In his view, the breach of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention was exacerbated by the fact that in his and in the majority of cases the decisions imposing detention on remand had been taken by assessors who lacked adequate professional and life experience."], "id": "d10d5c3a-f701-4218-af33-a055813a25e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "length of pre-trial detention", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government submitted that the number of cases against Russia in which the Court had found a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, on account of an excessive , was not indicative of a structural or systemic problem. They further noted that the Russian rules of criminal procedure contained a strict and exhaustive list of circumstances which permitted the detention of a suspect or accused. Under Russian law, remand in custody during criminal proceedings was an extraordinary measure which could be imposed only if alternative preventive measures could not be applied. In recent years, the Russian Federation had adopted a series of measures aimed at liberalisation of criminal policy. In particular, the amendments to the Criminal Code made it possible to reduce the list of charges that would allow the application of remand in custody. The courts were applying alternative preventive measures on a wider scale."], "id": "44b6c44b-8cc0-41bd-9c5b-1dbfe2562057", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "length of pre-trial detention", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court refers to its earlier case law, where it has dismissed identical preliminary objections raised by the Government, and established that at the time when the present complaint was invoked the applicant did not have effective remedies with respect to excessive (see, amongst, other, Estrikh, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 95-104; Vogins v. Latvia, no. 3992/02, \u00a7\u00a7 25-35, 1 February 2007). Therefore the Government\u2019s objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed."], "id": "395c1542-3b21-44d5-84ea-dbe053a1c0dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "length of pre-trial detention", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant was held in custody from 23 November 2003 to 31 January 2007 when he was released on bail. Such a \u2013 over three years and two months \u2013 is a matter of grave concern for the Court. It observes that until January 2007 the domestic authorities never considered whether the length of his detention had already exceeded a \u201creasonable time\u201d. The fact that the maximum time-limits permitted by the domestic law were not exceeded may not be a decisive element for the Court's assessment. The calculation of the domestic time-limits depended solely on the gravity of the charges which was decided upon by the prosecution and was not subject to a judicial review (see Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, \u00a7 43, 14 December 2006, and paragraphs 35 and 36 above). The Court reiterates that the Russian authorities were required to put forward very weighty reasons for keeping the applicant in detention for such a long time (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, \u00a7 71, 8 June 2006)."], "id": "e67e9ddb-a13c-41eb-8e8a-a3e9f8d3f076", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "length of pre-trial detention", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant was held in custody from 21 March 2002 to 14 September 2004 when he was released on an undertaking not to leave the town. Such a \u2013 over two years and six months \u2013 is a matter of grave concern for the Court. It observes that until 14 September 2004 the domestic authorities never considered whether the length of his detention had already exceeded a \u201creasonable time\u201d. The fact that the maximum time-limits permitted by the domestic law were not exceeded may not be a decisive element for the Court\u2019s assessment. The calculation of the domestic time-limits depended solely on the gravity of the charges which was decided upon by the prosecution and was not subject to a judicial review (see Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, \u00a7 43, 14 December 2006, and paragraphs 49 and 50 above). The Court reiterates that the Russian authorities were required to put forward very weighty reasons for keeping the applicant in detention for such a long time (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, \u00a7 71, 8 June 2006)."], "id": "c6d61bf1-11ac-47bd-8f71-91e3b2d5f6d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "length of pre-trial detention", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant was held in custody from 17 January 2005 to 31 January 2007 when he was released on bail. Such a \u2013 over two years \u2013 is a matter of grave concern for the Court. It observes that until January 2007 the domestic authorities never considered whether the length of his detention had already exceeded a \u201creasonable time\u201d. The fact that the maximum time-limits permitted by the domestic law were not exceeded may not be a decisive element for the Court's assessment. The calculation of the domestic time-limits depended solely on the gravity of the charges which was decided upon by the prosecution and was not subject to a judicial review (see Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, \u00a7 43, 14 December 2006, and paragraphs 33 and 34 above). The Court reiterates that the Russian authorities were required to put forward very weighty reasons for keeping the applicant in detention for such a long time (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, \u00a7 71, 8 June 2006)."], "id": "3b605546-397c-494a-b9e9-8a9d7f59084b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "length of pre-trial detention", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicant was held in custody from 18 August 1999 to 12 July 2002 when he was released on bail. Such a \u2013 over two years and ten months \u2013 is a matter of concern for the Court. It observes that at no point in the proceedings did the domestic authorities consider whether the length of his detention had already lasted beyond a \u201creasonable time\u201d. The fact that the maximum time-limits permitted by the domestic law were not exceeded may not be a decisive element in the Court\u2019s assessment. As the Court has previously found in other Russian cases, the calculation of the domestic time-limits depended solely on the gravity of the charges, which was decided upon by the prosecution and was not subject to judicial review (see Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, \u00a7 43, 14 December 2006, and Khudoyorov, cited above, \u00a7 180)."], "id": "f380bbf1-40a0-4396-a8c5-1bae54137056", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to liberty and security", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant submitted that his detention between 1 and 4 May 2005 had been contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine, which only permits detention without a court order for up to seventy-two hours in view of the urgent necessity to prevent or stop a crime from being committed, but which does not permit such detention in respect of an administrative offence. Therefore, his detention under Article 263 of the Code of Administrative Offences had been unconstitutional and thus contrary to Article 5 of the Convention. In any event, the purpose of a person\u2019s detention under Article 263 of the Code of Administrative Offences is to wait for the results of an examination of the seized substance, which is not among the exceptions to the listed in Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "636c6d56-1709-49a4-a530-c6981e35bfc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to liberty and security", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicant complained that his initial pre-trial detention and its continuation were arbitrary. He argued that there had been no evidence grounding a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence necessitating his pre-trial detention. Furthermore, he complained that he had been kept in pre-trial detention despite the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding of a violation of his in its judgment of 11 January 2018. He also contended that the duration of his pre-trial detention was excessive and that insufficient reasons had been given for the judicial decisions ordering and extending the detention. He complained that in those respects there had been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "id": "68f0d52f-4445-47f7-9483-ea5be88be312", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to liberty and security", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government were convinced that following the Prague 4 District Court\u2019s judgment of 10 November 2011, the applicant had had a new opportunity at the domestic level to have the merits of his complaint that his involuntary placement in a social care home had violated his of person reviewed. Had he not succeeded before the ordinary courts, he could have resorted to the Constitutional Court. Since he would have met the requirement of a previous lodging of a plea of nullity, the Constitutional Court could have been expected to examine the merits of his appeal. The Government referred in this connection to Constitutional Court opinion no. Pl. \u00daS-st. 25/08 of 6 May 2008 (see paragraph 79 above) from which it can be deduced that the Constitutional Court would have reversed the ordinary court\u2019s judgment if it concluded that it had violated the applicant\u2019s right to liberty and personal security, despite the fact that at the time of the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision, the applicant would no longer have been in the social care home."], "id": "9566ee1d-dca9-4003-8a5a-3d669e0f0564", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to liberty and security", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["110. The applicant complained that his initial pre-trial detention and its continuation were arbitrary. He argued that there had been no evidence grounding a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence necessitating his pre-trial detention. He also complained that insufficient reasons had been given for the judicial decisions ordering and extending his detention. The facts on which the suspicions against him had been based were linked to his criticisms of the country\u2019s leaders. Furthermore, he had been kept in pre-trial detention despite the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding of a violation of his in its judgment of 11 January 2018. He complained that in those respects there had been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "id": "44ec3ea7-f767-4fc3-91f6-836d7b01839e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government submitted that the Convention permitted deprivation of liberty only in those cases which were enumerated in Article 5 and only in accordance with a . Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention provided for the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court. This category of permissible detention concerned any prisoner serving a sentence where \u201cthe lawful detention\u201d was based on \u201cconviction by a competent court\u201d. This normally referred to a prison sentence, although that was not specifically indicated in the text. The Government further observed that the execution of a prison sentence was, as a rule, dependent on a further decision which was not a matter for the courts but for the prosecution or prison authorities. The actual order to serve the sentence might not therefore emanate from a \u201ccompetent court\u201d but the detention would still be lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a). This would be so even where a prisoner's conditional release was revoked for a breach of the conditions, entailing re-imprisonment for the remaining term."], "id": "50babe86-34fc-47e3-8eb9-317979edae22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["116. The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 administrative detention was imposed under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and was compatible with the requirements of that provision. Their cases were examined by a court of first instance, which was the sole competent authority to do so. The sentences were imposed in a and in compliance with the relevant procedural rules."], "id": "a3d2aaed-5305-494c-8b24-8b9bbd59e2d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "524b480b-513c-4c06-8926-787c2a591ac9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty had been decided by a competent court in accordance with the . As the applicant had been dangerous, the court had issued a temporary injunction before hearing the applicant and appointing a lawyer to represent her. Thereafter, a lawyer had promptly been appointed for her and she had been heard at the earliest opportunity that her condition had allowed. According to a forensic psychiatric examination report which had been ordered in the course of the criminal proceedings and which had been drawn up on 17 November 2006 \u2013 that is, between the court ruling on the applicant\u2019s admission (8 November 2006) and her hearing by the court (23 November 2006) \u2013 the applicant had been mentally incompetent and unable to participate in the pre-trial investigation, give evidence in court or serve a punishment. Accordingly, the Government argued that the applicant\u2019s mental disorder had not allowed hearing her earlier."], "id": "6b013556-f6d0-470d-abc3-ba34d87bc266", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["102. The applicant complained that his detention on remand in connection with the second criminal case had been unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as it had been extended beyond 10 November 2002, the expiry of the statutory time-limit for detention on remand, by decisions of the lower courts based on general grounds. The applicant argued that by doing so, the domestic courts had not acted in accordance with a and, alternatively, that the procedure itself had not been sufficiently precise and foreseeable."], "id": "7058ad11-0fbb-4f11-a2a1-9b1e0517ea6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant maintained that his compulsory treatment had been subject to a review pursuant to section 200 of the Health Care Act. The reasoning of the court decision to prolong his psychiatric detention had been very superficial and insufficient to show that his conduct had been dangerous for the purposes of paragraph 1 of that provision. As such, therefore, it had been inadequate to meet the requirements of a within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "2d6f2eb0-12f1-4d62-ba72-c5471b517f03", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant further submitted that his detention had not been \u201clawful\u201d under domestic law and that the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court had not been rendered in accordance with the , as had been convincingly shown in the dissenting opinion attached to that court's judgment. His continued detention could not be based on the Federal Constitutional Court's judgment alone. It did not make a difference for the purposes of Article 5 \u00a7 1 whether the Bavarian (Dangerous Offenders') Placement Act had been declared void or had been considered incompatible with the Basic Law by the Federal Constitutional Court, as in both cases his detention was not \u201clawful\u201d for the purposes of Article 5 \u00a7 1."], "id": "2f83bc54-42b9-49a0-bb9c-067bf4175043", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government claimed that the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 5 of the Convention had not been violated. As to the placement of the applicant in a psychiatric hospital, the Government indicated that the was duly followed by the authorities. The applicant\u2019s placement was authorised by the judge at the request of the prosecutor and based on the medical report. The applicant\u2019s interests were represented by the lawyer and his guardian was duly notified of the hearings. They also submitted that although Article 435 of the CCrP did not provide the exact type of the psychiatric institution the detained person can be transferred to, it was the court\u2019s task on a case by case basis to specify a concrete type of the psychiatric institution suitable for an accused relying on the facts and the expert reports provided before it."], "id": "aa67fd1e-e60f-40c9-8f3f-d8d6e2e1be40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["242. The Government contested the applicants\u2019 allegations of ill\u2011treatment. They argued that on 19 and 20 April 2004 the applicants had been at military outposts and their identities had been unknown to the investigating team until 21 April 2004 when a necessity arose to invite and question them as witnesses. On that date, before being placed in a disciplinary isolation cell, the applicants were thoroughly examined by doctor S. and found to be \u201cpractically healthy\u201d, as was noted in the relevant Isolation Notices. On 24 April 2004, after the applicants were arrested as suspects, they were subjected to physical (medical) examinations and appropriate records were drawn up, namely the records of examination of a person\u2019s body. The physician made notes in the records that no injuries had been detected on the applicants\u2019 bodies. The records were drawn up at the military police arrest facility in accordance with a , namely Paragraph 13 of Annex 14 of the Regulations for the Garrison and Sentry Services in the Armed Forces of Armenia. The applicants signed their respective records without making any comments or objections. Had the applicants been subjected to ill-treatment, their injuries would undoubtedly have been revealed and recorded by the examining doctor. In any event, the applicants did not substantiate their allegations of ill\u2011treatment with any evidence or submit any evidence refuting the results of the above examinations. Furthermore, they showed inactivity by failing to request a forensic medical examination or request the authorities to summon a doctor, despite this possibility being specifically mentioned in the Military Prosecutor\u2019s letter of 10 June 2004. The first applicant did not raise any complaints about his health at the time of his admission to Nubarashen pre-trial detention facility on 6 July 2004."], "id": "9b138129-1e87-44a1-a7d9-18b435e9bce7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s judicial-review complaint against the refusal to approve the location of her public event had been examined before the planned date of that event and had been allowed in part. The domestic courts had found, in particular, that the town administration had failed to provide her with a well-reasoned proposal to change the location of the event. Moreover, no writ of execution had been issued. The Government further submitted that the domestic courts had had to assess whether the contested decision had been lawful and well-reasoned, and whether the for adopting it had been complied with. However, the courts had no competence to examine the \u201creasonableness\u201d of any proposal to change the location."], "id": "31612257-ddd1-47ad-8d8a-aee64cf58136", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government maintained that the applicant's detention was ordered in accordance with a and that it was covered by Article 5 \u00a7 1 (b). They submitted that the detention was imposed in accordance with section 755, subsection 1 cf. section 750 of the Administration of Justice Act, since the applicant had refused to disclose her personal data, which is a specific and concrete obligation. "], "id": "42bb5d66-7c0d-4aa0-8dc2-3440b936e180", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government further argued that the applicants\u2019 detention had been lawful and in accordance with a . It had been based on section 55(1), paragraph 2 (a), of the PSOA. The detention of the second applicant, who had been arrested in 2002 on suspicion of dangerous interference with rail traffic, had been based, in addition, on section 55(1), paragraph 2 (c), of the PSOA."], "id": "391381c5-03d5-45e5-8610-181a3b497c8c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government also took the view that the applicant had been deprived of his liberty lawfully and in accordance with a . His detention had complied with Article 66b \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code. Moreover, given the very high risk confirmed by the experts that the applicant would commit further serious sexual offences, possibly including the killing of his victims, on his release, the State had had a positive obligation under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention to protect potential victims from the applicant."], "id": "8675f793-5d2c-4fcf-88f0-7db3406d32c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicant submitted, in particular, that the authorities who arrested his son had not acted in accordance with a . He further argued that the authorities' failure to create, maintain and produce adequate documentation in relation to his son's arrest amounted to a violation of the lawfulness requirement inherent in Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "67c0aa96-8cc7-4cf4-89dd-a1b4e72b20b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "3fb1c888-2357-498b-ae99-09b3ff0304df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicants further maintained that their deprivation of liberty had not followed a and had therefore not been \u201clawful\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention. More specifically, referring to the preparatory notes on the Police Act, the applicants submitted that section 5(3) of the Act did not authorise administrative detention for a period exceeding six hours, unless the period was exceeded in connection with police actions involving the detention of a large number of individuals, when the time spent on transfer to the police station and registration and identification of detainees rendered it impossible, in practice, to observe the six-hour rule. In the present case, however, the first applicant had been the only one detained from a large group, and the second and third applicants had been detained together with three or four others from a large group; thus, their situation had not involved the detention of a considerable number of persons. Lastly, the applicants maintained that it would have been possible, in practice, to release them within the six-hour limit, as verified by the testimony of Chief Inspector P.J. (see paragraph 24 above)."], "id": "4765f384-5d71-46e6-b15d-d558166dac78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government contended that the applicants had acted unlawfully by holding a public event without the authorities\u2019 approval. Its dispersal had therefore been lawful and justified. They disputed that the event held by the applicants could be qualified as genuinely spontaneous. The date of the examination of the draft law had indeed been announced two days before, making it impossible to submit a notification within the statutory time-limit. However, on that date the State Duma had examined the draft law at the second reading, while three readings were necessary for a law to be adopted. There had been sufficient time to organise a public event in accordance with the before the third and final reading of the draft law by the State Duma. The facts of the present case had not disclosed special circumstances such as would warrant an immediate demonstration as the only adequate response. The applicants had therefore been lawfully fined for participating in a public event held without prior notification. The amount of fines had been reasonable."], "id": "e408b674-c76f-4625-b7eb-90e121d60097", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant argued that his detention from 4 to 13 January 2005 had not been authorised by a proper authority in accordance with the . He submitted that the lawful term of his detention had ended on 4 January 2005 when the five-day period for the remedying of the violations by the prosecutor had expired. On 13 January 2005 the Town Court had authorised the detention during the disputed period retroactively, in violation of the domestic law of criminal procedure."], "id": "b495ea3a-e270-4f87-98c5-12535323f1b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant\u2019s initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities\u2019 failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "30585f69-c7bf-478f-8677-dee29611d6a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government noted that the detention order of 10 September 2016 specifically stated that it was being issued on the ground that the elements on which the applicant\u2019s application for international protection was based could not be determined in the absence of detention in particular due to the risk of absconding. This was in line with Regulation 6(1) (b) of the Reception Regulations (see Relevant domestic law above), and the order was issued, and detention undertaken, in accordance with a (Regulation 6(3) of the Reception Regulations). They noted that in the applicant\u2019s case, given his allegations about his stay and status in Armenia, the documents requested were indeed relevant and required by law (Regulation 9(3) of the Procedural Standards Regulations). As to the risk of him absconding, the Government noted that the applicant had intended to go to Italy, via Malta, as shown by the flight tickets he carried with him."], "id": "70df07b8-e3d3-4a37-b16f-c9657b76e75d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant\u2019s initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities\u2019 failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "f6e81157-9161-46ad-83fd-6926a3ff4787", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant argued that Article 344 of the 2006 CCP was applicable only to orders amenable to appeal, while the order of 18 September 2006 was not subject to judicial review. She further stated that she had not tried to contest the order, as she had had the intention to comply with it and to appear at the hearing of 19 October 2006, had she been given the chance. She maintained that her detention had not been carried out in accordance with a and had not been necessary, because her presence at the trial had not been mandatory. Finally, she stated that her detention on the day before the hearing had been clearly disproportionate."], "id": "bb2c5e3e-8a81-41d9-bc5c-83b51a7e6cdb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant complained that his detention could not have been justified under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e) of the Convention because he was not a person of unsound mind of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement. He stated that his detention had been neither lawful nor in accordance with a . He had been detained on the basis of retrospective consent given by his guardian, who had never met him and had showed no interest in his hospitalisation. In his view, the Convention did not allow guardians to decide on questions of such fundamental importance without court approval and thus his detention could not be lawful as there had been no safeguards against his detention. The guardian\u2019s powers were total and unchecked."], "id": "6faaa1c7-d906-47b4-a2e0-804ddc0bcf6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied his liberty in circumstances which did not follow a and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "dff54a09-f2b5-4061-b33c-76680b344120", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["103. The applicant complained that his prosecution following the amnesty of 3 March and 7 July 1998 was not permissible under Slovakian law and that, therefore, his detention on remand in this context had not been in accordance with a . He relied on Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:"], "id": "8850c75e-dfc9-4a4f-a150-1f6d25d6a7fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["167. The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that there had been no grounds for their arrest, that it had been unlawful and effected in breach of a . They also relied on Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention stating that they had not been promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest and detention. The applicants further complained under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention that there had been no grounds for their continued detention and that they had been denied a right to be released pending trial. They also complained that they had been unable to have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed by a court, as they had been held incommunicado and had had no contacts with their lawyer, in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention. Moreover, they had been under constant threat of facing severe ill-treatment if they had complained. Lastly, the applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention that they had been deprived of an opportunity to seek compensation for their detention. That Article, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:"], "id": "d5a84d20-a469-48f5-a284-6200ee775f50", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["127. The applicant maintained that the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 did not dispense the State from fulfilling its international obligations regarding extradition, since such a ground for detention was clearly provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 1(f), which only required the detention to be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by the domestic legislation. The applicant submitted that the Minsk Convention did not provide for such a procedure. He further stated that his detention, from the moment of his apprehension on 23 August 2004 until the present date, lacked a legal basis, had been groundless and in breach of the . He stated that his detention until 16 September 2004 should fall within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1(c) of the Convention and after that date \u2013 it should be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 1(f)."], "id": "65e3df79-e4d0-4dc9-b999-4636162ae382", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government submitted that by organising an unauthorised public event, the applicant had committed an administrative offence. The police had warned her that the public event had been unlawful and had demanded that it be stopped. She had not complied. She had also refused to go to the police station. Her escorting to the police station and her administrative arrest had therefore been justified by the need to stop the administrative offence and to hold her liable. Both the escorting and the arrest had been performed in accordance with the . She had been released as soon as all the requisite procedural documents had been drawn up. The length of her arrest had been within the statutory limits: it had lasted for four hours and fifteen minutes, which had subsequently been deducted from her penalty."], "id": "8f1676d8-0cd5-48b5-93d3-dd82d4d2cf8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that the Sofia Prison authorities had not arbitrarily refused to release the applicant but rather had established that his prison term had been miscalculated, and had alerted the public prosecutor\u2019s office accordingly. The Government maintained that the applicant had withdrawn his appeal against decision no. 394, which had led to its becoming final. Despite that erroneous decision, the authorities had nonetheless released the applicant on 8 December 2005. Later, when the proceedings were re-opened, the whole period of the applicant\u2019s detention was deducted from the remainder of his sentence. He had thus not been detained unlawfully but in accordance with a , within the meaning of the Convention."], "id": "c1a6c899-36f5-42d8-881a-9f0ae530bf32", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied his liberty in circumstances which did not follow a and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for his arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "1587cd7e-5d3e-4657-addd-e28052b94ced", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["169. The Government argued that the applicants had been detained on a lawful basis and in accordance with a . In particular, they insisted that the applicants had first been apprehended, pursuant to Article 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 17 April 2000 and that their arrest had then been authorised by a decision of a competent prosecutor on 19 April 2000. The Government stated that the applicants had been duly notified of all the procedural decisions concerning their arrest and detention as well as of their procedural rights, this fact being confirmed by the applicants' signatures on the respective documents submitted by the Government. The Government further contended that the applicants had been promptly notified of the reasons for their arrest: on 20 April 2000 formal charges had been brought against them and their rights had been explained to them, and they had signed a relevant document to that effect. The Government also argued that the decisions ordering the extension of the applicants' detention had been taken by competent officials in accordance with procedural legislation, and that the applicants had had an opportunity to appeal against their arrest and extension orders in court. In this latter respect the Government stressed that since 25 April 2000 the applicants had been assisted by a lawyer and had been provided with legal information. The Government also contended that following the applicants' release it had been open to them to seek compensation for their detention if they had considered it unlawful."], "id": "3fd4fdb8-49a5-4fce-bfd1-2eb6f450a9fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government claimed that at about 6.30 p.m. on 31 December 2010 the applicant had been arrested in accordance with Article 27.3 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences. He was then taken to the police station as required by Article 27.2 \u00a7 1 of the Code to draw up a report on the administrative offence. His subsequent detention pending trial did not exceed the forty-eight hour time-limit set forth in Article 27.5 \u00a7 3 of the Code. They considered that the police had fully complied with the . They further pointed out that the applicant had been able to challenge his detention before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow and that on 12 January 2011 it had dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal, including the point concerning the lawfulness of his detention."], "id": "d8aeacbe-0056-4162-8b10-14f8efe69686", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "7a6d9f8f-d7a5-4671-8625-d9960171019f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "procedure prescribed by law", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complains under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the decision to prolong his TBS order was not given in a in that during the period from 4 September to 6 October 1995 there was no judicial decision authorising his detention. The applicant further complains that the decision to prolong the TBS order was not taken speedily as required by Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "2bb32726-132f-4b2d-bdf5-1d70fa613962", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant complained that her right to trial within a reasonable time or had not been respected and that the gravity of the offences she had been charged with could not be regarded as a relevant and sufficient reason for the domestic courts repeatedly to extend her detention. She relied on Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:"], "id": "4f3de407-9979-47de-ba4b-ceb178066684", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government contended that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as they had not appealed against any of the decisions extending their detention on remand. They further stated that the applicants had lodged their requests for only after the transfer of the criminal case from the investigators to the District Court \u2013 that is, after 29 October 2000. These requests could have been examined by the court only during the hearing of the criminal case. However, the examination of the case had been adjourned from 11 October 2000 to 20 February 2001 owing to the need to conduct an additional expert assessment. Therefore, the applicants\u2019 complaints lodged between 29 October 2000 and 20 February 2001 had not been examined by the District Court. The Government also pointed out that the applicants had failed to lodge requests for release pending trial during the hearing of their criminal case on 11 October 2000 and the hearings conducted from 20 February 2001 to 2 March 2001."], "id": "8337b400-8c45-4e39-b784-068fd88b7693", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant\u2019s complaint concerns the detention pending trial, in respect of which this Court has constantly held that the presumption under Article 5 is in favour of release. As established in Neumeister v. Austria (27 June 1968, \u00a7 4, Series A no. 8), the second limb of Article 5 \u00a7 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional . Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (as confirmed in McKay, cited above, \u00a7 41)."], "id": "fd3220e0-2b9d-462f-bd5e-158975e43e07", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant\u2019s complaint concerns the detention pending trial, in respect of which this Court has constantly held that the presumption under Article 5 is in favour of release. As established in Neumeister v. Austria (27 June 1968, \u00a7 4, Series A no. 8), the second limb of Article 5 \u00a7 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional . Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (as confirmed in McKay, cited above, \u00a7 41)."], "id": "b8af2e18-10b2-4fc1-aadb-20bcd892fcfc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government averred that after 21 July 2000 the applicant had not appeared in connection with investigative measures. On 24 November 2000 the prosecutor had ordered his arrest. On the basis of the order the applicant had been arrested on 14 April 2001. After the arrest the criminal file in the applicant\u2019s case had been transmitted to the court on 14 May 2001. In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure then in force, the court had authorised his detention at the directions hearing on 23 May 2001. The application of the preventive measure had subsequently been upheld by the rulings of the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver of 18 June, 24 September and 24 December 2001. On 26 February 2002, after the case had been referred back for additional investigation, the prosecutor had extended the term of the applicant\u2019s detention. The applicant\u2019s application for had been dismissed on 26 March 2002. The Government specifically stated that the decision of 26 March 2002 had related to the applicant\u2019s application for release lodged in the course of the preliminary investigation and had not constituted an authorisation of his detention pending trial. They further noted that in the relevant period the domestic courts had not been required to rule on the term of the applicant\u2019s detention pending trial. On 12 July 2002, after the case had again been referred back for additional investigation, the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver had extended the applicant\u2019s detention until 6 August 2002. On 5 August 2002 the case had been referred to the court, and on 4 December 2002 the applicant\u2019s continued detention had been reviewed by a judge. Accordingly, between 5 August and 4 December 2002 the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention had been within the jurisdiction of the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver."], "id": "f66b41bd-5d87-4a40-8a75-f043bf58b1de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["136. The Government\u2019s argument that the charge against the accused could theoretically be changed to a milder charge and thus make it possible for him to obtain cannot be accepted by the Court. In the first place, the Court notes that such a change cannot be effected by the investigating judge who issues and prolongs the detention warrant, but only by a trial judge after the criminal case-file is transmitted to the court for the examination of the merits (see paragraph 67 above). Secondly, and most importantly, follows from S.B.C. that the right to release pending trial cannot in principle be excluded in advance by the legislature."], "id": "bb3de236-b976-4915-b3c1-39a24c7417a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention that their detention on remand was unreasonably long, and that their requests for received no serious consideration by the court. Moreover, they contended that they were prevented from working whilst on remand, as a result of which they incurred financial loss. Article 5 of the Convention provides as relevant:"], "id": "fefbf1b6-8ee7-48ba-b5c2-32b866fbebcc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant contended that the requirement in section 22(3) of the 1985 Act (see paragraph 46 above) that the prosecution conduct itself with \u201call due diligence\u201d amounted to the same requirement as \u201cspecial diligence\u201d in the context of Article 5 \u00a7 3. He recalled the need to interpret the provisions of the Convention in a manner which was practical and effective and not theoretical or illusory. It was open to Judge Norris, on 7 June 2002, to find that there had been prosecutorial delay but that this had not impacted on the ability to try the applicant within a reasonable time. The applicant pointed out that under the applicable domestic law at the time, it was clear that not every finding of a lack of diligence would result in the domestic courts refusing to extend the custody time limits (citing R (Quereshi and Others) \u2013 see paragraph 49 above). He submitted that in that case, Lord Bingham CJ's reference to the requirement for due diligence operating as a protection for defendants by ensuring that they were not kept in custody pending trial for longer than was justifiable was identical to the requirement in Article 5 \u00a7 3 that a defendant is entitled to trial within a reasonable time or . The applicant argued that this must have been the approach adopted by Judge Norris on 7 June 2002 and that his refusal to extend the custody time limits must therefore have been due to his conclusion that the lack of due diligence by the prosecution had adversely impacted upon the possibility of his trial taking place within a reasonable time."], "id": "725e4946-718d-4248-82e1-c5adb548e920", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["126. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s submissions on a number of grounds. He noted that the Government had provided no information concerning the examination of his complaints lodged between 13 July and 21 November 2001. As regards his complaint of 25 April 2001, it could not have been examined on 18 June 2001, because, according to the decision given on that date, the Moskovskiy District Court had dismissed the application for lodged by the applicant at the hearing. The complaint lodged by the applicant on 2 January 2002 had been examined on 14 February 2002, after a delay of one month and twelve days, which was not compatible with Article 5 \u00a7 4. The applicant\u2019s appeal against the decision of 12 July 2002 had not been examined \u201cspeedily\u201d either. Likewise, the time taken to examine the applicant\u2019s complaint lodged on 28 February 2002 was in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4."], "id": "cdcd28ef-dad1-46c9-9883-8eb6f57d2190", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicant complained that his right to trial within a reasonable time or had not been respected and that the reasons relied on by the national authorities for ordering and extending his detention could not be regarded as relevant and sufficient. He relied on Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:"], "id": "d643cd59-d1ac-4d00-b3f2-d2aebb8e31f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention that their detention on remand was unreasonably long, and that their requests for received no serious consideration by the court. Moreover, they contended that they were prevented from working whilst on remand, as a result of which they incurred financial loss. Article 5 of the Convention provides as relevant:"], "id": "066200c3-50a4-44c1-aa4e-ae5b75c65874", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["192. The applicant's pre-trial detention infringed his right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power (see paragraph 167 above), his right to trial within a reasonable time or (see paragraph 175 above) and his right to take proceedings by which all elements relevant to the lawfulness of detention could be decided by a court (see paragraph 187 above)."], "id": "9df88e69-a299-4d6f-8a40-c6cce9a9fbd2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 complaints and requests for had not been examined by the courts because from 11 October 2000 to 20 February 2001 the examination of the applicants\u2019 case had been adjourned owing to the need to obtain additional evidence. They further contended that the applicants had not lodged any requests for release during the hearing of 11 October 2000 and the hearings conducted between 20 February and 2 March 2001."], "id": "6f8c113c-bcf7-4db3-84a4-4bca4dc2abcf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government submitted that the applicant's pre-trial detention had been authorised by a proper authority. In particular, as regards the period between 5 June and 6 December 2002, on 5 June 2002 the bill of indictment and the case file had been transmitted to the Leninskiy District Court, which had received them on 10 June 2002 and fixed a hearing for 24 June 2002. On the date of the hearing the applicant had filed an application for , which had been dismissed by the court. On 6 and 28 November 2002 the Leninskiy District Court had refused two other applications for release pending trial made by the applicant. On 6 December 2002 the same court had extended the applicant's detention until 10 January 2003. Her appeal against both rulings had been dismissed on 18 December 2002 by the Penza Regional Court. As regards the period between 28 February and 23 May 2003 the Government submitted that the applicant had been detained because her case had been pending before the court and the issues concerning her detention had been decided in accordance with the legislation on criminal procedure."], "id": "247aeee5-98f3-44f8-b3a9-591e78f31687", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant reiterated his complaint and argued that it was arbitrary and irrational to continue detaining him rather than order his , if necessary conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. He contended that there had been no risk that he would abscond or seek to interfere with the criminal proceedings and that, even if there had been such a risk, non-custodial preventive measures should have been considered."], "id": "782e98af-f86c-44ce-ada8-3a5adce8a797", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["85. The applicant complained that his request for had been arbitrarily refused; that the lawfulness of his detention had not been decided \u201cspeedily\u201d and the decision of 26 July 2004 had been wrongfully taken by a bench of three judges instead of a single judge. He relied on Article 5 \u00a7 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "28d39349-c024-4537-8915-daf6f2406040", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant accepted that his detention prior to 7 June 2002 fell within the respondent State's margin of appreciation. His complaint related to the period after 7 June 2002, at which point, he contended, the finding that the prosecution authorities had failed to act with the requisite diligence entitled him to . In the applicant's view, at this point, the balancing exercise between the public interest in continued detention and the presumption of innocence tipped in favour of the latter. He did not dispute that the charges against him were serious, but argued that there were a number of flaws in the prosecution case including the delay in the making of the complaint to the police and inconsistent telephone record data. He further emphasised that he had no previous convictions for failing to surrender, for interfering with witnesses or for otherwise obstructing the course of justice and that his previous convictions did not support the conclusion that he was likely to commit further offences while on bail."], "id": "51202172-0588-406e-8c1f-f2d6d369924e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants each claimed the sum of 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage in respect of their detention in police custody for a period of seven days before being brought before the public prosecutor. Moreover the first applicant claimed the sum of EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage arising from the delay in reviewing his application for ."], "id": "ea34bc18-ca67-4e00-93a5-1fbd1b8176ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant maintained that the Istanbul State Security Court relied on the \u201cnature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the duration of the detention\u201d when it rejected his requests for , without having discussed the possibility of his destroying evidence or absconding. The applicant maintained that the grounds given by the Istanbul State Security Court for his continued detention on remand had been insufficient."], "id": "e1205f6e-db12-4ecc-858d-ebb1b9a0e4ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government maintained that the applicant was accommodated in the K\u0131rklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre. The reason for the applicant's placement in this centre was the authorities' need for his surveillance pending deportation proceedings. The Government contended that this practice was based on section 23 of Law no. 5683 and section 4 of Law no. 5682. They further contended that the applicant had been informed of his situation on 25 January 2008, when he had been questioned by the police following his . As regards the applicant's complaints under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 4 and 5, the Government submitted that the applicant could have applied to the administrative courts."], "id": "4a58944e-6bd7-4d66-9432-a170e9602b03", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["183. The applicant reiterated his complaint and argued that it was arbitrary and irrational to continue detaining him rather than order his , if necessary conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. He contended that there had been no risk that he would abscond or seek to interfere with the criminal proceedings and that, even if there had been such a risk, non-custodial preventive measures should have been considered."], "id": "92ddcff4-0515-45dc-86dd-9be4ba402353", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["107. The Government noted that all the relevant decisions had been taken by judges vested with full competence and corresponding to the requirements of independence and impartiality. In taking their decisions, those judges personally heard the applicant. Finally, those judges had the power to order the applicant\u2019s . In this latter respect, the Government submitted that according to Article 27 \u00a7 1 h) of the Law on Judicial Organisation the President of the Court could, as an exception in the case of the reasoned absence of the investigating judge, appoint another experienced judge to perform the same functions (see paragraph 56 above)."], "id": "b3697cda-b50a-405c-96d0-0701e2e9d754", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "release pending trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants raised a number of generic complaints which can be summarised as follows: (i) that no reasonable suspicion against them had been established with a basis in admissible evidence to justify their detention; (ii) that they had not been brought before a judge within twenty\u2011four hours of their arrest as required under the Charter of Basic Rights and Freedoms; (iii) that, on account of the discrepancy in the applicable time-limits, the relevant law lacked the required quality; (iv) that they had arbitrarily been denied ; (v) that the decisions in respect of their remand and first request for release had lacked adequate reasoning and the procedure preceding them had fallen short of the applicable requirements; and (vi) that the procedure in respect of their appeal against detention and their request for release had not been speedy."], "id": "f0c165b5-f89b-464d-baf0-f3202f70ad8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government submitted that Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention provided for the right of a detained person to and not for an obligation on the part of Contracting States to bring such persons before a court. In this regard they noted that there was an important distinction between the wording of Article 5 \u00a7 4 and Article 5 \u00a7 3 and submitted that the Court had consistently drawn a firm distinction between the automatic judicial control required under Article 5 \u00a7 3 and the right to institute proceedings conferred by Article 5 \u00a7 4. According to the Court\u2019s case-law, what was required was that a review be available at reasonable intervals, and not that a review take place in every case (see, for example, Winterwerp, cited above, \u00a7 55, X v. the United Kingdom, Appl. no. 7215/75, 24 October 1981)."], "id": "f4abcb67-708d-46c4-b9f7-a77fa842abdf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant maintained his complaint concerning the length of the appeal proceedings against the judgment of 15 December 2015 in so far as it concerned the detention matter. He also maintained his complaint concerning the lack of a possibility to for a review of his continued detention after January 2016. As an example, he referred to his case against the bailiff service, in particular the fact that it had taken some three months to obtain an appeal decision (see paragraph 15 above)."], "id": "74cf0684-7c11-42bb-b476-6a01cbfce8c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant complained that her right to \u201c by which the lawfulness of [her] detention shall be decided speedily by a court and [her] release ordered if the detention is not lawful\u201d under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention was violated by the United Kingdom in two important respects: first, that the 1983 Act made no provision for the automatic referral to an Article 5 \u00a7 4 compliant court of patients such as her who lacked capacity to institute proceedings for themselves; and, secondly, that domestic legislation made no provision for a patient, whether incapacitated or not, to take proceedings before an Article 5 \u00a7 4 compliant court in circumstances where his or her detention was authorised under section 29 (4) of the 1983 Act."], "id": "0d92a054-298a-4764-9d92-03927a63bbbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["144. The applicant noted in reply that neither the first-instance court, in its decision of 31 July 2013, nor the appeal court on 18 September had considered his arguments. In any event, his complaint concerned not the initial decision on his detention pending administrative removal, but the fact that it had been impossible to obtain a review of that decision after a certain lapse of time. He maintained that he had been unable to so as to obtain a review of the lawfulness of his ongoing detention, in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "d9e905e3-a028-496f-958e-b1d8dfd0d3a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["192. The applicant's pre-trial detention infringed his right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power (see paragraph 167 above), his right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial (see paragraph 175 above) and his right to by which all elements relevant to the lawfulness of detention could be decided by a court (see paragraph 187 above)."], "id": "f04c4ba3-51bf-47c4-8185-1cec5f2d55f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant submitted, at first, that she could not apply to administrative courts as she was unable to appoint an advocate in the absence of any valid identity documents. In her submissions dated 16 April 2009 she contended that, following her recognition as a refugee under the UNHCR's mandate, she could now empower an advocate to on behalf of her with a notarised power of attorney. Accordingly, her advocate applied to Ankara Administrative Court and requested her release. In her submissions made in May and June 2009, the applicant maintained that the proceedings in question were not sufficiently speedy."], "id": "4a7a58e1-6864-418c-b708-735ac57c915a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["231. The applicants contended that Article 6 was the lex specialis of the fair-trial guarantee. The regime under consideration represented the most serious form of executive measure against terrorist suspects adopted within the member States of the Council of Europe in the post-2001 period. It was adopted to enable the United Kingdom to against individuals on the basis of reasonable suspicion alone, deriving from evidence which could not be deployed in the ordinary courts. That alone warranted an analysis under Article 6. The proceedings were for the determination of a criminal charge, within the autonomous meaning adopted under Article 6 \u00a7 1, and also for the determination of civil rights and obligations. The use of closed material gave rise to a breach of Article 6."], "id": "eaa016d5-6842-4374-9474-8ca47a81bc40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["261. The applicant complained that, contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, he had not had an opportunity to by which the lawfulness of his house arrest could be reviewed. The Court reiterates that Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention entitles detained persons to institute proceedings for a review of compliance with the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the \u201clawfulness\u201d of their deprivation of liberty (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, \u00a7 202, 19 February 2009, with further references).When the decision is made by a court at the close of judicial proceedings, the supervision required by Article 5 \u00a7 4 is incorporated in the decision (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, \u00a7 76, Series A no. 12). Article 5 \u00a7 4 does not guarantee to the detainee a right to obtain a full review of the detention, with all concomitant guarantees of procedural fairness, whenever he wants it, but only at \u201creasonable intervals\u201d (see Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, \u00a7 79, 25 October 2007)."], "id": "5511035f-868f-4be8-8650-1863605727c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant submitted, at first, that he could not apply to administrative courts as he was unable to appoint an advocate in the absence of any valid identity documents. In his subsequent submissions, he stated that, by means of a notarially recorded power of attorney, he had empowered an advocate to . Accordingly, his advocate had applied to the Ankara Administrative Court and requested his release. In his submissions of September 2009, the applicant maintained that the proceedings in question were not sufficiently speedy."], "id": "50df54d7-0602-45eb-bf53-7a9699f41ee9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["197. The applicant submitted that his complaint concerned not so much the initial decision on his detention pending administrative removal, as the fact that it was impossible to obtain a review of that decision after a certain lapse of time. His counsel\u2019s attempt to obtain such a review by means of lodging an application for clarification under Article 31.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences had been unsuccessful, and the courts had never actually examined it but had rejected it by a simple letter sent after a four-month delay. Therefore, the applicant had been unable to so as to obtain a review of the lawfulness of his ongoing detention, in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "65fd32dc-e5c0-4a65-a63e-6b13c309ae12", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["157. The Government claimed that the applicant could initiate proceedings before the Constitutional Court to challenge the compliance of specific legal provisions contained in the Law on Social Services and Social Assistance, the Civil Law and the Law on Custodial Court with provisions of superior force. The Court, being mindful of the Constitutional Court\u2019s ruling of 27 December 2010, notes however that the present applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention relates to his inability to obtain release from the \u012ale Centre and not to the issue of his legal capacity. In this connection, the Court reiterates that the Constitutional Court in Latvia is empowered to repeal legal provisions which it finds unconstitutional, but not to adopt new legal procedures or to close an alleged legislative gap (see Liep\u0101jnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, \u00a7\u00a7 73 and 75, 2 November 2010). This conclusion is further supported by the Constitutional Court ruling of 27 December 2010, whereby some legal provisions of the Latvian Civil Law relating to the legal capacity of individuals were declared null and void with effect from 1 January 2012. Parliament therefore had to come up with a legislative solution to comply with the Constitutional Court\u2019s ruling and to establish a system of partial legal capacity for individuals in Latvia. This was done two years after the Constitutional Court\u2019s ruling and the new regulation is applicable from 1 January 2013. In such circumstances the Court fails to see how the present applicant\u2019s recourse to the Constitutional Court would enable him \u201cto at reasonable intervals\u201d to determine the lawfulness of his continued deprivation of liberty. The Government did not suggest that there were any other venues available to the applicant to obtain a review of the lawfulness of his detention in the institution."], "id": "08613d97-71a6-4ab4-8a32-84e5c62cd32b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["111. The applicant complained that the Constitutional Court had either refused to examine the merits of his complaints concerning the lawfulness and reasonableness of his pre-trial detention or dismissed them without providing any relevant reasoning. Therefore, he had not had been able to before the Constitutional Court to effectively challenge the lower courts\u2019 decisions on his detention. This had resulted in him being detained without relevant and sufficient reasons for a considerable period of time. In the applicant\u2019s view, the Constitutional Court\u2019s practice of declaring complaints against decisions on detention inadmissible merely because a new decision on detention had been adopted in the meantime had had detrimental consequences for the effective respect for human rights in Croatia. In his particular case, that practice had allowed the lower courts to continue to extend his detention without relevant reasons, which had rendered the protection he was entitled to before that court ineffective."], "id": "b32c010f-7564-439f-b2cf-10d77ea2a613", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["198. The applicant was detained pursuant to the same legal provisions as Mr Gorshkov, and the Court sees no reason to depart from its finding in the above judgment. It considers, therefore, that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 in respect of the applicant\u2019s inability to to test the lawfulness of his confinement in a psychiatric institution by a court."], "id": "ca126377-93c5-4d91-8c45-fc532a8b9551", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "take proceedings", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant argued that Article 5 \u00a7 4 was to be read as creating a right of access to a court. Where a patient lacked capacity to herself, the safeguard provided by Article 5 \u00a7 4 would be deprived of any substance, and the right to take proceedings would become theoretical and illusory, unless there was some provision by which such a patient\u2019s case was automatically referred to an Article 5 \u00a7 4 court. Consequently, the applicant submitted that Article 5 \u00a7 4 should be construed as requiring an automatic reference to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which she accepted was an Article 5 \u00a7 4 compliant body."], "id": "24471cca-2387-4b13-9aca-21580f690b82", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicants Vaja Berdzenishvili (application no. 14594/07), Tengiz Kbilashvili (application no. 14597/07), Abram Givishvili (application no. 14976/07), Liana Nachkebia (application no. 14978/07), Eka Chkaidze, David Jaoshvili (application no. 15221/07) and Inga Gigashvili (application no. 16706/07) further complained that their decisions were based on unfair trials, not complying with the guarantees of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "ee26dc64-bf76-4c11-9612-1dd074a50ef3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) in respect of the time period after 5 February 2013, the date on which the letter from the Embassy of Uzbekistan made it clear that the applicant\u2019s to Uzbekistan was impossible. As regards the preceding period, the Government submitted that the lengthy detention was accounted for by an \u201cobjective reason\u201d, notably the absence of information from the Embassy of Uzbekistan. The domestic authorities had shown \u201cspecial diligence\u201d in the conduct of the expulsion proceedings."], "id": "c8fd259a-03f8-4bc7-9822-93e30bf6ba69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant asserted that her detention had not been necessary and that the Austrian authorities had disregarded her specific situation. She had had no intention of entering Austria illegally, as she had simply not been aware that the document issued by the French police following her declaration of the theft of her passport was insufficient for the purpose of travelling. It had been clear that she had no intention of staying in Austria illegally. In fact she had been stopped by the Hungarian border police when trying to leave Austria. Given these circumstances, it had not been necessary to take her into detention with a view to her , as less intrusive measures would have sufficed to secure the expulsion procedure. The applicant also complained that the authorities had not acted diligently. In particular, the Romanian embassy had issued the provisional travel document on 13 March 2002, but she had not been expelled until more than a week later, on 22 March 2002."], "id": "dced1c8a-7421-4de5-a4a8-6a3b04b249ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government submitted that the complaints were inadmissible since the applicant had lost his victim status as a result of the quashing of the extradition order and the decision to discontinue the proceedings. Furthermore, the applicant had been granted temporary asylum in Russia for one year. Thus, he no longer ran the risk of ill-treatment in case of his extradition or administrative removal to Uzbekistan."], "id": "967c401d-005b-4c3f-89e3-a51b003b4a65", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained that his detention pending had been in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention on account of its excessive length and the obvious impossibility to enforce the order for his expulsion to Uzbekistan. He further complained under Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention that he had been unable to obtain a judicial review of his detention. The relevant parts of Article 5 provide as follows:"], "id": "4ca2b9f2-e305-493a-8f22-107ce2d9e075", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicants maintained in reply that they had not been notified of the decision to deport them prior to their . They further contended that, even if they had been served with deportation orders, application to the administrative courts for the annulment of a deportation decision did not automatically have a suspensive effect and therefore did not constitute an effective remedy."], "id": "0dc40cf5-10d2-4263-bc59-6d058b0acc63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant also submitted a press statement made by eight non\u2011governmental organisations in Turkey on 23 February 2015 condemning the of Uzbek nationals, including women and children, to Syria. According to the press statement, in August 2014 and January and February 2015, a number of Uzbek and Chechen nationals who had been held in a removal centre in south Turkey were expelled to a region of Syria controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) without having had access to their lawyers and the opportunity to challenge the removal orders. According to the press statement, three of these foreign nationals were executed by ISIS. The applicant\u2019s lawyer also submitted some news articles dated 22 January and 10 February 2015, according to which Uzbek refugees were detained in foreigners\u2019 removal centres for no reason. The lawyer argued that, in view of these developments, the applicant was now under the threat of deportation to Uzbekistan, Iran or Syria."], "id": "5ff890a7-c3fb-4c42-bc80-f74a09af22b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant emphasised that the domestic authorities had failed to properly examine his allegations of the risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan. He noted that the Code of Administrative Offences did not stipulate an obligation to assess a risk of ill-treatment in the course of proceedings. The Appeal Court had refused to examine in detail the allegations made in the appeal statement referring to territorial jurisdiction; thus, the applicant\u2019s serious claims of risk of the proscribed treatment had been left unscrutinised. Nor had these claims been analysed in the course of the proceedings relating to the application for refugee status."], "id": "91100263-21b3-4f95-8953-c5229f71637a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["226. The Government observed that the Chamber had referred to \u201crefoulement\u201d (refusal of entry) and to \u201cexpulsion\u201d (deportation), without pointing out the distinction between the two notions, which in reality corresponded to different procedures in domestic legislation, more specifically under Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 (see paragraph 33 above). In particular, \u201crefusal of entry at the border\u201d was a decision by the border guards to turn away aliens arriving at border crossings without papers and without meeting the requirements for admission to Italy. The \u201cdeferred refusal-of-entry\u201d procedure, ordered by the Chief of Police (questore), applied where an alien had entered the country illegally and had been allowed to stay temporarily to receive protection. Lastly, \u201cdeportation\u201d corresponded to a written and reasoned decision whereby the competent administrative or judicial authorities ordered the removal from the country of an alien who did not have, or no longer had, leave to remain in the country. The Italian legal system made no provision for collective and Article 19 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998 prohibited the return of an alien to a State where he or she might be subjected to persecution. The Government explained that in the present case the applicants had been issued with \u201crefusal-of-entry and removal\u201d orders and had not been subjected to a measure of \u201cexpulsion\u201d (i.e., deportation). Therefore, in the Government\u2019s view, it could not have been a \u201ccollective expulsion\u201d."], "id": "866b2035-2450-4290-827b-98dd66591b7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant emphasised that both the Zyuzinskiy District Court and the Moscow City Court had failed to consider his arguments relating to Article 5 of the Convention and that no time-limit for his detention had been stipulated in the order. With reference to the Court\u2019s previous findings (in particular, in the case of Azimov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 153\u201154), he maintained that Russian law did not provide for a periodic review of the lawfulness of detention following a decision on administrative expulsion."], "id": "467e7fea-a3e3-4d51-9c36-d84e0c33fbc5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["114. The applicant complained, under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that his detention between 24 and 30 July 2013 had been unlawful. He further complained under that head that his detention pending administrative removal after 31 July 2013 had not been based on sufficiently foreseeable legal norms and that the decision had not set a time-limit for his detention. Article 5 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "eb2e8773-bec7-47a7-837f-ddd604c43058", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government submitted that in examining Mr Raza\u2019s application for judicial review the Supreme Administrative Court had fully and objectively analysed the factual and legal grounds for the order, and had given convincing reasons why the interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8 of the Convention was justified in the circumstances. Its decision was well\u2011founded and lawful."], "id": "594b7ad8-802d-4e1d-9583-4b7030681819", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["124. The applicant claimed 2,000 euros (EUR) per month of preventive detention since 9 February 2007 in respect of pecuniary damage for loss of earnings. At the time of the submission of his just satisfaction claims (Rule 60 \u00a7 2), his claim amounted to a total of EUR 92,000. He argued that, having regard to his previous salary as a mechanic, he could have earned some EUR 2,000 per month had he been released on 9 February 2007, when his placement in a psychiatric hospital had been terminated. He stressed that following his from Germany, he could have sought employment not only in Romania, but also in other EU Member States in which he could have had a higher income."], "id": "7160a0e8-30fc-41e8-aff9-63b40fbee496", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant submitted in reply that he had consistently raised the grievance concerning the risk of ill-treatment at all stages of the extradition, the and the refugee-status proceedings. He maintained that the administrative-removal proceedings had been used by the authorities in order to circumvent the guarantees available to the applicant in extradition proceedings. For instance, the CAO did not contain any provisions obliging the authorities concerned to consider the risk of ill-treatment allegations in a removal case. The refugee-status proceedings had not had any suspensive effect in relation to the administrative expulsion. He further argued that a supervisory-review appeal against the final administrative removal order would not have suspensive effect either, and therefore could not be regarded as an effective remedy."], "id": "fbf022d0-67b9-40f3-8b44-5aaeb08c0e6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["157. The applicant argued that the Russian law on detention pending was not sufficiently clear and foreseeable. In particular, the applicant complained that his arrest for the purposes of expulsion had been ordered to circumvent the requirements of the domestic law, which established a maximum time-limit for detention pending extradition. On the contrary, detention pending expulsion was not limited in time under Russian law. He noted that administrative removal proceedings had been initiated only when the authorities faced the need to release the applicant. In addition, since the application of Rule 39 by the Court, the applicant\u2019s detention pending expulsion had no legitimate purpose and was therefore arbitrary, since he could no longer be expelled."], "id": "d349a026-7251-4444-97a4-1ecb19386546", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s fears were groundless in view of the prohibition in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 on the of aliens to a country where their health or life would be in jeopardy. The order to expel him had been intended to protect the national security of Bulgaria. However, its enforcement was subject to the provisions of section 44a, which coincided with the principles underlying Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. The practice in such cases was for the competent authorities, which worked in close cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and non\u2011governmental organisations, to verify the issue upon expulsion of their own motion. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs kept an updated list of safe third countries that could receive individuals in the applicant\u2019s position. The authorities were thus complying with the absolute prohibition of Article 3 of the Convention, and, unlike the situation obtaining in Saadi v. Italy ([GC], no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008\u2011...), were not seeking to balance national security considerations against the risk of ill\u2011treatment faced by the applicant. The bar in section 44a applied to all aliens, including those subject to expulsion orders on national security grounds."], "id": "2aa447b5-17eb-4127-8a9a-375663891710", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government submitted that the detention pending had been lawful, as it had been ordered by a court, and that even though no time-limit for the applicants\u2019 detention had been set, the maximum duration of an administrative penalty was two years. The applicants could seek supervisory review of the expulsion and ensuing detention orders in the event of a significant change in their circumstances."], "id": "e2ad7e72-fde6-4696-939c-763d54c0ff62", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicants argued that had section 55(3) of the Asylum Act been applied properly, their release should have been initiated by the refugee authority once the asylum proceedings had reached the in-merit phase. Its failure to do so had rendered their continued detention unlawful. In any case, the ambiguous wording of section 55(3) entailed a discretionary administrative practice, inasmuch as the release of those asylum-seekers whose cases were admitted to the in-merit phase was, as a pattern, not initiated by the refugee authority. In their view, the expression \u201cat the initiative of the refugee authority\u201d must be interpreted as establishing an obligation on the refugee authority\u2019s side, otherwise there was inadmissible legal uncertainty in this field. Moreover, in view of section 51(2) of the Third Country Nationals Act, their was not imminent while the asylum proceedings were still in progress, which made their continued detention unjustified. Lastly, the District Court\u2019s procedure resulting in a laconic decision upholding their continued detention solely on the formal ground that the refugee authority had not initiated their release had not qualified as \u201cproceedings by which the lawfulness of [their] detention [was] decided speedily by a court\u201d, for the purposes of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "af0c0ba8-488f-493b-99d0-407ca4feb547", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicant maintained that on 12-13 March 2013 he had not in fact been released from detention, and that his detention had constituted an uninterrupted period from 13 September 2012. He argued that administrative\u2011removal proceedings had been initiated only when the authorities had faced the need to release him and the administrative detention had been aimed solely at keeping him under the authorities\u2019 exclusive control after the expiry of the term of his detention pending extradition. Further, after 9 April 2013, the date of the formal refusal of his extradition to Uzbekistan, he had been kept in detention so that the authorities could organise his removal to the requesting country. He further argued that the Russian law on detention pending was not sufficiently clear and foreseeable. In particular, he submitted that his arrest for the purpose of expulsion had been ordered in order to circumvent the requirements of the domestic law, which prescribed a maximum time\u2011limit for detention pending extradition. In contrast, detention pending expulsion was not limited in time under Russian law."], "id": "7e191ec3-e426-4294-b081-5eb34cf66719", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["115. The Government submitted that the applicant had been able to challenge the order for his in judicial review proceedings, in the course of which he had been able to acquaint himself with all documents in the case file and seek to rebut the assertions of the authorities. In judicial review proceedings, the courts reviewed whether the administrative decision had been issued by a competent authority, in due form, and in compliance with the rules of administrative procedure and substantive law. In the applicant\u2019s case, the Supreme Administrative Court had done just that. It had examined the arguments of the parties and had given reasons for finding against the applicant. It is true that the question whether the applicant faced a risk of ill\u2011treatment upon expulsion had been raised before that court. However, since the proceedings concerned the lawfulness of the expulsion order, the court had deemed that question to be irrelevant. Domestic courts could review only specific administrative decisions. The applicant did not claim that there existed a tacit or an express refusal to stay the enforcement of the order for his expulsion by reference to section 44a."], "id": "65e3f795-5152-48b3-b3ac-5b741afbf626", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that the lawfulness of the period of detention from the date on which it had been ordered and until the date of ought to be presumed. Any alleged breaches of the requirements of good faith or due diligence were amenable to a judicial review in the proceedings under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure governing complaints about unlawful actions of State officials."], "id": "451c61c8-9845-4fea-bbf8-425bc8294f4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant submitted that no actions could have been taken in respect of his after the application of the interim measure by the Court. Therefore, there had been no grounds for his detention after 17 June 2016. The applicant furthermore referred to the case of Azimov v. Russia (cited above), where the Court had found that the suspension of the domestic proceedings owing to the indication of an interim measure by the Court should not result in a situation where the applicant in question remained in detention for an unreasonably long period. The applicant also noted that the absence from the court\u2019s decisions of any time-limit for his detention demonstrated that his detention had been arbitrary. Referring to the case of Azimov, the applicant also submitted that under Russian law, the maximum deprivation of liberty for an administrative offence was thirty days and that detention with a view to expulsion should not be punitive in nature, unlike in his case, in which the \u201cpreventative\u201d measure in question had been much graver than the \u201cpunitive\u201d one stipulated in law."], "id": "1f37e46d-02e7-4868-a51d-3aca38db9645", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government submitted that the measures taken against the first applicant pursued a legitimate aim and were necessary. The Contracting States were entitled to expel an alien regardless of his or her level of integration. The first applicant\u2019s removal from Bulgaria would not impose a disproportionate burden on the applicants, because they would be able to continue their family life outside the country. The circumstances in which the first applicant\u2019s had been ordered showed that the authorities had not failed to strike a balance between the applicants\u2019 rights and the public interest; they had carried out their duty to protect public order and national security. The expulsion order had not yet been put into effect, and the applicants\u2019 family life could not therefore be regarded as already affected by it. The first applicant\u2019s detention pending removal had not been disproportionate either, because the other applicants had been able to visit him in custody."], "id": "d31c0241-77b9-4a75-b2dc-0c70d1ff5985", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants argued that their detention under section 54(1)b of the Third Country Nationals Act had been unlawful in that it could not serve the purpose of securing their , since they had arrived in Hungary under the Dublin II procedure \u2013 rather than illegally \u2013 as asylum seekers, which had constituted a legal obstacle to their expulsion. The non-viability of their expulsion was also reflected by the fact that it was eventually suspended on account of technical difficulties. In any event, their detention could not possibly be longer than six months (cf. section 54(4) of the Third Country Nationals Act) whereas the pending asylum proceedings had been very unlikely to finish in this time frame, given the statistics."], "id": "59cf982a-8230-4d16-80e3-b3f93ed53448", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant further argued that in examining his case the Russian authorities had disregarded his specific submissions concerning his religious and political persecution and relevant reports by independent NGOs, and had relied solely on \u201cofficial sources of information\u201d. The courts' conclusion that the applicant had voluntarily left Tajikistan was at variance with his consistent submissions that he had fled because of his persecution on religious grounds and the ill-treatment sustained in custody. Referring to other cases against Russia concerning and extradition and pending before the Court, the applicant insisted that the Russian courts consistently adopted the same formalistic approach in dealing with such complaints, which showed that the remedies suggested by the Government were ineffective in practice."], "id": "b27a63e3-5a85-4136-a152-3a3c5cdab113", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government claimed, firstly, that the applicant had not been resident in Russia because he had flown in from Cyprus. Secondly, they alleged that his visa had no longer been valid and his residence had therefore been unlawful, referring to the Commission\u2019s decision in the Voulfouvitch and Oulianova v. Sweden case (no. 19373/92, Commission decision of 13 January 1993). Thirdly, they maintained that the decision on the applicant\u2019s exclusion had been taken \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d, namely section 27 \u00a7 1 of the Entry Procedure Act, and that an alien could be expelled before being able to exercise his procedural rights if this was necessary \u201cin the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security\u201d. The Government did not state the reasons underlying the decision, referring to \u201cgenerally accepted international practice\u201d. They lastly pointed out that the right to admit aliens to its territory was a universally recognised sovereign right of a State."], "id": "e657fe56-66b9-4606-9ad7-d6ff8432456d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["240. The applicant, relying on the \u010conka judgment (cited above), submitted that he had been the subject of a collective operation. In his view, the intention of the authorities had been to deal with a group of individuals, namely Syrian Kurds, collectively. This had been evident from all the circumstances of the case. The relevant meetings that had been held by the authorities concerned the handling of the situation of Syrian Kurdish failed asylum-seekers. The Minister of the Interior had given instructions to proceed with the deportation of Syrian Kurdish failed asylum-seekers with the exception of those who were Ajanib or Mahtoumeen. The police had been instructed to use discreet methods of arrest and execute the deportation orders starting with the leaders of the protest. As a result, the police had carried out an operation on 11 June 2010 against the whole group of protesters, including women and children. According to the Government only those whose asylum applications had still been pending were released. The rest had been kept in detention pending deportation. However, in reality, the asylum procedure had not been completed for the applicant as well as a number of other protesters whom the Government had intended to deport. If it had not been for the application of Rule 39 by the Court they would all have been deported. In fact, some of the protesters had been released by the authorities following the application of Rule 39 and had had their deportation orders annulled. The applicant also noted that the authorities had issued deportation orders against stateless Syrian Kurds and that some of the asylum-seekers concerned had had their asylum applications dismissed purely on procedural grounds without having benefited from an examination of the merits of their claim."], "id": "7d8adbd1-e19a-4852-b5f6-cb4bf11d622a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government of Georgia reiterated the arguments submitted in Georgia v. Russia (I) (cited above) and referred to the reports of international organisations mentioned in the judgment. It further maintained that the of the present applicants had been based on their national and ethnic origin and not on their situation under the immigration rules of the Russian Federation."], "id": "6128bfe8-817c-4700-a3ed-7ef9787cabbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants alleged a breached of Article 3 of the Convention on account of their forced from their village. They had mentally suffered as a result of the actions of the members of security forces, who had burned their family houses. Under Article 8 of the Convention, they complained about the destruction of their property. Furthermore, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they maintained that the destruction of their houses and their forced eviction from the village had violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The provisions of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention are set out above at paragraph 59, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "2d4df74a-b8de-4e8c-810c-469cabfddedd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["11. The Government argued that the application should be declared inadmissible because the applicants had not submitted to the domestic courts all those arguments about the alleged unlawfulness of their detention which they had submitted to the Court; in particular, before the Ny\u00edrb\u00e1tor District Court, they had not specifically argued under section 54(4b) of the Third Country Nationals Act that their detention should be terminated since their could not be executed. Moreover, they had not introduced a motion under section 20 of the Administrative Procedure Act which would have been a judicial remedy capable of redressing their grievances."], "id": "2c5aff9e-c95f-4529-bbee-659fb16d6c4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained that his to Syria, if carried out, would be in breach of his right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment provided in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. He also complained, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he had not had at his disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 2 and 3. The relevant provisions read as follows:"], "id": "cf9470c2-ba6a-4843-ab27-dfbbd6ab3844", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["376. The applicant further complained under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the destruction of his and the Orhans' home, property and possessions represented a serious violation of their right to respect for their private and family lives and their homes and of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. He also argued that his from his home, village and community represented a separate and serious violation of his rights under these provisions. The Government disputed that there was any such military operation in Deveboyu as alleged or at all."], "id": "08e88cb8-5243-4bbb-98d5-8907fb99c780", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant further submitted that there existed the administrative practice of substituting for extradition which was based on an unpublished order of the Moscow Region prosecutor, no. 86/81 of 3 July 2009, which provided that in every case of release of a detained individual because his extradition was impossible, it was mandatory to decide on his administrative expulsion from Russia. The applicant therefore maintained that his expulsion had been ordered to secure his rendition to the Uzbekistani authorities, that is to prevent him from being released and to secure either expulsion or extradition, as the case might be, and that his allegations of the risk of ill-treatment had not been thoroughly examined in the administrative expulsion proceedings."], "id": "4f274564-a0ff-4014-a10c-fea1336467ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government submitted that the allegation of religious persecution against the applicant had been checked by the migration authorities when examining his refugee application and had been rejected as unfounded. The migration authorities had relied on the statement from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that there was no risk of ill-treatment for persons who committed criminal offences in Uzbekistan. The Government noted, however, that the applicant had not raised his complaint under Article 3 before the district judge who had ordered his . With reference to assurances from the Uzbek authorities and Uzbek legislation (see paragraphs 75 and 77 above), the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to any ill-treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "dcfe4153-459d-4d6b-90d3-da1dc8646b38", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant\u2019s representative argued that his allegations of a risk of ill-treatment had not been examined by the Russian authorities. She relied on several reports by United Nations agencies and international and regional organisations and argued that the applicant had run and continued to run a risk of torture in Uzbekistan on account of his religious beliefs. She gave examples of cases when Muslim detainees had been ill-treated, and in certain cases killed, because of their religious beliefs, or unjustifiably subjected to disciplinary penalties such as placement in punishment cells without food or water, in particular because of their attempts to pray. She also referred to recent reports on the allegedly appalling conditions of detention and the lack of monitoring of detention facilities in Uzbekistan. The applicant\u2019s representative also relied on the third-party interveners\u2019 submissions before the Court in the cases of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005\u2011I) and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008). According to the applicant\u2019s representative, the applicant\u2019s had been in fact \u201can extradition in disguise\u201d, as a result of which the applicant had been convicted of the offences in respect of which the Russian authorities had refused extradition. The applicant had been expelled in flagrant violation of Russian law before his appeals against the expulsion order and the dismissal of his refugee application could be examined. Besides, no diplomatic assurances had been obtained from the Uzbek authorities in the present case and, even if they had been obtained, they could not have been effective in the context of an administrative expulsion formally unrelated to any pending criminal proceedings against an applicant. With reference to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia (no. 36378/02, ECHR 2005\u2011III), it was argued that the respondent Government\u2019s failure to comply with an indication under Rule 39 should not necessarily prevent the Court from examining on the merits a complaint under Article 3. Otherwise, it would be less burdensome for a respondent State to remove an applicant from its territory in cases in which Rule 39 was applied and to be held in violation of Article 34 of the Convention than to comply with Rule 39 and to be found to have breached Article 3 and/or Article 6."], "id": "0a3723e8-f13e-4cdd-92bc-a84cf83a878e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant did not question before the Court the lawfulness of his detention in the extradition proceedings from 17 April to 17 October 2013. As regards the detention imposed in the proceedings, he admitted that he had violated the immigration rules and failed to register his residence in Russia within the statutory time-limit, but claimed that the authorities had become aware of that fact on 17 April 2013, when he was arrested and found not to have a passport. However, it was not until six months later that the prosecutor instituted expulsion proceedings against him. The applicant claimed that the real purpose of the expulsion proceedings was to keep him under the authorities\u2019 control in order to organise by any means his return to the country which sought his extradition. Other than the requirement that the expulsion order be executed within the two-year time-limit, the Code of Administrative Offences did not contain any provisions governing the length of detention pending expulsion and therefore lacked legal certainty. Moreover, the relevant provisions were open to the interpretation that by the expiry of that two-year time-limit the applicant would again be liable to expulsion and, consequently, to detention on that ground. Lastly, the applicant claimed that such a long stay in detention significantly exceeded the maximum custodial sentence permissible under the Code of Administrative Offences and that his detention pending expulsion was of a punitive, rather than preventive, nature."], "id": "77d85f7e-6711-4f30-9365-e3edf6d548d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government argued that the detention period in proceedings was too short to be susceptible to judicial review. In this relation the Court observes that on 7 June 2005 the applicant was detained for a period of ten days, thus the maximum period for which an official of the State Border Guard Control could detain an alien without a judicial decision, irrespective of the grounds on which the detention had been ordered. The Court emphasises that where detention is ordered by an administrative authority for a period of several days, Article 5 \u00a7 4 requires an opportunity to challenge it before a judicial authority (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamsa v. Poland, nos. 45355/99 and 45357/99, \u00a7 59, 27 November 2003, and \u010conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, \u00a7 55, ECHR 2002\u2011I. Accordingly the Court dismisses the Government\u2019s argument."], "id": "ca52c0f2-c048-4956-af8e-a826245a22e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["129. The applicants listed the following elements as the basis for their complaint under this head: verbal abuse and physical violence by the detention centre staff, limited privacy, limited access to an interpreter and legal aid, lack of opportunity to take walks and have outdoor exercise, and a lack of medical treatment. They referred to their complaints and the affidavits made by themselves and to their representatives. They believed that the cumulative effect of these factors amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. They also referred to the Courts\u2019 previous findings of a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of confinement in detention centres for foreign nationals pending and argued that conditions there, as a rule, were substandard to the requirements of the Convention."], "id": "3b1b4f0b-e012-491e-bbe6-988786ec6600", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government further noted that the applicant had not been admitted to a social therapy in Erlangen Prison as that prison had considered that in view of the enforceable order against him, the applicant could not be accepted for treatment under the administrative rules relating to section 9 of the Execution of Sentences Act (see paragraph 38 above). A therapy could not attain its aims in those circumstances as its key elements comprised preparations of the detainee for release, including the search for a job, and an offer of care after his release which could not be realised if the detainee was not to reside in Germany after his release. In any event, given the applicant\u2019s dangerousness, relaxations in the conditions of his detention, which were also part of the social therapy, had not been possible, irrespective of his foreign nationality."], "id": "49c2d535-f0aa-4931-af0d-9d6466f97511", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["144. The applicants stressed that the court decisions did not stipulate the maximum length of this detention. Other than the requirement that the order be executed within the two-year time-limit, the Code of Administrative Offences did not contain any provisions governing the length of detention pending expulsion, and therefore lacked legal certainty. Moreover, there was a conflict between the position of the Federal Bailiff Service, which was of the opinion that the expulsion could not be carried out and sought to amend the relevant court decisions, and the court decisions confirming the validity of the measure ordered (see paragraphs 15-17 above). Lastly, the applicants claimed that such a long stay in detention significantly exceeded the maximum custodial sentence permissible under the Code of Administrative Offences, and that their detention pending expulsion was of a punitive rather than preventive nature."], "id": "6cc8fc98-bdb8-4bfb-92bb-5bf736668348", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government emphasised that Hungarian law did not prohibit the or the ensuing alien policing detention of applicants for asylum per se. It only provided, in accordance with EU law, that no one could be detained on the sole ground of being an asylum seeker. However, the applicants were not detained because they were asylum seekers. Their illegal first entry to Hungary and continued journey to the Netherlands with the assistance of traffickers had posed a threat to the public order warranting their expulsion and detention \u2013 even if the deportation could not be enforced until the completion of the asylum proceedings."], "id": "56f9ee00-0a67-448d-92d5-912dac469837", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["227. The Government did not accept that Article 5 could be relied in an case (the Court had doubted that it could be in Tomic v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 17837/03, 14 October 2003). Even if it could, no issue arose in the present case because the applicant would not be detained for a lengthy period before being brought before a court. SIAC had found that it was likely he would be brought before a \u201cjudicial authority\u201d within 48 hours, even if this were only a prosecutor with judicial status. The report of Mr Al-Khalili and Mr Najdawi confirmed that the Public Prosecutor was a judicial officer; they had also reported that the 48 hour period in which the police had to notify the legal authorities of any arrest had been reduced to 24 hours (see paragraphs 95 and 96 above). SIAC had also found that extensions of detention up to fifty days were unlikely to be sought (see paragraph 41 above). Both of SIAC\u2019s findings had been upheld by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. In the House of Lords, Lord Phillips had also found that 50 days\u2019 detention fell far short of a flagrant breach of Article 5 (see paragraph 58 above) and, although they did not accept that detention for fifty days was likely, the Government relied upon his conclusion."], "id": "8a2430f5-39fd-453b-8509-b76ee8875bad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government argued that the application should be declared inadmissible because the applicants had failed to bring their claim concerning the alleged unlawfulness of their detention before any of the Hungarian authorities either prior to or after the termination of their detention. In particular, they had not challenged their in court or requested judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention. Furthermore, they had failed to avail themselves of a remedy under section 20 of the Administrative Procedure Act, by virtue of which it could have been clarified whether the asylum authority\u2019s failure to initiate their release had indeed been contrary to the law. Lastly, the applicants could have sought the determination of the unlawfulness of their detention and the payment of compensation for it in an official liability action under section 349 of the Civil Code, but they had not done so."], "id": "6938a3c1-4071-42ad-99da-8391ac82e0e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant submitted that Russian law does not provide for any possibility to obtain a meaningful judicial review of the detention of an individual who is detained pending administrative (he referred, by way of comparison, to Tabesh v. Greece, no. 8256/07, \u00a7 62, 26 November 2009). Such detention may last up to two years but there is no periodic judicial review of it. His applications for review were dismissed in a summary fashion first by the Sestroretsk Town Court and later by the Krasnoselskiy District Court. In both cases, the St Petersburg City Court upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions."], "id": "c5a2001f-1ef4-4acd-901f-0233fa2188c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["141. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged breaches of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. He submitted that his impending to Lebanon, entailing a risk for his life, and the lack of procedural safeguards in that regard, had caused him stress, fear and a sense of helplessness. He claimed a further EUR 20,000 in respect of the alleged breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, emphasising the excessive duration of his detention in poor conditions. He claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of an alleged breach of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, submitting that he suffered frustration on account of the lack of speedy and effective judicial review of his detention. Lastly, he claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of the alleged breaches of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, submitting that the formal manner in which the courts had reviewed the order for his expulsion and the impossibility for him to lead a normal life in Bulgaria, even if released from detention, had given rise to feelings of injustice and humiliation."], "id": "1cade678-56a5-423d-b202-667fa88358d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["260. The applicants alleged that it had not been possible for them to submit to the Italian authorities a complaint about the degrading conditions to which they had been subjected during their deprivation of liberty. They added that the refusal-of-entry orders had provided for the possibility of an appeal, within a period of sixty days, to the Agrigento Justice of the Peace. However, such a remedy would not have stayed the execution of the removal. The applicants argued that it was clear from the Court\u2019s case-law (they referred in particular to Hirsi Jamaa and Others, cited above, \u00a7 206) that the suspensive nature of a remedy was, in such matters, a condition of its effectiveness. That was merely a logical consequence of the hermeneutic principle that, to be effective, Convention provisions must be interpreted in a manner which guaranteed rights that were practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory. In the applicants\u2019 view, the assessment of the lawfulness of the must therefore take place before the measure is enforced."], "id": "feee5ca2-fd29-4ede-a954-e40b30efaaa2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["112. The applicant complained that the domestic authorities, both administrative and judicial, had failed to consider effectively his arguments concerning the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, and that the domestic courts had confirmed the validity of the order before the completion of the asylum proceedings. He further complained that he had not had effective domestic remedies at his disposal against the inhuman and degrading detention conditions. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "bc9a8706-8ba0-4cd1-bca8-1768c868a643", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government further submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations about the risk of ill-treatment in the event of execution of the order of 18 October 2013 were speculative and \u201ccould not be considered by the [domestic] court during the administrative proceedings\u201d. Nevertheless, they had been thoroughly reviewed and found to be unsubstantiated by the Moscow City Court. In any event, the expulsion order did not specify that the applicant was to be expelled to Uzbekistan, but merely stated that he was to be removed from the territory of the Russian Federation. The Government concluded that a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention had not been convincingly established."], "id": "a89990cc-66ad-4848-9e93-22c55828e928", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["148. The Government first of all suggest distinguishing two separate procedures \u2013 the as a result of conviction and the expulsion as a result of the breach of the administrative provisions regarding the entrance and stay of foreigners in Latvia. The Government state that in the present case the applicant was expelled as a result of the breach of the afore-mentioned administrative provisions."], "id": "66b54149-3b6b-45a5-9180-c7166d1ff345", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicants submitted that Mr Raza\u2019s deprivation of liberty was unlawful because it had lasted an unreasonably long time. At the material time Bulgarian law, in breach of the applicable European standards, did not limit the duration of detention pending deportation. Save for sending several letters to the Pakistani embassy, the authorities had done nothing to expedite Mr Raza\u2019s . Given that he had a family, a place to live and financial means to support himself, and could be kept under police supervision, there had been no need to keep him in custody for so long."], "id": "237531c9-1d8f-4c82-b435-f92cdc78aeb1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant argued that his detention under section 54(1)(b) of the Third Country Nationals Act had been unlawful in that it could not serve the purpose of securing his , since he had submitted an asylum application on arrival and these pending proceedings had constituted a legal obstacle to his expulsion. In any event, his detention could not possibly be longer than six months (cf. section 54(4) of the Third Country Nationals Act) whereas those pending proceedings had been very unlikely to finish in this time frame, given the statistics."], "id": "29284efb-48d3-42a1-82e8-bf68e0236d88", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["402. The applicants submitted that the deliberate destruction of their homes, property and possessions and the resulting arbitrary from their homes and village represented a serious violation of their right to respect for private and family life and of their right to respect for their home, as well as a serious interference with their way of life. They further claimed that the destruction of their homes and family life was part of a practice and that, therefore, they had suffered an aggravated violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "a6e5e427-de7e-4013-95bc-8ab314d200ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["174. The applicant admitted that he had failed to regularise his stay in Russia before his arrest in March 2012 and had therefore violated the migration laws. He also conceded that the authorities had become aware of that fact upon his arrest on 17 March 2012. He argued, however, that as the authorities had taken no measures in this regard while he was in custody pending extradition, they had then abused their powers by ordering his detention within the framework of administrative proceedings solely with a view to ensuring his return to Uzbekistan notwithstanding the refusal of the extradition request. The applicant considered that his detention pending administrative removal had in any event been unlawful, as the Code of Administrative Offences set no time-limits for such detention. Even though the execution of the decision on his administrative removal had been suspended on account of the application of Rule 39 by the Court, in the applicant\u2019s view this did not remedy the absence of clear provisions in domestic law governing such detention. With reference to Azimov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 172-73, the applicant argued that detention pending must not exceed the maximum term for detention as an administrative penalty, as otherwise it constituted a punitive rather than preventive measure."], "id": "37012080-ee46-44d2-b322-90c8e66d1f05", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations that he risked ill-treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan had been considered by the national authorities and dismissed on sufficient grounds. Referring to the decisions of the prosecution and immigration authorities and the domestic courts in the course of the extradition and proceedings, the Government asserted that his claims had been duly reviewed and found to be devoid of substance. In their opinion, the assurances presented to the Russian authorities by the Uzbekistani authorities were sufficient and compatible with the countries\u2019 international obligations and domestic legal developments. As regards the expulsion proceedings, the expulsion order did not specify that the applicant was to be taken to Uzbekistan, but merely stated that he was to be removed from the territory of the Russian Federation. The Government concluded that a risk of the applicant\u2019s treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention had not been convincingly established."], "id": "708aaad2-73b4-4038-adb2-77b26fb93bda", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government further contested that the applicant had not been offered any suitable treatment in Straubing Prison in view of the enforceable order against him. Having regard to the findings of the experts consulted by the courts, in particular those made by expert A. in his reports dated 15 October 1996 and 20 June 1997, the applicant should first have completed a social therapy in prison in order to ensure that he was motivated to undergo further treatment before making a therapy for sexual offenders. The applicant, however, had repeatedly rejected offers for a suitable therapy made to him. In particular, between 1997 and 1999 he had refused participating in a psychoanalytic discussion group for sexual offenders offered in Straubing Prison which would have been appropriate to start his treatment. In March 2003 he had confirmed that he was unwilling to apply for a therapy for sexual offenders."], "id": "9f108484-0994-428b-824f-0e74e9fc2139", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicants argued that the question of their to Syria had been considered and decided primarily within the framework of the administrative proceedings, in which they had submitted extensive documents and arguments pointing to the danger of a violation of Articles 2 and 3 in the event of their return. The judicial decisions of 15 and 16 April and 27 May 2014 had failed to take these arguments into account and had made no effort to dispel them. In the April hearings in the District Court, they had raised their fears of returning to Syria. During the hearing of 27 May 2014, they had submitted extensive and detailed information about the conflict there and the danger they would face if returned. These documents included UNHCR and FMS documents, other relevant information and their own detailed statements. The applicants stressed that L.M. was a stateless Palestinian and was therefore in particular need of international protection, while A.A. and M.A. were from Aleppo, where fierce fighting had been raging since 2013. A.M specified in addition that several of his family members had been killed by the opposition forces. Following the decision taken at that hearing, the decisions to expel them had entered into force."], "id": "2529a3e3-f7bc-47d4-9e3e-b7f6f2e727cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government submitted that the applicant was apprehended on 22 October 2006 by officers of the Department of the Interior of the Kuzminski district of Moscow and was brought before the Kuzminskiy District Court on 23 October 2006. The court fined the applicant for not observing the applicable registration procedure and ordered the applicant\u2019s . The Government also stated that neither the Federal Migration Service nor the Department of the Ministry of the Interior had any records or information about any subsequent detention of the applicant and that the applicant was not forcibly removed from the Russian Federation, but left on his own on 24 October 2006."], "id": "136c6b37-d839-48e1-acaf-b1a10bbfaa8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicant replied that the Government failed to say anything about the risk that he faced in Lebanon. As for their reliance on section 44a, there existed no mechanism to ensure its effective application. The only opportunity for him to invoke that provision to prevent his to Lebanon had been in the proceedings for judicial review of the expulsion order. However, the Supreme Administrative Court had held that the point was irrelevant. In any event, the only procedure in which the applicant could prove that he risked death or ill\u2011treatment were asylum proceedings. When examining his asylum request, the State Refugees Agency had found that risk to be real, based as it was on the applicant\u2019s personal circumstances and the general situation in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. On that account it had granted him humanitarian protection. The risk could therefore be regarded as established. However, he could not benefit from such protection, as he fell within the exclusion clauses of sections 4(4) and 67(3) of the Asylum and Refugees Act of 2002."], "id": "a2fc7ecc-780d-44ea-acee-688590990584", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["126. The applicant submitted that there was no indication that the authorities had been actively pursuing his or that it was at all possible. The only thing that the authorities had done had been to contact the Lebanese embassy in Sofia with a view to obtaining travel documents for the applicant to allow him to enter Lebanon. They had not tried to contact the embassies of any safe third countries. In the applicant\u2019s view, detention pending deportation should be allowed to reach the maximum eighteen\u2011month period allowed by law only in exceptional cases."], "id": "5dc85ec8-44f9-4ee1-8ee4-f2a9f1de0b9b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant submitted that the Russian authorities had not conducted the proceedings with due diligence. This lack of due diligence on their part was exemplified in several ways. Firstly, no effort had been made to contact the Uzbek authorities in the first four months and eleven days of his detention. Secondly, the Russian authorities had sent no fewer than four letters to the Embassy of Uzbekistan in Moscow, but a first reply was received more than one year and two months after the despatch of the first letter. Thirdly, there had been no justification for the applicant\u2019s detention after 5 February 2013, when the Russian authorities had become aware that he was not an Uzbek national. Finally, the applicant pointed out that he had been kept in detention pending expulsion: thus, there had been no complex extradition proceedings and the only issue to be determined had been whether at least one State was willing and able to receive him."], "id": "392b5845-7d71-4ed0-8755-d654322f51a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant submitted that he had raised the issue of his risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if returned to Uzbekistan in the extradition, and refugee-status proceedings, advancing a number of specific arguments, such as an increased risk of ill-treatment of persons who were, as was the applicant, accused of participation in a banned religious activity. The Russian courts failed to analyse the nature of the charges against the applicant, disregarded the link between the charges and the risk of ill-treatment and did not examine the information from various international organisation and from the Court\u2019s judgments. The applicant rejected the Government\u2019s argument that the decision on his administrative removal did not necessarily mean that he would be expelled to Uzbekistan. No other possibility had ever been discussed in the course of the administrative proceedings and, furthermore, there was no reason to believe that any other country would be willing to accept him. His placement in the detention facility foreclosed the possibility of his voluntary and independent departure from Russia and prevented him from choosing the country of destination."], "id": "46407987-1cf2-4855-bf1c-dabe811e30c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government submitted that the detention pending had been lawful, as it had been ordered by a court, and that even though no time-limit for the applicant\u2019s detention had been set, the maximum duration of an administrative penalty was two years. The applicant could seek supervisory review of the expulsion and ensuing detention orders in the event of a significant change in their circumstances."], "id": "92b4576e-5b8a-410e-87ca-b056c308f1eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicants did not comment on the effects of the enforcement of the order for the first applicant\u2019s on their family life. They submitted that the first applicant\u2019s detention, which had lasted in total more than twenty\u2011two months, had been in breach of their right to respect for their family life, because it had been unlawful, in particular because of the first applicant\u2019s refugee status; too lengthy; unnecessary; and not subject to judicial review. The first applicant had at all times remained at the authorities\u2019 disposal and had not tried to flee. He could have been simply required to report to the police on a daily basis instead of being detained. That would have allowed him to remain with his family and to take care of his minor children."], "id": "c2adc248-da11-435c-ac5a-aec3e91247a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicant finally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 that she had not been allowed to exercise the procedural safeguards against her extradition. The Court notes that, according to Explanatory Report on Protocol No. 7, this provision uses the concept of \u201cin a generic sense as meaning any measure compelling the departure of an alien from the territory but does not include extradition\u201d (ETS no. 117, \u00a7 10). Since in the present case the applicant was subject to extradition proceedings, Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 finds no application. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4."], "id": "42f6b4a9-4126-4e87-8a07-894bceecf896", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["126. The Government contested the amount claimed by the applicant in respect of pecuniary damage for loss of earnings. They stressed that it was uncertain whether the applicant would have found a job after his long detention and that, in view of the final order against him, he could only legally have worked in Romania where he could have earned only a much lower salary."], "id": "fbfdddfb-fe9e-4fa7-9fcc-6af1122fb5f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s was justified in the light of the European Parliament\u2019s Resolution on Cults in Europe of 29 February 1996, in which it had expressed concern over certain cults \u201cengaging in activities of an illicit or criminal nature and in violations of human rights, such as maltreatment, sexual abuse, unlawful detention, slavery, the encouragement of aggressive behaviour or propagation of racist ideologies, tax fraud, illegal transfers of funds, trafficking in arms or drugs, violation of labour laws, the illegal practice of medicine\u201d. The Government also referred to the same effect to Recommendation 1178 (1992) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on sects and new religious movements and the Committee of Ministers\u2019 supplementary reply to that Recommendation, adopted on 17 February 1994 (doc. 7030). The Government inferred from those documents that States had the right and obligation to exercise vigilance and caution in such sensitive matters as spreading religious teachings. The applicant\u2019s activity as a coordinator of Rev. Moon\u2019s groups had been merely a \u201cmotive\u201d rather than a \u201cground\u201d for the Russian authorities \u201cto exercise vigilance and make use of existing legal instruments\u201d. The grounds for the applicant\u2019s exclusion were the results of the operational and search measures as reflected in the report by the Stavropol Regional Branch of the Federal Security Service, dated 18 February 2002, concerning the banning of the applicant from the Russian Federation. As the Moscow City Court had pointed out in its judgment of 25 March 2003, the applicant\u2019s activities in the Russian territory were \u201cof a destructive nature and pose[d] a threat to the security of the Russian Federation\u201d. The Government emphasised that the threat resulted from the applicant\u2019s activities rather than his religious beliefs."], "id": "aa1124fa-622f-4d0b-a88f-799fee155fb8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["133. The applicant submitted that even if removal had in fact been possible in the circumstances of the case, the duration of her detention had been excessive. It had become possible for the immigration authorities to deport the applicant from 11 February 2011. She considered that the fact that she had been serving a sentence of imprisonment for part of the time after that date (from 17 February to 16 June 2011) should not, in itself, have been an obstacle to the initiation of removal proceedings. Indeed, Article 14 (2) of the Act allowed the Minister to order the from Malta of a person serving a prison sentence, prior to the completion of such sentence."], "id": "a76633e3-b4dd-4b26-a525-016d2640a4b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["163. The applicant, however, argued that the real purpose of that last detention order had been to keep him detained after the maximum period of detention pending extradition had expired, and that the authorities had used proceedings as a pretext to circumvent the requirements of the law. The first question before the Court is therefore whether or not the authorities acted in good faith when detaining the applicant within the expulsion proceedings."], "id": "890fd125-b30e-496f-a853-f6f2fd34c73b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicant submitted that on 7 October 2006, after her husband Tengiz Kbilashvili, who is also an applicant (application no. 14597/07), had been deported, she went to the local passport department, to arrange her departure from the Russian Federation. In the local passport department her passport was taken from her and she was transferred to a militia department for detention. Later that day, she was transferred to the Centre for Temporary Detention of Aliens no. 2, where she was detained until her on 17 October 2006."], "id": "fa20db99-dc49-4113-bb42-7a048b3a103b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["161. The Government is of the opinion that the order on the applicant's from Latvia has been issued \u201cin accordance with law\u201d. Moreover, the Government underline that whether the judgment of the Riga Regional Court had or had not come into force was of no legal relevance since the applicant was not expelled on the basis of the judgment."], "id": "3772b2f4-80d7-4446-beb7-28dbf4332f88", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government argued first that this provision was not applicable because since 20 January 2005 the applicant could not be considered \u201clawfully resident\u201d in the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. In this respect they noted that on 20 January 2005 he had lost the right to lawfully reside in the territory of Latvia, and that the subsequent withdrawal of the applicant\u2019s permanent residence permit and his were merely the legal consequence of the decision of the Minister of Interior of 20 January 2005 to include the applicant in the blacklist."], "id": "84ced16d-ec8b-4e75-93b7-1154a0bc676c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant initially submitted that at the end of September 2006 she had submitted her passport and several other documents to her University, for the renewal of her registration. On 8 October 2006 she received a call from the University, informing her that there were problems with her passport and that she had to go to the Presninski Passport Department. When she went there the next day, she was notified about a decision to expel her, owing to her visa-related offence in 2004. On 11 October 2006 she returned to the passport department to prove that she was an internally deplaced person and had a right to stay in the Russian Federation. In the evening on the same day she was taken to the Presninski District Court, which confirmed her . Subsequently she was brought to the Police Department of the Presninski District, where she was detained until midnight. During the following hours the police attempted to bring her to several different detention centres, where she was not admitted as they were already full or only for men or for convicted persons. At around 6 o\u2019clock in the morning of 11 October 2006 she was admitted to a Women\u2019s Immigration Reception Centre, near Butirskaia prison, and was detained until her expulsion. On 17 October 2006 the applicant was brought to Domodedova airport and flown to Georgia by an aircraft belonging to the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Russian Federation."], "id": "2b1ec7cc-3ab8-4e47-b8d3-a1e12a1f2878", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government submitted that the applicant had been residing in Russia illegally since 1 September 2013, using his brother\u2019s passport, and he had not taken any steps to legalise his status in the country for several years. His complaint under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention should be dismissed for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In particular, he had not appealed against the removal decision issued by the court on 12 May 2015, even though his right to appeal had been explicitly noted in the text of the decision. Furthermore, the applicant\u2019s arguments concerning his poor knowledge of the Russian language and his lack of understanding of the proceedings were inaccurate and contradictory, since he had been assisted by an interpreter during the expulsion hearing, had resided and worked in Russia since 2013, and his application for temporary asylum had been submitted in Russian. Moreover, even assuming that a lawyer had assisted him in submitting his request for temporary asylum, that lawyer could also have asked to restore the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the expulsion decision at that time. However, he had only done so on 12 February 2016 and the appeal court had refused his request, stating that the expulsion decision had been served on the applicant on the day when it had been issued, and the lack of any action on the part of the applicant was unjustified. Moreover, the applicant had not appealed against the immigration authorities\u2019 refusal to grant him temporary asylum. Lastly, his request for refugee status had been ongoing at the time of his application to the Court."], "id": "2c6e9a0d-879f-4712-8891-9d04b49bda83", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant further submitted that Article 5 had been breached in that he had persistently been refused a social therapy in view of his impending as an Austrian national or in view of his age. He had therefore been refused any suitable therapy in Germany. At the same time, his preventive detention had not been suspended and he had not been expelled as the domestic courts had considered that there was a risk that he might reoffend as he had not completed a therapy. Under these circumstances, his continued preventive detention was disproportionate."], "id": "89a5b25d-09e0-476b-a62e-53ccd738c03e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government considered that the applicant had not acted in good faith but had abused his right of petition as he had submitted to the Court information concerning his proceedings only selectively. They noted, in particular, that he had failed to inform the Court about his alleged loss of his passport and his further attempts to hinder the completion of the expulsion proceedings, including his refusal to fill out the necessary forms for identity documents to be issued. He had been aware of the fact that the Russian authorities had not accepted the solution suggested by the Estonian authorities that the latter issue the applicant a temporary travel document."], "id": "c0ea5c44-7974-4a81-88b6-e3e99a4b3a53", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["151. The Government further submit that the applicant's from Latvia did not limit his access to court as he could rectify the deficiency of his complaint and continue the proceedings before the Central District Court of the City of Riga through his lawyer. In case the applicant's presence was considered mandatory by the court, it would have summoned him, according to Article 2395 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court's summons would have been a valid basis for issuing a visa to the applicant."], "id": "69fb8e73-a3f7-4150-8f63-d40df5ef347b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["213. The Government noted that the applicant had provided a breakdown of the work performed by his representatives, but had submitted no agreement concerning legal assistance, or other documents setting out their hourly rates. Furthermore, as the applicants\u2019 representatives specialise in cases involving extradition and to the CIS States, the Government expressed doubts as to whether the present case required research and preparation to the extent claimed by the applicant."], "id": "4c231096-29d7-496a-9530-af9ed1b946db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government further argued that the applicant had failed to use the appropriate remedies in respect of each particular decision adopted by the competent State authorities within his proceedings. By relying on the case-law of the Administrative Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court, the Government argued in particular that the expulsion proceedings for the person concerned constituted a \u201cuniform process\u201d and that the administrative court, when examining a particular decision adopted in the course of expulsion proceedings, cannot address each particular decision in isolation. Accordingly, the applicant should have made an application to the administrative courts and should have lodged appeals with the administrative court against the decision adopted by the Minister of Interior on 13 June 2005 (see paragraph 23 above) and the decision adopted by the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs on 11 July 2005 (see paragraph 36 above). The Government further contended that after the legislative changes of 1 July 2005 the applicant had to ask the Minister of Interior for re-examination of the decision to put his name on the blacklist."], "id": "8cf441f7-22f0-48be-9756-f5ca219f9682", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicants argued that their detention was not only arbitrary but did not serve the purpose of ensuring the applicants\u2019 . According to the applicants their detention was based on a xenophobic attitude towards Georgian nationals. Moreover, they submit that they had no practical opportunity to challenge the legality of the action taken against them, since they were denied the right to obtain legal advice and were deported without having the opportunity to challenge the court decisions, with which they were not provided and which were based on deeply flawed proceedings."], "id": "0747787e-ea3d-413f-b435-61620f0ec287", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["223. The Government alleged that no collective had taken place. They observed that the applicants had been returned according to the fast-track procedure provided for in the agreement with Tunisia (see paragraphs 36-40 above), which could be regarded as a \u201creadmission\u201d agreement within the meaning of the Return Directive (see paragraph 41 above). They argued that this agreement had contributed to the repression of migrant smuggling, as called for by the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime. Moreover, Tunisia was a safe country which respected human rights, this being shown by the fact that the applicants had not reported experiencing persecution or violations of their fundamental rights after their return."], "id": "2bdd410e-4840-4d54-83c2-9bac1a2ae39a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that the lawfulness of the period of detention from the date on which it had been ordered and until the date of ought to be presumed. Any alleged breaches of the requirements of good faith or due diligence were amenable to a judicial review in the proceedings under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure governing complaints about unlawful actions of State officials."], "id": "c484e831-aed1-441f-8d4c-5ce113d1d4a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicants were of the view that their detention after the asylum proceedings began (i.e. 10 November 2011) and, at the latest, from the asylum authority\u2019s decision to admit the case to the \u201cin-merit phase\u201d (i.e. after 12 December 2012) had been unlawful. In particular, they submitted that their detention with a view to ensuring the enforcement of the order (section 54 (1) of the Immigration Act) had no longer been justified under the domestic law once they had filed an asylum request, since from then on the expulsion could only take place after a decision by the asylum authority rejecting the request (section 51 (2) of the Immigration Act), and certainly no longer justified once the asylum authority had determined that there was no safe third country (since from then on it was no longer possible for the immigration authority to take steps with a view to the applicants\u2019 expulsion to Serbia in the light of section 51 (1) of the Immigration Act). In these circumstances, the detention should have been terminated (as per section 54 (6) b) of the Immigration Act). In other words, their continued detention notwithstanding the suspension of the deportation process amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty."], "id": "7783ca0f-703d-458a-9d6e-67584b3d7f61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant complained that the real reason for her repatriation was the quarrel that she had had with the commander of Police Precinct no. 19, in violation of her right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention the applicant complained that she had been expelled from Romania although she had been granted a temporary visa valid from 5 to 12 May 2000 and that her had taken place before she had had the opportunity to challenge the measure."], "id": "9d81342f-a6cb-4a3b-8f23-419104dd5afb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his preventive detention was unlawful as he had been refused a social therapy or relaxations in the conditions of his detention in view of his future . However, at the same time his sentence was not suspended because the prosecution authorities argued that he was not impressed by the execution of his sentence and had not changed his attitude towards his offences. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, he further argued that he had suffered discrimination because of his Bulgarian origin as a result of the refusal of the said measures when the order for the execution of his preventive detention was made."], "id": "58f7c6b1-bfa7-446d-86ba-64c2b571a219", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant\u2019s detention had also been necessary for the speedy examination of his asylum request, and because he had posed a danger to public order and security under Article 13 \u00a7 2 (b) and (c) and Article 13 \u00a7 4 of Presidential Decree no. 114/2010. The Government drew the Court\u2019s attention to the fact that, in accordance with the national law, lodging an asylum request suspends the enforcement of an decision but not the enforcement of a detention decision. They referred to a series of judgments against Greece in which the Court had considered that lodging an asylum request did not render detention arbitrary. In any event, the applicant had been released on 13 November 2013, twenty-six days after filing an asylum request. In view of the factors mentioned above, the Government submitted that the domestic authorities\u2019 good faith in relation to the issuance of the decisions on the basis of which the applicant had been detained could not be disputed."], "id": "d8946157-72d3-42eb-97a2-4a1e1ee351e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant complained under Article 6 that he did not understand the charges against him during his deportation. The Court notes that there were no judicial proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s removal from the territory of Ukraine and that any such proceedings would fall outside the scope of Article 6 of the Convention (see Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, \u00a7 40, ECHR 2000\u2011X). Despite its findings that the applicant\u2019s has appearances of extradition in disguise (see paragraph 58 above), the Court considers that this does not preclude it from examining the question of whether the removal of the applicant from the territory of Ukraine, which was formally presented as expulsion, complied with the Convention requirements. Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, the Court decides to examine the problem raised by the applicant under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7, which reads as follows:"], "id": "82eb49e6-7184-43d7-b1c9-337c8dd46095", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicants complained that their to Syria, if carried out, would be in breach of their right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, as provided in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. They also stressed that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of these violations, in breach of Article 13. The provisions read as follows, in so far as relevant:"], "id": "05886b87-f4d5-4668-b6fa-95a6e3a27e36", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["220. The applicants submitted that the key issue in the present case was whether an individual interview was necessary prior to their . They observed in this connection that only two aspects distinguished their case from Hirsi Jamaa and Others (cited above), namely the fact that they had actually been identified and that they had received identical \u201cdeferred refusal-of-entry\u201d orders. Even though the similarity between the orders did not, in itself, lead to the conclusion that there had been a collective expulsion, it was an indication to that effect. In addition, in Sharifi and Others (cited above) the Court had found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 in respect of one of the applicants who had been expelled (Mr Reza Karimi) even though he had been identified, because there was no evidence that, at the time of the identity check, an interpreter or independent legal adviser had been present, those being indications of an individual interview. Where there was evidence of such an interview, however, the Court had excluded any violation of that provision in the cases of M.A. v. Cyprus (no. 41872/10, ECHR 2013); Sultani v. France (no. 45223/05, ECHR 2007-IV); and Andric v. Sweden ((dec.) no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999). In the applicants\u2019 view, to exclude the need for an individual interview would render meaningless the procedural safeguard of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, because an expulsion could be justified purely on the basis that the alien\u2019s nationality \u2013 that is, the fact of belonging to a group \u2013 had been established."], "id": "d6ae1080-e506-4e3d-9d0e-482a71d83b01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["158. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention pending had been lawful within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f). The applicant was detained with a view to enforcement of the court order for his administrative removal from the country under Article 18.8 \u00a7 1 of the CAO. Referring to the reasons given by the courts for the applicant\u2019s expulsion and detention, the Government argued that the expulsion proceedings had nothing to do with the extradition proceedings. The law on detention pending expulsion was sufficiently clear and foreseeable."], "id": "5b920707-379b-442d-8668-298b7447c159", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["146. The Government contended that States have a fundamental right under international law to control the entry, residence and of aliens. Clear language would be required to justify the conclusion that the Contracting States intended through the Convention to give up their ability to protect themselves against a risk to national security created by a non-national. As a matter of ordinary language, \u201caction being taken with a view to deportation\u201d covered the situation where a Contracting State wished to deport an alien, actively kept that possibility under review and only refrained from doing so because of contingent, extraneous circumstances. In Chahal v. the United Kingdom (15 November 1996, Reports 1996\u2011V), a period of detention of over six years, including over three years where the applicant could not be removed because of an interim measure requested by the Commission, was held to be acceptable under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f)."], "id": "d9202072-f063-429f-a61e-9888c873bbaa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant rejected the Government\u2019s argument that the decision on his administrative removal did not necessarily mean that he would be expelled to Uzbekistan. No other possibility had ever been discussed in the course of the administrative proceedings and, furthermore, there was no reason to believe that any other country would be willing to accept him. His placement in the detention facility foreclosed the possibility of his voluntary and independent departure from Russia and prevented him from choosing the country of destination. He disagreed with the Government\u2019s submission that his had been made necessary because of his failure to abide by the Russian migration laws and the absence of family ties in Russia. Article 3 prohibited ill-treatment in absolute terms and there could be no justification for imposing a sanction that would expose him to a real risk of torture."], "id": "90b4c9c4-ae13-4222-82e8-4cb46f33dd6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government admitted that the applicants had been deprived of their liberty for a short period of time. However, that deprivation had been justified under the second limb of sub-paragraph (f) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and effected for the purpose of the applicant\u2019s under supervision from the territory of the Republic of Moldova in accordance with the decision of the BMA to bar them from the territory. The Government also submitted that at the time of their transfer to Turkey the applicants had not opposed being expelled to their country of origin and that they had not claimed that they had risked being tortured or subjected to inhuman treatment if sent to that country. Moreover, the Moldovan authorities had not been in possession of any such information."], "id": "985a4bd4-74e4-4cbb-b89e-2ad199a5c92b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s detention pending had been lawful within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f). The applicant was detained with a view to enforcement of the court order for his administrative removal from the country under Article 18.8 \u00a7 1 of the CAO. Referring to the reasons given by the courts for the applicant\u2019s expulsion and detention, the Government argued that the expulsion proceedings had nothing to do with the extradition proceedings. The law on detention pending expulsion was sufficiently clear and foreseeable. The applicant\u2019s detention was necessary to ensure the administrative removal, because he could have absconded from the authorities if released."], "id": "e306f283-7d97-4f35-baa3-330ec35371da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government maintained that the applicant\u2019s detention had been lawful under domestic law. The only purpose of his detention had been his from Estonia; this was demonstrated by the pertinent court decisions as well as by the other steps taken by the authorities. The applicant\u2019s refusal to co-operate had only extended the period of his detention. The Government pointed out that the feasibility of expulsion could not be assessed on the basis of whether the person concerned wished to leave the country or not. They also emphasised that in 2006 and 2007 the Estonian authorities could legitimately presume that after the entry into force of the EU-Russia readmission agreement on 1 June 2007 there would be an additional basis for the applicant\u2019s expulsion. The Estonian authorities could not have foreseen that the Russian party would not comply with its obligations under that agreement."], "id": "8b55cfcb-75a6-4e9c-80b0-540e3255819c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government provided several documents with regard to administrative proceedings concerning the applicant. These include an administrative offence report from the Leninskiy district dated 13 October 2006, indicating the applicant\u2019s arrest on the same day at 10 o\u2019clock and a decision of the Vidnoye Town Court of the Moscow Region, also dated 13 October 2006, fining the applicant (RUB 1,000) for not observing the applicable registration procedure, and ordering the applicant\u2019s . The Court decision also indicates that the applicant shall be held at the Reception Centre of Serpukhov until his expulsion. Furthermore, the judgment shows a stamp of Domodova airport, dated 17 October 2006."], "id": "4d84c61f-cf33-4d60-a8ce-f50b238f791e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["122. The Government\u2019s case was that the issue of risk would be examined upon the enforcement of the order against the applicant and that the authorities would not remove him from Bulgaria without ensuring that this would not fall foul of the prohibition set out in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 (see paragraph 38 above). However, the Court has already found that there are no guarantees that before proceeding with the expulsion the authorities would subject the applicant\u2019s claims under Article 3 of the Convention to rigorous scrutiny (see paragraphs 105 and 106 above). More importantly, the Government did not point to any procedure whereby the applicant would be able to challenge their assessment of those claims. From the provisions of the Aliens Act 1998 and the regulations for its application it does not appear that it is possible to bring a separate legal challenge against the enforcement of the expulsion order, let alone that there exists an avenue of redress that meets the two requirements set out in paragraph 120 above. The Court would emphasise in that connection that the existence of remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, and that it falls to the respondent State to establish that (see, among other authorities, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, \u00a7 107, ECHR 2010\u2011...)."], "id": "ccfc8409-3ede-4664-b0ce-7704aa56824f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["173. The Government submitted, with a reference to Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, \u00a7 54, 27 September 2011, that administrative removal constituted \u201cexpulsion\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. They further pointed out that under Article 3.10 \u00a7 5 of the Code of Administrative Procedure a judge could place a person subject to administrative removal in custody in a special detention centre, where the person was detained pursuant to section 34 \u00a7 5 of the Foreigners Act until the execution of the decision on administrative removal. The Government also noted that according to the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision no. 6-R of 17 February 1998, a person subject to administrative-removal proceedings could be detained without a court order for up to forty-eight hours. As on 17 September 2012 the applicant had been arrested on the ground of having committed an administrative offence punishable by administrative removal, and on 19 September 2012 the Meshchanskiy District of Moscow had found him guilty of that offence and ordered his administrative removal and detention in a special facility pending the execution of the decision, the applicant\u2019s detention had fully complied with the domestic law. Moreover, when the Court had applied Rule 39, instructing the Russian Federation to suspend the applicant\u2019s to Uzbekistan, the competent authorities had taken measures to comply with the Court\u2019s request."], "id": "39a36dec-a53a-4b53-94d6-31442bf21b41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government submitted that the sums claimed by the first applicant were exorbitant, and that there were no reasons to award anything to the other applicants. They pointed out that the order for the first applicant\u2019s had not been enforced, and said that there was noting to prevent the other applicants from following him to another safe country. In those circumstances, the finding of a violation would amount to sufficient just satisfaction."], "id": "2da2703c-7252-4600-8e63-9e990f46f269", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant claimed that his detention, which commenced on 28 January 2015, had been arbitrary and thus unlawful from the outset. In any event, it would have ceased to be lawful once the proceedings had been suspended. The CAO did not establish any time-limits for detention of persons awaiting administrative removal; the domestic courts had failed to specify any time-limits in their judgments; accordingly, the applicant could not foresee the length of his detention. Noting that his detention had largely exceeded the maximum penalty in the form of deprivation of liberty under the CAO and referring to the case of Azimov v. Russia (no. 67474/11, \u00a7\u00a7 172-73, 18 April 2013), the applicant claimed that his detention pending expulsion was of a punitive nature rather than of a preventive one. The applicant also noted that the Appeal Court had failed to analyse his allegations of the breach of his right to liberty. Lastly, the applicant reiterated that he had had no possibility to initiate judicial review of the lawfulness of his prolonged detention as required by Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "a033bf9d-3a7a-4f82-b077-5a2efd1ac875", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government contended that the applicant had fully exercised his procedural rights, because his complaint against the order of 13 June 2005 had been duly examined by the Head of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs, who had adopted a decision on 11 July 2005. They also argued that Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 did not imply that prior to the expulsion the person concerned ought to be served with a decision reached as a result of the review proceedings."], "id": "a7be8a3b-2289-4cf8-8da0-6409f94d0aa3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "lawful order of a court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government pointed out that the applicant had not been confined to a psychiatric hospital in order to secure treatment for a mental illness or to isolate her from society. Accordingly, her detention had not been ordered in accordance with Article 5 \u00a7 1 (e). Instead, the applicant had been placed in the hospital in order to have her mental capacity evaluated to determine whether she could be held criminally responsible for the criminal actions attributed to her. Taking that into account, the Government argued that the applicant\u2019s confinement to the psychiatric hospital had been justified in order to secure the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law and/or because of non-compliance with the , as provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Convention. They referred in this regard to the admissibility decision in the case of Berli\u0144ski v. Poland ((dec.), nos. 27715/95 and 30209/96, 18 January 2001)."], "id": "f27eb4ba-2aeb-4601-ac5a-a2b4bb2d2a89", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "lawful order of a court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that, following the breach of his bail conditions, the applicant was placed in detention in accordance with the second limb of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (b), namely in order to secure the fulfilment of an obligation that was prescribed by law and was entered into freely. However, the measure applied was also a result of the applicant\u2019s failure to comply with the and also fell under the first limb of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (b). Hence, it was punitive in nature. In such circumstances, there had been no other course of action than to apply the detention prescribed by law."], "id": "1d8ae2a0-d2d1-475d-b3b2-65b1969cf217", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "lawful order of a court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant\u2019s deprivation of liberty clearly did not fall under sub\u2011paragraphs (a), (d), (e) or (f) of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention. Nor could it be said to fall under sub\u2014paragraph (b): there was no evidence of non\u2011compliance with a and the applicant\u2019s detention could not have been to secure the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law because, at the time his arrest, there was no unfulfilled obligation on the applicant (see Vasileva v. Denmark, no. 52792/99, \u00a7 36, 25 September 2003)."], "id": "39637651-10ca-47cd-968b-d33ac77c4fb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "security of person", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["183. The applicant complained that his son had been tortured before his death. He also asserted that the failure to enter Ferhat in any custody record had violated his right to and that the violation was aggravated by the incommunicado detention. He further alleged that the authorities had failed to carry out an independent, thorough and effective investigation into his complaints. He relied on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention."], "id": "5958838f-55e0-4975-b3ba-1ca1d810a787", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "security of person", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government were convinced that following the Prague 4 District Court\u2019s judgment of 10 November 2011, the applicant had had a new opportunity at the domestic level to have the merits of his complaint that his involuntary placement in a social care home had violated his right to liberty and reviewed. Had he not succeeded before the ordinary courts, he could have resorted to the Constitutional Court. Since he would have met the requirement of a previous lodging of a plea of nullity, the Constitutional Court could have been expected to examine the merits of his appeal. The Government referred in this connection to Constitutional Court opinion no. Pl. \u00daS-st. 25/08 of 6 May 2008 (see paragraph 79 above) from which it can be deduced that the Constitutional Court would have reversed the ordinary court\u2019s judgment if it concluded that it had violated the applicant\u2019s right to liberty and personal security, despite the fact that at the time of the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision, the applicant would no longer have been in the social care home."], "id": "0941dee9-181b-4ee8-ab1f-50b05c9e6f46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "security of person", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["131. The applicant maintained that her husband was abducted by State agents without any guarantee as to and disappeared. She contended that Talat T\u00fcrko\u011flu had not been brought promptly before a judicial authority after his arrest. She submitted in this connection that at the material time there were a significant number of killings and disappearances in Turkey."], "id": "2119fe78-db2e-4fa7-986f-2edc3100b234", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "security of person", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government contended that, following his acquittal, the applicant had lost his victim status in respect of his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. Furthermore, in their view, it remained open to the applicant to bring a civil claim for compensation for the damage allegedly resulting from unlawful and unreasonably lengthy pre-trial detention as provided for in Articles 1070 and 1100 of the Russian Civil Code. As regards the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant's pre-trial detention, the Government conceded that from 25 November to 31 December 2002 his detention had not been authorised by a court order. They further submitted that the applicant had been remanded in custody pending investigation and trial owing to the gravity of the charges against him. In addition, it had been made known to the judicial authorities that, if released, the applicant could have absconded. Lastly, they argued that, as the applicant had been accused of having molested a boy of less than fourteen years of age with a learning disability, his pre-trial detention had also been necessary to ensure his own safety and ."], "id": "36eb8612-7385-433c-ab5f-6543dfaa9d15", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "security of person", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["184. The applicant maintained that his son had been detained without any guarantee as to . In his opinion, the secrecy of his said detention and the failure to acknowledge detainees would have made him more vulnerable than acknowledged detainees and would have exposed him to acute anxiety of such a kind as to constitute torture. He alleged that there was direct evidence that Ferhat Tepe had been tortured while in detention, as the statement of Erkan Da\u011fdelen, Murat Koparan and Taner \u015earlak dated 16 August 1993 showed."], "id": "df0b7089-8700-4df2-aae9-d5cce7e12371", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "guarantees to appear for trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["183. The applicant reiterated his complaint and argued that it was arbitrary and irrational to continue detaining him rather than order his release pending trial, if necessary conditioned by . He contended that there had been no risk that he would abscond or seek to interfere with the criminal proceedings and that, even if there had been such a risk, non-custodial preventive measures should have been considered."], "id": "43c9101a-7baf-4b8c-af54-56fdb6b30a61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "guarantees to appear for trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government pointed out that Article 5 \u00a7 3 expressly allowed for the release of a person detained on remand to be conditioned by guarantees of his appearance for trial. There was no absolute right to be released on bail and Article 5 \u00a7 3 did not specify how and under what conditions should be applied or their application be terminated. Accordingly, these issues were subject to determination by domestic law. In the present case the applicant had been released on bail in 2002; however, he had been in breach of the conditions of the bail and had thus been taken into custody again in accordance with domestic law."], "id": "e5ad5040-4682-47d0-9a68-d19d6ddd243e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "guarantees to appear for trial", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant reiterated his complaint and argued that it was arbitrary and irrational to continue detaining him rather than order his release pending trial, if necessary conditioned by . He contended that there had been no risk that he would abscond or seek to interfere with the criminal proceedings and that, even if there had been such a risk, non-custodial preventive measures should have been considered."], "id": "e4af6b2b-54b5-4174-b231-85685c710f1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "review by a court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant submitted that there was no proper of the lawfulness of his detention, contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 4. The sheriff held the applicant to be treatable and therefore detainable in the face of the great weight of evidence to the contrary. The three judges of the Inner House of the Court of Session reviewing that evidence took the view that the evidence was not such that he was treatable and that he should be discharged. The House of Lords, which did not itself decide whether he was treatable, recognised that the Inner House would have been entitled to form the view it did on an appeal but that on judicial-review principles the sheriff\u2019s decision could not be challenged as unlawfully perverse. He was therefore denied a proper decision by a court on the merits on the evidence."], "id": "8936dc26-685e-426e-a72c-db3b579aed5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "review by a court", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["149. The Government submit that, according to Articles 228 \u00a7 3 and 2397 of the Civil Procedure Code, in force at the time, decisions of the state authorities, which affect the rights and obligations of individuals, are subjected to judicial which is fully authorised to quash the impugned decision and terminate the administrative proceedings against the individual concerned."], "id": "ebdac4f1-eabb-406d-bc6d-dfde3b9aed67", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "lawful arrest or detention", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government, arguing that the applicants were not awaiting deportation or extradition, took the view that the facts of the case did not fall within sub-paragraph (f) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which authorised a person\u2019s \u201c ... to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country\u201d or when \u201cdeportation or extradition\u201d proceedings were pending against the person (see paragraph 81 above). The Government did not, however, indicate under which other sub-paragraph of Article 5 the deprivation of liberty could be justified in the applicants\u2019 case."], "id": "d223f175-2927-447f-a2fb-b5de9fd1626b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "lawful arrest or detention", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant maintained that although the Act \u201cOn the procedure for the compensation of damage caused to a citizen by the unlawful actions of bodies of inquiry, pre-trial investigative authorities, prosecutors and courts\u201d (the \u201cCompensation Act\u201d) of 1 December 1994, with amendments, and Article 1166 of the Civil Code of Ukraine provided a theoretical possibility of claiming compensation for un , the outcome of such a claim would have been conditional on a finding by the domestic courts that the arrest or detention was in breach of domestic law. Since the courts did not establish any unlawfulness in the applicant\u2019s arrest and detention, any claim of this type would have been futile."], "id": "c1640483-5061-4b29-9465-97455b8356d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "drug addicts", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["87. The Government submitted that throughout the criminal proceedings, the applicants had displayed a contradictory attitude. According to the facts collected by the authorities, they were and had regular problems with the police. They had told the authorities that their injuries had been caused during a street fight, and not at the police station. The medical reports drawn up by the Human Rights Foundation could not therefore be taken as credible evidence."], "id": "4a731ae1-3168-421a-b054-81a0844f37a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "drug addicts", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicants\u2019 confinement in a cage, as if they were dangerous criminals who had already been found guilty, had served as an instrument of unlawful influence upon the jury, in breach of the rules governing jury trials, which prohibited any actions capable of undermining the presumption of innocence and, in particular, any submissions which might cause jurors to be prejudiced against defendants, by referring for example to defendants\u2019 previous convictions or to the fact that they were chronic alcoholics or , unless that information was necessary for establishing the elements of the offences of which they were accused. In view of the foregoing, the applicants could not have a fair trial respecting the principle of the presumption of innocence. They had never pleaded guilty and it had been necessary to overcome the jury\u2019s prejudice in order to prove their innocence. Being held in a cage before their judges who were to decide their fate, the applicants had felt helplessness, inferiority and anxiety during the entire trial. Such harsh treatment had had an impact on their power of concentration and mental alertness during the proceedings concerning as they did such an important issue as their liberty."], "id": "d6a6d1bc-afc1-4611-bfc2-a86a300bf968", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "speediness of review", "echr_article": "5", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention that on 1 October 2013 the court deciding on his pre-trial detention had not given any proper reasons, and that the domestic legislation did not require the domestic courts to give such reasons or to set time-limits. Relying on Article 5 \u00a7 3, he complained that his pre-trial detention had been extended by the court numerous times on identical grounds. He also complained that his application for release lodged with his local court on 27 December 2013 had not been examined until 21 January 2014, and that his similar request lodged on 15 August 2014 had not been examined until 4 September 2014, which did not comply with the requirements of under Article 5 \u00a7 4."], "id": "9aee79b9-ecf2-4d0d-b84f-769b8d69b4de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 about the outcome of the second set of proceedings. In so far as this complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a , it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garc\u00eda Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, \u00a7 28, ECHR 1999\u2011I). In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant's submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "afc1e61b-886c-4ae2-8358-029f70a9c591", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the decisions given by the courts. In so far as her complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a , it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (Garc\u00eda Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, \u00a7 28, ECHR 1999\u2011I)."], "id": "7ae35c66-83ea-4086-bc11-df6060b6cd51", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Izmir State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He submitted that his statements in police custody which had been extracted under torture were admitted in evidence and that he had been denied the assistance of a lawyer at the initial stages of the proceedings. He argued that the court did not take into account his objections to the admissibility of the document and the findings of the unlawful search. He claimed that the unlawfully obtained evidence and other documents prepared by the police and the prosecution had been prejudicial to his defence rights. He claimed that the court did not hear Ms S.D. and despite the fact that her testimony was admitted to the case file at the appeal stage, the Court of Cassation did not take it into account. The applicant maintained that the court did not give any reasons as to why it had not taken into account the testimony of his witnesses. He complained that the testimony of two convicted persons had been included in the case file. Finally, he argued that his defence rights had been infringed as he was detained in a prison far from Izmir, thus making it difficult for his representative to see him. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant provides:"], "id": "ec52ec9f-bb0e-46d6-a189-f0898c179641", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the lack of a , the length of the proceedings and the non-enforcement of the court decision given in his favour. Moreover, he complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the insufficient interest due on the additional compensation awarded following the expropriation of his property, and about authorities\u2019 failure to pay this sum."], "id": "b4056ee4-dc5c-4974-9fad-3cfd823d07ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government alleged that the applicant's right to a of his civil case had not been breached. They admitted that there had been a delay in sending the notification from the Gusevskiy Town Court. However, the delay was caused by the applicant's transferral to the correctional colony. The State cannot be held responsible for the work of the postal service. They referred to the cases of Foley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39197/98, 11 September 2001, and Zagorodnikov v. Russia, no. 66941/01 7 June 2001."], "id": "2e8bf850-26ee-46ec-a808-04164d9ff229", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government further argued that the applicant had failed to lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court. Had the applicant been of the opinion that the legal provisions on which the courts had based their decisions or their interpretation \u2013 namely Article 156 \u00a7 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in conjunction with section 52 \u00a7 2 of the Lustration Act \u2013 had breached his rights, in particular his right to a enshrined in Article 45 of the Constitution, he should have lodged a constitutional complaint. In particular, the applicant should have requested the Constitutional Court to examine whether the rules imposed by those provisions had violated his right to a fair trial."], "id": "91be8f2b-dbde-4411-9783-bb68f56e4c4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained in the first place that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court, which tried and convicted him. He further alleged that he had been denied a before the domestic courts since his conviction was based on his statement obtained under duress in the course of his detention in police custody. Finally, he claimed that he was deprived of his right to a lawyer during his detention in police custody. The applicant invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "304a1dcc-02f6-4991-bcfe-e612fb53e4b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant complained, under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, that she had been denied a in that she had not been given an adequate opportunity to put questions to the witnesses against her, i.e. the child complainants, before the domestic courts. It was true that she had been afforded such an opportunity during the pre-trial investigation, but she did not realise that it would be the only opportunity. She also complained about the refusal of her request that K. be heard before the Court of Appeal, either at the oral hearing or elsewhere."], "id": "ffd40d4f-4f49-40e4-811b-c832c4d60d67", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges. He further argued under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that the prohibition of his access to the army\u2019s social facilities, while other retired officers could benefit from this right, had amounted to discrimination. Lastly, he contended under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that there was no appeal against the decisions of the Supreme Military Administrative Court."], "id": "01dbcf13-d196-401a-a80f-c4f45a7eae9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant complained that he had not had a in his constitutional petition of 2001 and that the length of the proceedings in this petition and in his action of 1999 had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "id": "41a040d1-3f62-4adc-985c-ee2a6ce6e621", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained, under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, that he had been denied a in that he had not been afforded an opportunity to put questions to the witnesses against him, i.e. the children, and in that the police officer conducting the pre-trial investigation had put leading questions to two of the children, which affected their opinion of what had taken place."], "id": "687908ab-1cc4-4409-aff5-5d6b73b43d6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant complained that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further submitted that he had been deprived of his right to the assistance of a lawyer during his police custody. Finally, he claimed that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was excessive. The applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "3945ebfa-0f42-4a7e-a1c7-72ba707067d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He alleged that his statement, taken under duress in police custody, was admitted in evidence and that the \u0130zmir State Security Court relied heavily on the statements of the co-defendants without giving him an adequate opportunity to cross-examine them. Finally, he complained that he had been tried in absentia. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "3f371ace-3ea3-4d27-8ee7-030e711d89ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government stressed that the instant case was distinguishable from the case of Brum\u0103rescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, ECHR 1999\u2011VII), as the protest was lodged by the President of the Regional Court and not by the prosecutor and concerned an interim procedural decision, not the final judgment in the case. The supervisory review procedure was expressly regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. It contained guarantees to ensure a and was aimed at correcting judicial errors. The supervisory review did not contradict the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty. The procedure represented an effective legal mechanism created to correct erroneous judicial decisions. The Government considered that the applicant's case was examined by an independent and impartial tribunal in adversarial proceedings."], "id": "10e6a927-f076-452f-b900-8ac478e25863", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government contended that several aspects distinguished this case from Brum\u0103rescu v. Romania ([GC], no. 28342/95, ECHR 1999\u2011VII) and Androne v. Romania (no. 54062/00, 22 December 2004), where the Court found that the quashing of a final decision had violated the applicant\u2019s right to a . They pointed out that no State official had intervened in the case, as the extraordinary appeal was directly lodged with the courts by the defendant."], "id": "bffac6c0-b013-4445-9a7f-177a6c4139c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant argued that the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, in their decisions of 23 October 2006 and 22 May 2007 (see paragraphs 22, 27 and 28), had been partial and unfair, in that they had ignored his procedural rights. Given that the essence of his case concerned allegedly unlawful dismissal from military service on a discriminatory basis, to fully present his case the applicant had asked both courts to order his battalion\u2019s commanding officers to provide evidence, which he was not able to obtain on his own, concerning four soldiers who had served in the same military unit. If reaching a particular age was an absolute ground for dismissal from military service, those four servicemen should already have been dismissed on the same basis, that is, their age, moreover this should have happened much earlier than when the applicant was dismissed. However, the courts simply ignored the request, without even giving reasons for refusal. The applicant thus considered that there was a breach of his right to adduce evidence which was essential to a of his claims of discrimination for his views and ideas."], "id": "70c6d3f5-b19b-4483-afcc-2100b5d8c1d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant complained that the appeal proceedings in her case had breached her right to an adversarial trial enshrined in the guarantees of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, by way of the courts\u2019 failure to communicate to her the respondent company\u2019s and prosecutor\u2019s observations on her grounds of appeal and to duly summon her to the appeal hearing. The relevant part of the provision reads as follows:"], "id": "dd857b5c-d70e-4db1-9efc-0e9df82c02b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant complained that he had not received a by an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court. He further alleged under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the \u0130zmir State Security Court had sentenced him on the basis of statements obtained in his absence, which he could not challenge during the proceedings against him and that, despite his requests, the court had not heard any witnesses in his favour."], "id": "9cf873b8-32e1-400d-bc99-fa6a475df845", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicants complained that they had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court which tried and convicted them. They maintained that the domestic court relied on statements given by them under duress in police custody and failed to take into account their arguments presented during the criminal proceedings. They further complained that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter\u2011arguments. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "6701e243-ba3f-45e0-a04f-fdee690ea7d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government stressed that although the instant case concerned the quashing of a final judgment, it was nevertheless distinguishable from the case of Brum\u0103rescu v. Romania ([GC], no. 28342/95, ECHR 1999-VII), as the protest was lodged by the Deputy President of the Odessa Regional Court and not by the prosecutor. The supervisory review procedure (\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0446\u0435\u0434\u0443\u0440\u0430 \u0440\u043e\u0437\u0433\u043b\u044f\u0434\u0443 \u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u0432 \u043f\u043e\u0440\u044f\u0434\u043a\u0443 \u043d\u0430\u0433\u043b\u044f\u0434\u0443) was expressly regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. It contained guarantees to ensure a , it was used by Ukrainian citizens to defend their rights and was aimed at correcting judicial errors. The supervisory review did not contradict the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty. The procedure was transparent, foreseeable and was an effective legal mechanism enabling citizens to appeal against erroneous judicial decisions."], "id": "ab0c2ecd-d8f6-469c-991a-93b36b401942", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant submits under Article 6 of the Convention that he was denied a as the domestic courts erred in their assessment of the facts. The applicant argues that the same court, namely the Supreme Administrative Court, examined both the requests for leave to appeal and for rectification of the judgment, in violation of his right under Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "66f56c2a-c449-41f7-9eed-82f89e7445a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained that the criminal charges against him had not been determined within a reasonable time and that he had not had a in the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he alleged a violation of the principle of equality of arms since the domestic courts had refused to examine some witnesses and admit documentary evidence relevant to his case. He also complained of the refusal of the domestic courts to examine Z.S. at the trial. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "e891551a-292b-4260-b606-4611f0460dcf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant submitted that he had been refused legal aid for the purposes of the appellate proceedings and that these refusals had not contained any written grounds that would have justified them. The case had been very complex as it had arisen against the background of the fire which had destroyed his factory and subsequent serious difficulties which had affected the functioning of his company. Hence, the effective representation of the applicant\u2019s interests had necessitated professional legal assistance. Likewise, the formal requirements of the appeal had been difficult to meet for a lay person. The applicant was an engineer by profession so it was exceedingly difficult for him to develop sound legal arguments in support of his position. As a result of the unreasoned refusals of legal aid he had been deprived of a in his case and his chances of successfully challenging the first-instance judgment had been irremediably lost."], "id": "8b039e7b-ba30-4683-9c87-fd2e893cbe55", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies because he had not raised any such complaint in his constitutional complaint. They argued that in his application before the Court the applicant had complained that the Supreme Court had upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions, contrary to its own well-established case-law. His application to the Court was therefore a complaint of a lack of legal certainty caused by inconsistent Supreme Court case-law. However, he had not made those arguments before the Constitutional Court. It was the applicant\u2019s responsibility to state clearly and to substantiate the manner in which his human rights had been violated. Moreover, he had failed to complain that his right to a , guaranteed by Article 29 of the Constitution, had been violated."], "id": "afb36c56-6730-47f7-8c15-4708d06adccd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant complained that the UAR\u2019s decision of 27 June 1996, annulling his registration with the Constan\u0163a Bar, and the subsequent administrative proceedings in which that decision had been upheld, had violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as regards the right to a . He complained that the UAR\u2019s decision had been adopted without any hearing and had not been notified to him and that, in the subsequent proceedings, the courts had failed to determine the full subject matter of the dispute, to deal with his main arguments, or to order disclosure of the UAR\u2019s original Register of Decisions, in breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "id": "871767c7-5733-44c6-adb9-f8b28cc0e886", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained that the proceedings involving M.L.\u2019s defamation claim and his counterclaim had been inordinately lengthy and that his right to a had been breached, as the courts had failed to respond to his arguments and state adequate reasons for their findings in the judgments given in M.L.\u2019s defamation claim. He referred to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "f8e972e6-9490-42a5-91b7-c1a53777ab11", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained that neither the Istanbul State Security Court, nor the Istanbul Assize Court had met the requirements of independence and impartiality laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He further argued that he had been denied an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention as he had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal and the Ninth Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation which had examined his appeal had been politicised. He maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his statements had been extracted under duress in police custody, including by way of physical ill-treatment, and that the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court had been erroneous, had lacked reasoning and had been based on insufficient evidence. Lastly, the applicant maintained that his imprisonment following an un had amounted to \u201ctorture\u201d within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "eb15be65-abb0-4724-b486-4e6543ddcfa4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicants complained that they had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which had tried and convicted them. They further submitted that they had been denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant reads:"], "id": "bfdfe75b-9512-4842-a635-fe9942c77181", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and that it had acted as a first and only instance court, which had also infringed his right to an effective remedy. He further maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that he had been denied a public hearing due to the lack of reference to the principal public prosecutor\u2019s name in the court decisions. The applicant contended that his expulsion from the military academy had amounted to a punishment without a law, in violation of Article 7 of the Convention. Lastly, he maintained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been expelled from the military academy by reason of his father\u2019s affiliations with a certain trade union, which amounted to discrimination."], "id": "17593b54-1e8c-4f00-8eea-3dc24c05e71c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants therefore attributed the delay in the expropriation proceedings entirely to the CoL. His failure to act for over twenty years, according to the applicants, constituted a lack of access to court and a violation of their right to a within a reasonable time. It was only after he was forced to do so by court order that proceedings had finally commenced. However, to date they had not ended. Moreover, no proceedings had been initiated in respect of two of the plots of land. In this regard, they further argued that they had no means of enforcing the judgment of 4 February 2000 ordering the CoL to initiate proceedings. They further contended that they could not be held to blame for instituting proceedings to force the CoL to take action only in the 1990s, since up to that date the prevailing case-law had found that the civil courts did not have any jurisdiction to review acts carried out by the Government jure imperii. Indeed, the first judgments recognising that the victims of expropriation could apply for such an order had only been delivered in the 1990s. This was irrespective of Article 1078 of the Civil Code, which the applicants acknowledged could allow for such an action, had it not been for the aforementioned impediment. Moreover, they contended that the proceedings before the LAB had been suspended again, in view of the current proceedings before the Court, and were to date still pending. Furthermore, they alleged that the CoL had intentionally initiated these proceedings in the names of the deceased, notwithstanding that notification of their heirs had been officially made to him, thus, rendering the proceedings null."], "id": "739b1ea6-8c07-4012-9713-70b92293da4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants submitted in reply, with reference to Article 131 (f) of the Constitution and the practice of the Constitutional Court, that in order to exhaust all domestic remedies, individuals had to lodge a complaint with the Constitutional Court if and when they alleged a breach of the right to a . Moreover, the applicants\u2019 complaint relating to the claimant\u2019s lack of legal standing in the proceedings concerned was connected to the concept of a fair hearing as established by the case-law of the Constitutional Court. The latter had the jurisdiction and the obligation to consider the case and to decide it, if necessary by means of a judgment. Accordingly, the applicants claimed that they had lodged their application with the Court in time, as the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision was dated 24 September 2002, even if it was a de plano inadmissibility decision."], "id": "61faf257-586d-422a-85d2-d8479a574d2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant first complained that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the \u0130stanbul State Security Court which tried and convicted him. Secondly, he submitted that he was convicted on the basis of false statements taken under duress and documents drafted by the police. Thirdly, he alleges that he should not have been tried by a State Security Court and that the rules of procedure before these courts are different from the standard rules of criminal procedure. The applicant relied on Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention."], "id": "adf236ec-0ba9-487d-b18f-a35f880d46a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government submitted that, in civil proceedings generally, the onus to prove a certain fact lay with that party in whose interest it was that the court should accept it as true. The applicant had brought an action alleging that a business share held by it, worth HUF 103 million, had lost its value as a result of an unlawful omission on the part of the Tax Authority. The Court of Appeal could not be said to have violated the applicant\u2019s right to a since it had had good reasons for ordering the applicant to prove the amount of the purchase price which it could have obtained for the share had it been sold within or outside the enforcement procedure. It was doubtful whether under Hungarian market circumstances a business share purchased for HUF 32 million in 1993 could have been sold at a price three times higher when no meantime investment or equity raise had been put in place. It could be presumed that even if the share had not been attached in the tax procedure, no potential buyer would have been willing to pay over HUF 103 million at a time when the financial situation of the company in which the share had belonged had significantly worsened. Therefore it could not be argued that the loss of the value of the share in question had been a direct consequence of tax enforcement."], "id": "d466502b-3693-4d33-a792-b03d9624467d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant alleged a number of violations of his rights enshrined in Articles 6 \u00a7 1, 17 and 18 of the Convention. He complained, in the first place, that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and officers and that this court had acted as a first and only instance court. He further maintained that he had not had access to the classified documents submitted by the administration to the Supreme Military Administrative Court. Lastly, he alleged violations of Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention."], "id": "54e043ed-e934-4631-9325-9c2ff797e164", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained that the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention had been violated and submits that the Independent Administrative Panel had applied a reversal of the burden of proof. The applicant further complained about the Austrian authorities\u2019 failure to hear J. Z. in the proceedings before the Independent Administrative Panel as a witness. The applicant complained that no prosecuting authority participated in the proceedings before the Independent Administrative Panel and that therefore the member of the Independent Administrative Panel acted both as judge and prosecutor. He submits that, therefore, he did not have a by a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. Finally, the applicant complained about the lack of an oral hearing before the Administrative Court."], "id": "62986143-7dc8-42c7-8824-3224e48a26e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant further claimed that he had not had access to a court affording him a under Article 6. In addition to the effects of the allegedly excessive length of the proceedings, he relied on the following arguments in this context. The proceedings before the Tax Authority had not involved a determination that complied with the requirements of Article 6. Nor was, allegedly, the County Administrative Court a \u201ctribunal established by law\u201d as the administrative courts were not authorised to deal with criminal matters. Moreover, in order for the applicant to have an effective right of appeal, the execution of the Tax Authority's decisions should have been stayed. The applicant also asserted that he had not had a preliminary examination of the tax issues in the bankruptcy proceedings, as the courts that had heard the bankruptcy petition had not examined the underlying tax decisions or the Tax Authority's investigation. Furthermore, the immediate enforcement of the tax decisions and the bankruptcy order had caused the applicant irreparable damage, as his private and professional finances had been ruined as a result of the bar on carrying on business activities during bankruptcy. The applicant, therefore, said that any future reparation he might receive would not effectively remedy the damage he had sustained."], "id": "0150f2b4-e27a-4601-b49c-00bea9bbb570", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that at the relevant time the two military judges and their two civilian counterparts sitting on the martial-law court enjoyed the guarantees of judicial independence and immunity laid down in the Constitution. The sole task of the army officer on the bench was to ensure the proper functioning of the hearing and he had no other judicial power. In the Government\u2019s view, the procedure for the appointment and the assessment of the military judges sitting on the martial-law courts and the safeguards they enjoyed in the performance of their judicial duties at the time perfectly satisfied the criteria laid down by the Court\u2019s case-law on the subject. They therefore requested that the Court hold that there had been no violation of the applicant\u2019s right to a by an \u201cindependent and impartial tribunal\u201d."], "id": "4a84201e-92fc-48da-82cf-e1e4b3e517de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government firstly stated that the instant case was restricted to determining whether the applicant\u2019s conviction on appeal by the C\u00e1ceres Audiencia Provincial for false accusation of a crime, the only crime he had been acquitted of by the criminal judge and convicted of on appeal, amounted to a violation of his right to a . The case did not concern his conviction for serious disobedience to public authority imposed on him by the criminal judge, which the Audiencia Provincial had merely upheld."], "id": "fe2dd2e7-4425-4f40-8df7-c265944e7643", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicants complained that they had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court which tried and convicted them. They further submitted that they were convicted on the basis of their statements in police custody which were taken under duress and that the court refused their demands for a supplementary investigation. They maintained that they were denied the assistance of a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings and that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter\u2011arguments."], "id": "a6d8a0dc-a2f9-4fa9-b7a0-df6b5dacc146", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further submitted that he was convicted on the basis of his statements extracted under torture. Finally, the applicant maintained that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on him, thus depriving him of the opportunity to put forward his counter-arguments. The applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "080923e6-3463-4629-88ba-59a7a65cbebf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. In so far as this complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a , it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garc\u00eda Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, \u00a7 28, ECHR 1999\u2011I). In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant\u2019s submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "3d07ad8f-e2e6-4199-ada8-1186fe0121ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that his right to the presumption of innocence had been breached, as the domestic court assumed from the start that the applicant was guilty. He argued under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that he had been denied a as the decision of the Court of Cassation, as well as the decision on the request for rectification of the judgment, had lacked reasoning. He maintained finally under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 6 \u00a7 3 (d) of the Convention that the first-instance court had failed to hear the crucial witness, A.S."], "id": "e7ea999f-fa79-450b-a5ca-a259b4ff3c72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant also complained that the proceedings against him had fallen short of the guarantees of a within a reasonable time and that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated by virtue of the Supreme Court's decisions of 31 July 2001 and 30 January 2002. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "id": "e5fe036b-c2ea-4707-bbdc-a8e6e0f0a8f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government accordingly inferred that the ministerial order of 22 January 1999 satisfied the requirements of the Court's case-law concerning loss of victim status, although they were aware that the Court had a fairly broad conception of the notion of \u201cvictim\u201d (see Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, \u00a7 36, and Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, \u00a7\u00a7 37-38, ECHR 2001-VIII) and that it had difficulty in accepting that a person could cease to be a victim during the course of the proceedings. They argued that although the order in issue had not on the face of it had a direct link with the alleged violation since it had not concerned the requirements of a , which the applicant alleged had been infringed, it had nonetheless settled the dispute finally and unequivocally in the applicant's favour by authorising her to practise as a doctor. "], "id": "05a70821-1bd6-4c73-95a8-cb43703eeceb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["156. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention alleging a violation of his right to a by an impartial tribunal within a reasonable time. In particular, he complained that the bill of indictment had not been drawn up in accordance with the law in that it had not specified the particular circumstances of the offence with which he had been charged or the evidence against him. The applicant alleged that such defects of the bill of indictment had effectively placed on him the burden of having to prove his innocence in subsequent judicial proceedings. He also complained about the dismissal on 19 May 2003 of his application to have certain evidence declared inadmissible. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) of the Convention about the dismissal on 18 June 2003 of the motion to admit his uncle to participate in the proceedings as his representative. He further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) of the Convention about the dismissal of his motion to call Mrs R. at the hearing and to adjourn the hearing in order to call Mr Kh."], "id": "dc1cb261-ea89-4c48-8c1e-a6aac46ba9cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government maintained that at the hearing before the Bratislava Regional Court the defendant had submitted no additional evidence or arguments, and that prior to that hearing the applicant had been given the possibility of submitting all her arguments to the court and to make comments on the observations submitted by the defendant. In the Government\u2019s view, the decision to dismiss the applicant\u2019s action was not arbitrary and the applicant\u2019s right to a was respected."], "id": "d50c4a86-06c9-4cfd-ba75-244d177e8932", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant alleged a violation of his right to a in connection with the two sets of proceedings in the Constitutional Court, concerning Decree no. 40 and the merits of the impeachment charges against him. He submitted that because of collusion between the court's President and the member of the Seimas who had initiated the proceedings against him, the Constitutional Court could not be considered an independent and impartial tribunal, and noted that that court had subsequently issued a public response to his accusations of bias on its part; in a supplement to his application, dated 30 November 2006, he added that the Constitutional Court's endorsement of the conclusions of the declaration of 25 March 2004 by the Seimas showed that it had been put under considerable pressure by Parliament as a result of such collusion. He further submitted that he had been unable to defend himself effectively and that, in the impeachment proceedings, his lawyers had not had access to certain classified documents which the special investigation commission had examined and the Constitutional Court had exceeded its powers by making findings as to the facts and the issue of \u201cguilt\u201d. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "25157a2b-36d5-487e-9f69-db9339648762", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained of a violation of her right to a within a reasonable time and also that she had been a victim of discrimination on grounds of sex. She further alleged that she had been unable to obtain redress for the violation of her fundamental right as acknowledged by the Constitutional Court. She relied on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 14 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "9fac6514-3524-4067-8fa4-0a837dbd6e9b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried and convicted him on 15 April 1997. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "72bd444d-fd47-4780-a631-ba6092765a95", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant company complained that the judgments of 23 September 1997 and 24 December 1997 of the Appeal on Points of Law Chamber of the Economic Court and of the Supreme Court of Justice respectively (Proceedings A and B), which set aside two final judgments in its favour, had violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. It also alleged that the filing of the application of 17 July 1996 by the Prosecutor General on the basis of Article 5 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Proceedings B) violated its right to a ."], "id": "493da337-7f37-4ce5-9acd-227ab65cb70f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants considered that they were still victims of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (lack of access to court and of a within a reasonable time), since the compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court had been too low and because no proceedings had been initiated in respect of two of the plots of land. Moreover, in respect of the latter complaint, they had no means of enforcing the judgment of 4 February 2000 ordering the CoL to initiate proceedings. As to any previous arrangement in respect of Plot 3, this had never been debated before the domestic courts. As to Plot 2, they contended that it was not possible to challenge the amount awarded, as the new procedure only referred to recent expropriations. Furthermore, the awards made by the Constitutional Court had not been paid to date and there were no means of enforcing such claims. Lastly, the applicants remained, to date, uncompensated for the taking of all the plots of land."], "id": "6551b4bd-1bb8-4b85-8527-6dd987a95dae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal since he had been tried by a military court. He maintained that he had been convicted on the basis of tape\u2011recorded telephone conversations which had been unlawfully obtained. He also alleged that the court had failed to hold a public hearing and to secure the attendance of a witness who was important for his defence. In this connection, he relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention which provides as relevant:"], "id": "2e1a2fc6-56e0-4cdb-9f04-f3353afaaac3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicants complained that the proceedings in their criminal case had fallen short of important guarantees of a . They referred, in particular, to their confinement in metal cages during the court hearings and the intensive schedule of those hearings, and alleged that they had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and for confidential consultations with their counsel. They also complained that they had not been informed in sufficient detail about the nature and cause of the accusations against them as the charges had been identically phrased and the role and actions of each defendant had not been detailed. They further complained that their relatives and members of Parliament had not been permitted to represent them during the trial. The also alleged that the trial court had not taken measures to make witnesses reply to the questions put to them by the applicants\u2019 counsel. Lastly, the applicants complained that the assessment of evidence by the domestic courts had been biased."], "id": "5a36533e-a099-4c74-b569-4e75ab33557f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Courts which tried and convicted him. He further complained that he had not been informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him and that he did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. Finally, he claimed that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was excessive. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (a) and (b) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "id": "e5ffb045-8165-48d6-8a25-f038c2ddf4de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government reiterated that, whilst section 9-15(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure stated that appeals against interlocutory orders and decisions should normally be determined following a written procedure, section 9-15(2) provided: \u201cAn oral hearing shall be held if required out of regard to the need to ensure sound and fair legal proceedings\u201d [emphasis added]. In the present case, after having considered whether an oral hearing was required by the guarantee in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the High Court decided to determine the applicant\u2019s appeal on the basis of the written case-file."], "id": "7e240526-147a-4a04-86b0-bcef4d2884e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated under police custody. They further complained under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of their police custody and subsequent detention on remand. They also submitted that they were denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried them. Lastly, they referred to the different procedural rules applied before state security courts and ordinary criminal courts and invoked a violation of Article 14 of the Convention."], "id": "cac4a831-759d-4c80-afab-10eb5ac809cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicants complained that they had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Izmir State Security Court which tried them. They submitted that they had been convicted on the basis of their statements in police custody which had been taken under duress and that they had been denied the assistance of a lawyer at the initial stages of the proceedings. They complained that the domestic court had refused their request for a further investigation. Finally, they maintained that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter-arguments. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "e3fd4fbe-05ff-4c75-9ec9-6f0d3797ce7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government maintained in the first place that, in assessing whether or not the trial was fair, regard should be had to the entirety of the proceedings. As the applicant was represented by a lawyer during the proceedings before the State Security Court and the Court of Cassation, his right to a had not been violated. The Government further stated that, as the applicant was illiterate, his statement taken by the gendarmes was read out to him. They underlined the fact that his confessions during his custody period were not the sole basis of the conviction."], "id": "6c964407-ed29-4429-8057-48e4489af647", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government asked the Grand Chamber to endorse the Chamber\u2019s finding that there had been no violation of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) of the Convention. They stated, firstly, that the legislation had been changed in 2005. Furthermore, in their submission, the restriction imposed on the applicant\u2019s access to a lawyer had not infringed his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. Referring to the case-law of the Court (see, in particular, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275; John Murray v. the United Kingdom, 8 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011I; Averill v. the United Kingdom, no. 36408/97, ECHR 2000\u2011VI; Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, ECHR 2000\u2011VI; and Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, ECHR 2001\u2011X), they maintained that in assessing whether or not the trial was fair, regard should be had to the entirety of the proceedings. Thus, as the applicant had been represented by a lawyer during the proceedings before the \u0130zmir State Security Court and the Court of Cassation, his right to a had not been violated. The Government further drew attention to several Turkish cases (see Sara\u00e7 v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35841/97, 2 September 2004; Yurtsever v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42086/02, 31 August 2006; U\u00e7ma v. Turkey (dec.), no. 15071/03, 3 October 2006; Yavuz and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38827/02, 21 November 2006; and Y\u0131ld\u0131z v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 3543/03 and 3557/03, 5 December 2006), in which the Court had declared similar complaints inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded on the ground that, since the police statements had not been the only evidence to support the convictions, the lack of legal assistance during police custody had not constituted a violation of Article 6 of the Convention."], "id": "481eb8f9-ae28-4589-91d1-23db069fe00a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. In so far as this complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a , it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garc\u00eda Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, \u00a7 28, ECHR 1999\u2011I). In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant\u2019s submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "fbfd2510-a65b-4e87-8030-b4a1821cda82", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["113. The applicants complained of an interference by the legislature in the judicial process on account of the enactment and application to their case of section 5 bis of Law no. 359/1992. They complained, among other things, that they had not had a because, when the amount of their expropriation compensation was determined, the question submitted to the national courts had been settled by the legislature and not by the judiciary."], "id": "d3674269-ad14-496c-b233-e11a707d3298", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government also contended that ever since the adoption of the above judgment a number of persons had filed civil actions (seven in total) against the Republic claiming damages for human rights violations. By way of example, the Government referred to a civil action pending before the District Court of Nicosia (civil action no. 3216/02) against the State in which the plaintiffs had complained of a violation of their right to a due to the protracted length of proceedings under Articles 30 of the Cypriot Constitution and 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In this connection, they pointed out that the applicants\u2019 representative was the lawyer who had lodged the above-mentioned action before that district court."], "id": "65b035a7-520b-41e1-91f1-70c6d013dd4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant further complained that he did not have a in that the impugned proceedings did not fulfil some of the guarantees specified in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, namely that the SJC had refused to examine witnesses in his defence; that he was denied the right to attend the hearing before the Appeal Panel; and that sufficient reasons were not given for his dismissal."], "id": "4d9fa2a3-bf64-41b2-8db9-d676008f794e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government further argued that the Supreme Court, in its capacity as the court of appeal on points of law, had examined the alleged shortcomings which, according to the applicant, had constituted grounds for that remedy. The Supreme Court had given relevant and sufficient reasons for disagreeing with the applicant\u2019s arguments. In the Government\u2019s view, its conclusions had not been arbitrary and the applicant\u2019s right to a by a tribunal had been respected in the proceedings complained of taken as a whole."], "id": "ef8c0387-8e40-4669-9f0b-45b4565dfa97", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. In so far as this complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a , it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garc\u00eda Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, \u00a7 28, ECHR 1999\u2011I). In the present case, the Court finds that the applicant's submissions do not disclose any indication that the courts lacked impartiality, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. Moreover, the Court is satisfied that the courts' findings concerning the release of the medical files in question, and in particular that of the image of computer tomography, do not indicate any appearance of arbitrariness, especially in view of the fact that the applicant had never sought its release from the hospital where it had actually been taken. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "ed761bf5-00e3-4b01-b077-46ab78943254", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed the applicants' submission that they were not afforded a by an impartial tribunal in the appeal proceedings before the High Court. They submitted that it was beyond doubt that no element of subjective bias had existed on the part of Judge G. or juror W. or any other members of the High Court. Nor had the applicants any objective reason for fearing lack of impartiality."], "id": "ff67dbf6-d86a-48a2-a856-c98d8344a337", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government contended that, in the judgment of 14 July 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice had failed to address all the claims concerning costs. In the Government\u2019s view, this was a legal ground for upholding the request made by the bank under Article 250 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They argued that by varying the final judgment of 14 July 2005 the supplementary judgment of 30 March 2006 had not modified the Supreme Court\u2019s previous findings on the merits. They observed that the action under Article 250 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be lodged only as long as the enforcement of the judgment to be varied was pending. Thus, the Government submitted that there had been no violation of the applicant company\u2019s right to a ."], "id": "ec95e3f0-1068-4784-b247-2aacaa5fb043", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicants, on the contrary, contended that they had not been given a . They complained that the court had refused to accept the video recordings of their arrest as evidence and to call and examine the witnesses they had requested, and had disallowed a number of questions to the police officers during their cross-examination. Furthermore, the court had not respected the equality of arms in that it had rejected the testimonies of all the defence witnesses while giving weight to the testimonies of the two police officers. In addition, the applicants complained that the hearing had not been open to the public, that their right to defence had been violated and that they had not been given adequate time to prepare their defence. Lastly, they claimed that having spent the night in transfer between three different police stations and then in detention in appalling conditions at the Kitay-Gorod police station, they had been unfit to stand trial the following day and to defend themselves effectively."], "id": "0cb3788e-622c-4c05-92c0-021d3f7bfe06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government submitted that the opportunity for any individual to benefit from qualified legal advice was characteristic of any State governed by the rule of law. However, the applicant had not been denied a . The order requiring him to reimburse the costs of his defence had not prevented him from having a proper defence and the services of counsel, and had not had a negative impact on the fairness of the proceedings against him. He could reimburse that sum, which was not exorbitant, by working, even while still in prison. There was no indication that he had paid it."], "id": "860cbc95-f0ec-4fab-a8bc-8547bd5c5e89", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained that he had been denied a within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of the military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court. He further alleged that he had been denied a fair hearing before the domestic courts since his conviction was not based on concrete evidence. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "d8c8c993-f784-4bbf-81d2-4651182c7220", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant complained that she did not have a in the proceedings before the Criminal Court of Appeal, as the court relied in its judgment on pre-trial witness statements which were not read out and examined in court. She further complained that she had no opportunity to examine those witnesses at any time during the proceedings. She alleged a breach of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3(d) of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "cc3995a9-be28-42a9-bcd5-ee443936294b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant first complained that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court which tried and convicted him. Secondly, he claimed that the court had been influenced by the Army since the proceedings against him had been prompted by the request of the Second Chief of the General Staff. Finally, he maintained that he had been convicted solely on the basis of the statements of the journalist who had a personal interest in incriminating him. The applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "d32a6603-486b-44e8-92cc-3f2ab36fbd6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant submitted that the courts in the civil proceedings against her and her son had breached her right to a by relying on the judgments in the criminal proceedings against V.O., in which her son had been a witness and she had not had any procedural status. She also submitted that V.M. should not have been allowed to lodge a civil claim against her and her son because he had already lodged such a claim against V.O. and that claim had been partly allowed, so he should not have been entitled to double compensation. The applicant lastly argued that it was unfair that she and her son had had to pay more in compensation for non\u2011pecuniary damage than V.O., the person who had been convicted of assaulting V.M."], "id": "0a9d7dc4-a5d5-47ac-b7f5-4467ba390bfa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant complained that the judicial decisions imposing the fine on him and ordering his administrative arrest and detention were arbitrary and in breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He further complained about an un in the second civil proceedings (paragraphs 22-26 above). Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in its relevant part provides as follows:"], "id": "1af31b64-5e86-4d90-ab8c-ba3e32fcfced", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government maintained that the right to a public hearing was not absolute and that an exclusion of the general public was admissible, inter alia, for the protection of the private lives of the parties or when required on grounds of private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. They pointed out that succession proceedings were not open to the general public in order to protect the private sphere of the parties. The legislator, thus, took into account that family relations and the pecuniary situation of the parties belonged to a person's private sphere which deserved protection from the disclosure of details. They concluded that the parties' right to protection of their private lives guaranteed by Article 8, and also by Article 6 \u00a7 1, justified an exclusion of the public for such proceedings were not of public interest. Moreover, the Government submitted that in the present case there had been a number of hearings at which the parties could duly put forward their arguments and that the applicant's submissions that there had been no were unfounded. Finally they argued, referring to this Court's decision in the case of Varela Assalino v. Portugal (no. 643369/01, 25 April 2002), that the primarily \u201ctechnical nature\u201d of the issues to be determined in the present proceedings, namely the question of whether or not the farm qualified as hereditary, had justified the absence of a hearing altogether and that this, therefore, was true all the more for the lack of publicity at the hearings."], "id": "b4907de7-cfa9-42aa-a1f3-a10723d3201d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. In so far as this complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a , it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garc\u00eda Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, \u00a7 28, ECHR 1999\u2011I). In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant's submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention."], "id": "d0b9d4dd-d858-4ad4-99a7-0b19a4ee58d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court had not afforded her a before an impartial tribunal in that: (1) it had decided of its own accord to take evidence without any involvement of the parties; (2) without giving the parties an opportunity to comment on the measure; (3) and with the aim of overturning the expert conclusions reached at first instance thereby favouring the applicant's adversary, the NUH; (4) it had based its findings on the opinion of the employees of the respondent party; and (5) decided the issue of disqualification on the basis of the wrong standard, namely that it had not been demonstrated that extraneous considerations had influenced the Board's opinion."], "id": "4a7679bf-f0d2-4227-9df1-b4e3fd081fcf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant complained under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against on the ground of gender in that he had been denied the right to take over a tenancy after the death of A.Z. He challenged in particular the domestic court\u2019s position that his relationship with A.Z. had amounted merely to an \u201ceconomic community\u201d and not to a \u201clong-lasting life community\u201d. This amounted also to a violation of his right to a guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention."], "id": "546f0676-1b01-401d-bd3e-070b7aac7cce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicants further claimed that they had not had access to a court affording them a under Article 6. In addition to the effects of the allegedly excessive length of the proceedings, they relied on the following arguments in this context. The proceedings before the Tax Authority had not involved a determination that complied with the requirements of Article 6. Nor was, allegedly, the County Administrative Court a \u201ctribunal established by law\u201d as the administrative courts were not authorised to deal with criminal matters. Moreover, in order for the applicants to have an effective right of appeal, the execution of the Tax Authority's decisions should have been stayed. The first applicant also asserted that it had not had a court determination of the disputed tax assessments as, on account of the dissolution of the company, its appeals against the Tax Authority's decisions had been dismissed. As this had been done in accordance with applicable legal provisions and case-law, it was unlikely that there would be a different decision by the Supreme Administrative Court, where the case was pending. Furthermore, there had not been a preliminary examination of the tax issues in the bankruptcy proceedings, as the courts that had heard the bankruptcy petition had not examined the underlying tax decisions or the Tax Authority's investigation. The applicants further stated that the immediate enforcement of the tax decisions and the bankruptcy order concerning the first applicant had caused them irreparable damage. The applicants, therefore, said that any future court examination or reparation would not effectively remedy the damage they had sustained."], "id": "690ecdfa-2b77-4cff-bd5c-482632681dde", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant disagreed and maintained his complaints. He submitted, in particular, that despite two judicial orders under Article 250t of the CCP, there had been no actual acceleration of the administrative proceedings in question. Resorting to that remedy for the third time would have had no better chances of genuine success. In response to his second action under Article 250t of the CCP, the Regional Court had imposed a fine on the Land Office, but in the absence of any accelerating effect this had had no benefit for him since the fine had not been payable to him but to the State. The constitutional judgment in his favour had not been concerned with the alleged violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time by the Land Office, as complained of in the present case, but with the violation of his right to a by the Regional Court. On a careful reading, the precedent relied on by the Government (see paragraphs 34 et seq. and 40 above) actually disproved the effectiveness of the remedy under the State Liability Act. It was true that the domestic law had enabled him repeatedly to use various remedies, but the reality was that the domestic courts dealing with those remedies were not capable of actually resolving his problem. Lastly, in so far as the Government could be understood as attaching some responsibility for the length of the proceedings to his procedural behaviour, the applicant strongly denied any such responsibility."], "id": "f1262636-5edc-46d2-a97e-f01cf09fab30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicants submitted that a lack of resources had affected the quality of their defence in that the main responsibility for their litigation had rested with the legal council of the Swedish Sami Association (Svenska samernas riksf\u00f6rbund), a lawyer with little experience of litigation. They further asserted that the reason for the allegedly enormous legal costs for both sides in the proceedings was the legislation, which was defective in that it did not define the winter grazing areas, which had necessitated the pursuit of thorough and time-consuming historical research. The applicants thus had not had any reason to blame the landowners for making the proceedings complex, as that responsibility had rested with the State. With this in mind, and having regard to the vital values at stake, the applicants submitted that their right to an effective access to court and a had necessitated the grant of legal aid. The loans received from the Sami Fund will have to be repaid and were of no relevance in this respect. Rather, the payment of the legal costs in the case, together with increasing costs for reindeer herding through the payment of fees to lease land for grazing, puts strain on the economy of the Sami villages and may lead to bankruptcies."], "id": "d311b3f6-76a8-4428-806a-ea0598c41ed1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government maintained that in the present case the victim, Mr S., had sustained serious psychological damage as a result of the attempt on his life by the applicant and Mr Kh. Therefore, for medical reasons, his participation in the pre-trial investigation had been limited, and excluded the possibility of a confrontation. Nevertheless, the trial court had taken all possible measures to guarantee a , and for this reason had summoned Mr S. to the hearings. Contrary to the doctor\u2019s advice, Mr S. had attended a hearing, but had had to leave early on account of his health problems and need for treatment. For this reason the victim\u2019s representative had lodged a petition in which he asked the court to examine the case in the victim\u2019s absence. Besides, the lawyer had submitted to the Court Mr S.\u2019s written statement, in which Mr S. confirmed the statements he had made during the pre-trial investigation. The applicant, the second accused and their representatives objected to that petition. The court had allowed the petition in an effort to guarantee the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of both the accused on the one side and the victim on the other (see, mutatis mutandis Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, \u00a7 148). The Government found that position to be well-founded, considering the fact that given that even attending the court hearing caused the victim considerable stress, having him interrogated would have had much more serious consequences for his health. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the primary task for the national court in that situation was to protect the victim, Mr S., from situations in which memories of the armed attack could cause him undue stress, and that made it impossible to allow the victim to be interrogated in the courtroom. They also considered necessary to point out that the victim\u2019s diagnosis, and the length of time for which he was in such a condition confirmed that his health problems were chronic. For this reason the court concluded that the victim\u2019s presence at the subsequent court hearings, which took place during a short period of time, could have had the above-mentioned consequences."], "id": "d0ac497c-b3e1-4c43-8ae1-383a7a4a98d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant alleged that his right to a had been violated in the proceedings before the domestic courts. He submitted that the Regional Court had based its decision in the second proceedings on a document which was not adduced at the hearing, which was not shown to the parties or discussed by them and which had also affected the outcome of the third proceedings. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:"], "id": "39b7d85c-8eba-4298-a3b3-1798618b5907", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants complained that they had not been allowed adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and that they had not had a because they had not had access to all the evidence in the case against them. They submitted in particular that they had been denied access to the documents of the case as well as to a list of documents, during both the investigation and the trial at both instances. They maintained that no one had reviewed the prosecution\u2019s cherry-picking of the documents submitted to the court and that they had been denied the possibility of searching using the electronic system applied. In their view, the principle of equality of arms required that they should have had the same opportunities as the prosecution to access and select evidence from the collection of documents gathered by the police during the investigation. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3(b) of the Convention, which is so far as relevant read as follows:"], "id": "adb0fd0f-506c-4282-a185-28132846f6f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant was dissatisfied that when examining his complaint of dismissal from the military service on discriminatory grounds the administrative courts had based their decisions merely on an interpretation of Article 38 \u00a7 1 (7) of LMS and had ignored his repeated requests for access to the military files of four specific servicemen. On this point the Court observes that one of the elements of a within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 is the right to adversarial proceedings; each party must in principle have the opportunity to make known any evidence needed for his claims to succeed (see Mantovanelli v. France, 18 March 1997, \u00a7 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011II). Moreover, the requirement of \u201cequality of arms\u201d implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case \u2013 including his evidence \u2013 under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis his opponent (see, for instance, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, \u00a7 33, Series A no. 274; Helle v. Finland, 19 December 1997, \u00a7\u00a7 53-54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VIII). The Court has also held that the effect of Article 6 \u00a7 1 is, inter alia, to place the \u201ctribunal\u201d under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision (see Kraska v. Switzerland, 19 April 1993, \u00a7 30, Series A no. 254\u2011B, and Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, \u00a7 59, Series A no. 288)."], "id": "266c82e1-4039-4a1d-b0f7-f74df30ac95c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants complained of the fact that the Tax Authority's decisions concerning additional taxes and tax surcharges had been enforced prior to a court determination of the disputes. In particular, they maintained that the tax assessment proceedings had not been determined within a reasonable time and they had been unable to obtain a in those proceedings. Moreover, they had been deprived of their right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as is relevant to the complaint, provides:"], "id": "a8a8611c-6f3b-4c56-ae75-b01e7eda24d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his right to a had not been respected in the proceedings brought under section 72 of the Local Elections Act, in that the statutory time-limits applicable to those proceedings were unreasonable and had adversely affected his ability to present his case. He further submitted that the courts had not examined the link between his statements and the official decisions he had relied on in support thereof. He also alleged that he had unfairly been denied access to the case file. Article 6 \u00a7 1 provides, in so far as relevant:"], "id": "76b17558-d8b9-4c6d-bd45-7643f39390f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained that he had been denied a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court which tried him. The applicant further complained that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "401ab4f0-d48d-48a5-bb49-569e23dc93a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government argued that the applicant had been duly summoned to the IAP\u2019s hearing by way of a writ addressed to his counsel in accordance with the applicable domestic law and his own free decision. While the relevant domestic legislation provides the possibility to name a person to whom all letters and summons are served, this is not an obligation. Even represented by a counsel, a party is free to exclude service authorisation from the scope of the power of attorney. The applicant had never maintained before the Austrian authorities that he wished to be summoned personally. Once a party had been duly summoned, the party\u2019s absence did not prevent the conduct of a hearing. In the present case, counsel, although informed that the hearing would be conducted in the applicant\u2019s absence if he failed to appear, failed to take any steps in order to secure the applicant\u2019s right to be heard in person. In particular, counsel had not informed the applicant of the hearing and had not instituted proceedings for the issuing of a temporary exemption from the residence prohibition so that the applicant could attend a hearing in Austria. Counsel had only requested an adjournment sine die at the very day the hearing was held and had not indicated whether or when the applicant could attend a hearing or that he would prepare the applicant\u2019s re-entry to Austria by filing a responding request under the Aliens Act. Neither did the applicant claim that he filed or was willing to file such request. In this context the Government noted that the applicant\u2019s request to re-enter Austria from 4 until 6 October 1999 for purposes of medical control at the Pension Insurance Office was successful. There being no good reasons for the applicant\u2019s absence at the hearing, he had to be considered as having waived his right to be heard in person. Counsel\u2019s failure to inform him of the hearing was to be attributed to the applicant and was not a reasonable impediment justifying adjournment. In any event, the applicant was not deprived of a of his case as his defence was conducted by his lawyer. Furthermore, he had only complained about a question of law, the matter was of minor significance as the proceedings concerned a minor offence and the IAP, due to the principle prohibiting a \u201creformatio in peius\u201d could not increase the sentence. Finally, the applicant could file a complaint with the Administrative Court which reviewed the legal findings of the IAP. In any event, the issue of good faith did not necessarily require a personal hearing."], "id": "7f4063bf-9ee6-4bd7-a815-d127d99bbb75", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He further alleged under the same provision that he had not been afforded a public hearing and had not been notified of the public prosecutor\u2019s written opinion, which had denied him the right to a ."], "id": "7f6c81ed-9817-4b69-8d55-4b2ea108bdb4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that they had been denied a on account of the excessive length of the compensation proceedings, as a result of which the amounts awarded to them failed to reflect the real damage incurred. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "0df73258-7b9f-42ac-a6b6-ae0458329802", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant also alleged violations of his right to a within a reasonable time and his right of access to a court, as well as a lack of effective remedies in this respect. He relied on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention. Having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that, in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill\u2011founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "cd7532cb-a56c-4515-a1d6-c891a0a8c624", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that at the relevant time the two military judges and their two civilian counterparts sitting on the Martial Law Court enjoyed the guarantees of judicial independence and immunity laid down in the Constitution. The sole task of the army officer on the bench was to ensure the proper functioning of the hearing and he had no other judicial power. In the Government\u2019s view, the procedure for the appointment and the assessment of the military judges sitting on the Martial Law Courts and the safeguards they enjoyed in the performance of their judicial duties at the time perfectly satisfied the criteria laid down by the Court\u2019s case-law on the subject. They therefore requested the Court to hold that there has been no violation of the applicant\u2019s right to a by an \u201cindependent and impartial tribunal\u201d."], "id": "debcdb5e-9377-4210-92c6-409a50e2c213", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government argued that the refusal of legal aid for the applicant\u2019s second appeal was not incompatible with his Article 6 rights. They accepted that denial of legal aid could, in certain circumstances, amount to a failure to ensure a under Article 6 \u00a7 1. However, they pointed out that the Convention did not grant a general right to legal aid in civil cases: there was no obligation for States to make legal aid available for every civil dispute, and far less for multiple appeals. Having regard to the fact that resources were not unlimited, States could impose restrictions on legal aid. Such restrictions could validly be based on the prospects of success in the proceedings (citing Steel and Morris, cited above, \u00a7 62)."], "id": "3740c36d-8304-4e24-83c2-4493e8cd3960", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant association submitted that, since it had not had the opportunity to comment on the observations of either the Federal Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication or the Swiss Radio and Television Company, it had been denied the right to a within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "id": "90600817-7680-4ebd-b52a-d42230dbc094", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant argued that she had not had a of her case. She submitted that her relationship with her grandson J.B. had been very close, given the fact that his parents had avoided their parental responsibilities and that J.B. had lived with her. His death had caused her great mental suffering. Yet, when assessing the circumstances of her civil claim for damages, the Lithuanian courts had not ensured that the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms were adhered to. Both at the stage of the criminal proceedings and during the civil litigation M.B. had been represented by a lawyer and thus had been able to effectively exercise his rights by responding to the applicant\u2019s claim. In contrast, the applicant, being of old age, in poor health and a Russian speaker, having no understanding of legal matters, had been unable to use all the means theoretically available to her by law. She had pointed this out to the appellate and supreme courts, but with no success. For the applicant, such procedural inequality in a case entailing a great emotional toll had been in breach of the principle of adversarial proceedings."], "id": "3b7ec78f-b041-4995-8f40-46fae3bc7673", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government pointed out that it was in the first place for the national judicial authorities to ensure that the requirements of a were satisfied. They submitted that, in the circumstances of the present case, the refusal to take evidence did not amount to a disproportionate restriction on the applicant's ability to defend himself in the proceedings. Accordingly, there was no breach of Article 6 of the Convention. "], "id": "398e519c-aac6-413f-886e-ba2fe5991b23", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicant complained that she had not been afforded a in respect of her application for reopening of her guardianship proceedings and had not been able to have her legal guardian changed. In support of her complaints, the applicant cited Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 8 of the Convention. In addition, relying upon Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant argued that she had not been afforded an effective remedy to complain of the alleged violations."], "id": "5a91447f-373a-4d38-9ccc-cec686d5d29f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant maintained that his right to a and the rights of the defence had not been respected. He had been deprived of the opportunity to question the witness JH at any stage of the proceedings. JH\u2019s evidence had been the sole evidence against him. It was all the more important to ensure that he had an opportunity to question JH since at the time of his questioning JH had been a minor and according to the psychologist\u2019s report there had been inconsistencies in his testimony. Furthermore, it transpired from the minutes of the trial that other witnesses had had no knowledge of the alleged sale of drugs by the applicant."], "id": "6d11fd35-a1b6-4527-bded-334b6fe8ac73", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "fair hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that he was denied a in that he was not afforded an opportunity to put questions to the principal witness against him, that is, the complainant child. A.'s account had been the only direct evidence against him. The other persons heard before the courts had not witnessed the alleged acts but were only able to give second-hand information about them or assess the reliability of A.'s account. Nevertheless, the courts had admitted as evidence the video recording of A.'s interview."], "id": "311a81ba-748e-4afd-b8f6-685e8cb02d7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s arguments. He submitted that no effective remedy existed in relation to his complaint. This was evident from the lack of case-law in respect of violations by the State of the right to trial within a . The case of Yiallourou was a civil action where damages had been sought for the violation of constitutional rights between individuals and not between individuals and the State as in the instant case."], "id": "efdfb16d-a8bd-4b55-8281-d5cfcd294d99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government objected that, in respect of the proceedings examined by the Constitutional Court, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a . They argued that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged such a violation and the amount of just satisfaction awarded and paid without undue delay was not manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. They further argued that the second Constitutional Court\u2019s finding had a preventive effect as no further delays had occurred in the subsequent period."], "id": "0cee4169-915d-4bbe-a229-6c7884b04e2f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicants complained that the proceedings before the domestic courts were long and thus in contravention of the requirement under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They further alleged that they had been denied a fair trial because the domestic courts had disregarded three expert reports and had taken into account solely the fourth expert report which had qualified the land in question as agricultural land and had awarded them an amount inferior than to real value of the land."], "id": "077518db-508f-4fc3-92b3-784c56ba853d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["262. The Government had no objection in principle to the Court specifying the criteria for non-pecuniary damage regarding this type of violation, and asked it to indicate that the amount of just satisfaction had to be calculated solely by reference to the delays beyond the and for which the State was responsible. They also asked the Court to hold that the criteria for calculating compensation should not be limited to determining a particular sum per year, but that regard had to be had to other factors, including the stakes involved and the outcome of the case."], "id": "f0da4700-68cf-415d-b103-61cef4b4eecc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government further claimed that the applicant had failed to assert claims for compensation of damage caused by his criminal prosecution in the domestic courts. Firstly, he could have obtained compensation for pecuniary damage suffered by certain measures of criminal prosecution, in particular searches and seizures, pursuant to sections 2 et seq. of the Act on Compensation for Measures of Criminal Prosecution (see paragraphs 37-40 above). Secondly, he could have brought official liability proceedings pursuant to Article 839 of the Civil Code, read in conjunction with Article 34 of the Basic Law, in the civil courts. In those proceedings, he could have obtained compensation for pecuniary damage, such as lawyers\u2019 fees and loss of earnings, which he had proved to have been caused by the courts\u2019 failure to adjudicate within a , even if this failure had been caused by a lack of sufficient staff. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage could be obtained if the conditions of Articles 253 and 847 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 42 above) were met."], "id": "efcf4ec5-aaa6-4c1f-9718-ed146488da2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government may be understood as claiming that the belated receipt of the request absolved the court from the duty to examine it. However, the Court notes that under Russian law the applicant had no other choice but to dispatch his request through the prison administration (see \u00a7 36). In such circumstances it was for the prison administration to ensure that it was delivered within a . Given that the remand prison and the court were situated in the same city, the two weeks\u2019 delivery time seems to be unusually long. It raises certain doubts as to when the request of 9 June 1999 was posted by the prison administration."], "id": "0f9ca216-552e-4f52-855c-12ccab4cec31", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government maintained that based on an overall assessment and in the light of the specific circumstances of the cases, the criminal charges against the applicants were determined within a as prescribed by Article 6 of the Convention. They agreed that the cases were uncomplicated as concerned the facts, but found that they were to some extent complex due to problems in law as well as procure. In this respect the Government referred inter alia to the involvement of EU-law issues, notably the question whether the relevant provision of the 1989 Act should have been notified to the European Commission and the question whether the cases should have been referred to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. Moreover, the Government found that the applicants to a very considerable extent had been a contributory cause to the length of the proceedings. Finally, the Government maintained that it could not give rise to criticism that the city courts decided to adjourn the criminal proceedings pending the outcome of the \u201ctest-cases\u201d as these decisions were reasonably motivated. All in all the Government found it inappropriate that the applicants on the one hand requested adjournments of the proceedings; extensions of time-limits for submission of pleadings; were unable to appear before court hearings before certain dates; raised questions of principles, including a request for a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice; requested an expert witness; and a special counsel assigned, and on the other hand claimed that the length of the proceedings were excessive."], "id": "8a48c7f5-463c-41bf-8d0f-3be7e9b3872b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government explained that in the present case, for reasons of time constraints the Constitutional Court as a whole had decided on the applicant\u2019s motions for bias under Article 11 \u00a7 2 of the Constitutional Court Act. That Act did not lay down any procedural requirements in this respect. In these circumstances, it complied with the Constitution and with the requirement to conduct proceedings within a that the Court decided on the motion for bias in the absence of the challenged judge."], "id": "71a8eae7-32b5-42fc-b625-2421f821aba7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["13. The Government argued that in view of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2005 the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a . In their opinion, the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as to the subsequent period, as he had not lodged a fresh constitutional complaint in accordance with the formal requirements."], "id": "d53e5e5c-a682-42d9-9ded-1397fbc10d5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government considered that the applicant had not submitted sufficient arguments in respect of this complaint and asked the Court to reject it. They also referred to the power of the higher courts to verify the observance of the requirement, as expressly provided for in Article 192 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 18 above). The applicant did not ask the courts to carry out such verification."], "id": "10b20ec0-42d8-460e-8a8b-c90a8464a4c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant alleged in particular that he had been denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further complained that the national courts had based their decisions on his police statement which had been taken under duress. Finally, he argued that the criminal proceedings against him had not been concluded within a . In this respect he invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention."], "id": "f1611cc0-8406-4855-a804-4a13b0510563", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government averred that the proceedings had been fair. The applicant had been granted access to court as his case had been examined by both the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court, which were both independent and impartial courts established by law. The Administrative Court had conducted the proceedings within a and in accordance with the relevant procedural law. That court had addressed all the arguments presented by both the applicant and the Government of Croatia, and rendered a reasoned judgment based on the legislation in force. In particular, the Government argued that the principle of equality of arms had also been respected in the applicant\u2019s case and that he had had the opportunity to present his arguments to the Administrative Court under the same conditions as the opposing party."], "id": "051d0fba-6911-484f-929b-bc6c382d32a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that in the decisions of the national courts in the civil proceedings he was treated as having committed a criminal offence. He further complained, under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 5 of the Convention, that his pre-trial detention had exceeded a and that he had no right to compensation. Lastly, he invoked Article 7 of the Convention but without further elaboration."], "id": "26ee5091-da9f-408f-b011-c92652ea90e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant submitted that his pre-trial detention had not been based on sufficient reasons and had been in contravention of the requirement provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. In his view, the Government\u2019s assertion that he might have absconded, if released, was contrary to the circumstances of the case. In particular, when released on bail, he had duly appeared in court for the trial hearings. Nor had there been any evidence before the domestic judicial authorities that he had put undue pressure on witnesses. The prosecutor\u2019s allegation that he was the holder of a foreign passport had not been confirmed by any evidence."], "id": "3ffdb00e-ec8b-48c6-b420-69b89e585c3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant argued that he could not have known that the decision of the Administrative Court of 16 January 2003 concerned his administrative action of 31 December 2001. That was because he had withdrawn the civil action he had lodged with the Pula Municipal Court, which had later been transferred to the Administrative Court, and not his administrative action. He had never received any decision or notification from the Administrative Court that these two actions had been merged - if indeed they had been \u2013 or that the Administrative Court would decide to examine them together. Therefore, he had complained to the Constitutional Court that he had not received the decision of the Administrative Court concerning his administrative action within a . The applicant also argued that he could not have brought an action under section 67 of the Administrative Disputes Act or a civil action for damages against the State since he had not known that there had been an unlawful act until he had been so informed by the decision of the Constitutional Court."], "id": "3f65ed43-5c51-4a35-bfff-320c3319df92", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government submitted that the judgment of 7 December 2000 was fully enforced between October 2000 and February 2001, that is, within a . The applicant did not submit the writ of execution to the liquidation commission and did not make a complaint against the insolvency manager to a court. The insolvency manager in her letters informed the applicant that her claims under the judgment had been included in the registry of the creditor\u2019s claims by mistake."], "id": "54459ac1-3c1a-4c09-8111-9353504ca14c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["136. The applicants submitted that the case ought to have been given priority, as required also by the domestic legislation. Nonetheless, the proceedings concerning the interim order as well as the first applicant's claim to be granted custody and contact were not conducted within a . In addition, the applicants claimed that despite the fact that O.\u010c. had been preventing contact between the applicants, the court had failed to enforce the interim order."], "id": "a692824d-c601-4173-a40f-666f12aa2257", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government alleged that the domestic courts had, in general, complied with the requirement as they had made it possible for the expert examinations to be carried out promptly, had cooperated in collecting evidence from the witnesses and had even twice taken measures to discipline the applicant's representatives, that is by discontinuing the civil proceedings. At the same time, the Government acknowledged that on several occasions one of the defendants, a State authority, had defaulted in attending the court hearings. They stated, however, that having regard to the overall length of the proceedings, the delay of approximately five months thereby incurred was negligible."], "id": "955de33c-5b3f-403a-80a5-3e83280af75d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicants both complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention of the non-communication of the written opinions submitted by the public prosecutors to the Supreme Administrative Court concerning their appeal requests, which had denied them the opportunity to reply and had thus infringed the principle of equality of arms. The applicants also maintained under the same provision that they had been denied a trial within a ."], "id": "0232a681-4ce2-4302-93bc-95fe37b64d56", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government next observed that that there were two sets of proceedings in the applicant's case: contentious and administrative proceedings. As to the contentious proceedings, they ended on 29 November 1999, more than six months before the application was lodged with the Court. As to the second set of proceedings, the Government considered that their length did not exceed a within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, because it amounted to one year and four months. They considered therefore that these complaints should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded."], "id": "b6751d2d-c0d2-46bf-abe3-a14c9b6d3d88", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant disagreed, stating that the complexity of the case was not sufficient to discharge the State of its obligation to observe the requirement. He noted, in particular, that the case had been suspended before the Kaunas City District Court for almost five years. The applicant conceded that he had been under an obligation to inform the court when his relative\u2019s state of health would allow her to participate in the proceedings. Nonetheless, he argued that it was the court which was primarily responsible for the swift resolution of the case. The applicant further observed that after the decision of the Supreme Court of 12 September 2000, by which the case had been returned to the first-instance court for a fresh examination, the Kaunas City District had only given its decision on 18 February 2004. Consequently, the length of these proceedings had been excessive."], "id": "36c1c160-8c4c-4c6b-94c4-40174b4bbc3f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government pointed out that the case comprised three separate pre-trial investigations with related facts and one additional investigation. During these investigations the police had conducted a search and seized a large amount of material. After the pre-trial stage, the case file comprised some 1,200 pages. That stage of the proceedings, including the consideration of charges, took two years and some two and a half months, which the Government considered normal in cases concerning comprehensive business offences. The Government contended that the case was complex and that the time taken before the trial courts, one year and some five months for the District Court and two and a half years for the Court of Appeal, could therefore not be considered excessive. The proceedings before the Supreme Court had lasted less than four months. In the Government\u2019s view there had been no unnecessary delays in the proceedings on the part of the authorities. As to the conduct of the applicant, the Government pointed out that the Court of Appeal had extended the time-limit for lodging an appeal at his request. The Government concluded that the proceedings had been conducted within a ."], "id": "e37fa1da-3a51-4d54-8a7f-ed2c9c0c229e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government expressed the view that the first applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a . They argued that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged such a violation, had ordered the Zvolen District Court to act and had awarded adequate just satisfaction. Additionally, the case was transferred to the Lu\u010denec District Court shortly after the Constitutional Court's judgment and the first applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the period of the proceedings before that court, as well as before the Regional Court."], "id": "9489135c-7b63-4b7f-a092-430581219e3d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government argued that there was no breach of the requirement of Article 6 \u00a7 1. The Government did not submit that the proceedings were particularly complex but argued that they could not be viewed as straightforward: the applicant's damages claims required a ten-day trial period due to extensive and expert evidence adduced by the applicant and the proceedings had resulted in a lengthy judgment and an appeal. In addition, a substantial proportion of the delay in the proceedings was caused by the applicant himself. In particular, he was responsible for an initial two year delay in serving the summons. He had pursued a motion for judgment in default even after the defence had been served and failed to serve his list of documents until five months after it was due to be served. The applicant's solicitors had been expected to set down the case for trial within 28 days of 25 October 2000 but had not done so by 19 January 2001. The applicant had failed to provide adequate disclosure of documents in 2001 and failed to comply with the revised timetable then given by the court. Finally the applicant was responsible for further delays while he produced a further expert's report, leading to the postponement of the trial for six weeks."], "id": "e2ed925f-4f3b-4ea5-bfb4-662fa9063da4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government argued that in view of the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment (n\u00e1lez) of 29 April 2004 the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a . They pointed out that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged the infringement of the applicant\u2019s right of which he complained before the Court. The Constitutional Court further provided the applicant compensatory redress. The Government considered this redress adequate and sufficient and maintained that it was compatible with the relevant principles and practice of both the Constitutional Court and the Court."], "id": "c3b7c084-0696-4c2c-9bd6-64a5b17583d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s arguments. He submitted that no effective remedy existed in relation to his complaint. This was evident from the lack of case-law in respect of violations by the State of the right to trial within a . The case of Yiallouros was a civil action where damages had been sought for the violation of constitutional rights between individuals and not between individuals and the State as in the instant case. In any event, according to the applicant, it was inappropriate for the judicial authorities, against which a length of proceedings complaint would be directed, to judge the issue."], "id": "41bf9be0-5645-43ea-9719-10262da8167a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s case had required no special diligence but had been rather complex. Moreover, in order to give a decision in the applicant\u2019s case, the Constitutional Court had to decide first on the constitutional challenges to the applicable substantive law. In the Government\u2019s view, the delay resulting thereof did not appear excessive because an obligation to hear cases within could not be construed for the Constitutional Court in the same way as for an ordinary court, due to its special role as a guardian of the Constitution. In arguing so they relied on the Court\u2019s case-law (see Tri\u010dkovi\u0107 v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, \u00a7 63, 12 June 2001; and \u0110uri\u010di\u0107 v. Croatia (dec.), no. 67399/01, 9 October 2003). The applicant contested those arguments."], "id": "b645bde5-8f09-4ce3-9d9f-96210e1702df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant disagreed, noting, in particular, the small amount of compensation and the lack of its connection with the length of the proceedings. He emphasised that a federal law of 30 April 2010, which introduced the possibility of obtaining compensation for a violation of the right to a hearing within a , had come into force after the rehabilitation proceedings."], "id": "f624cb3b-93e3-479b-97f7-495f14350e14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant submitted that the proceedings she had been required to undertake had not been decided within a . The property was taken in 1958 and the Government only initiated compensation proceedings eighteen years later, in 1976. Pending the outcome of those proceedings, which she did not consider effective, as they could never have resulted in an adequate award of compensation, the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings in 1996, which were concluded in 1999 at first instance and in 2007 on an appeal filed by the Government. Subsequently, the taking having been found to be null and void, proceedings before the LAB became in her view superfluous and were abandoned. Thus, after fifty years, during which Malta was under the protection of the Convention (prior to Malta's ratification, the United Kingdom had extended the protection of the Convention also to Maltese territory), the applicant had still not been awarded compensation for the taking."], "id": "c63a7abb-9a96-473f-8d84-9c543d8a1564", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant complained that his appeal had not been examined on the merits, given that the Court of Appeal had wrongly considered it as submitted out of time. He also complained that his case had not been heard within a . The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "ad8b0b78-4578-4a67-8dea-056998aacdd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government felt it important to explain the criteria used in Italian law and pointed out that the finding of a violation was independent of the existence of non-pecuniary damage. The Court of Cassation had asserted, though, that non-pecuniary damage was a normal consequence of a breach of the reasonable-time requirement that from then on did not have to be proved by the applicant. According to the Court of Cassation, it was up to the State to prove the contrary, that is, provide proof that in a particular case an inordinately long wait for a judgment had not occasioned the applicant any anxiety or distress but had been advantageous or that the applicant had been aware of having instituted or contested proceedings on the basis of erroneous arguments (Court of Cassation 29.3-11.5.2004 no. 8896), for example where they had been well aware from the outset that they had no chance of winning. Furthermore, under Article 41 the Court awarded just satisfaction if such was appropriate, so a finding of a violation could suffice. Accordingly, the Court should not be the only institution able to vary the amounts it awarded to the point of awarding nothing. They reiterated that, under Italian law, it was only the years beyond the that had to be taken into account when assessing the damage."], "id": "f9e7e860-c14a-4bd9-9385-db7c41e0d0c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government indicated that the applicant association\u2019s right to a court had not been breached. First, the supervisory review had been instigated within a after the decision of the Federal Commercial Court. Second, the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court had acted in compliance with the Code on Commercial Procedure and, thus, the applicant association had not been unprepared for such a development. Finally, the supervisory review had aimed at remedying a fundamental defect of the proceedings before the lower courts, namely the lack of jurisdiction of the commercial courts to decide on that category of disputes."], "id": "72e2c6e2-fd77-4bc4-bd45-b3a0f94acadc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government maintained that Article 13 required the existence of a systemic opportunity to achieve redress, regardless of problems which could appear under specific circumstances when exhausting remedies and which could possibly relieve the applicant of the obligation to make use of an existing and usually effective remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, \u00a7 136, 17 December 2009). Not even the fact alone that in the specific case and on the basis of a remedy which is otherwise effective the applicant was not provided redress at all, or to an extent that would not relieve him of the status of a victim of a violation of the right to a hearing within a , could lead to the conclusion that an effective remedy of violation of the said right was not available to the applicant (see Gordon-Krajcer v. Poland, no. 5943/07, \u00a7\u00a7 32-34, 7 July 2009, and Tekiela v. Poland, no. 35785/07, \u00a7\u00a7 33-35, 13 January 2009)."], "id": "1d5d0c1b-d5a8-48a8-bc0b-cd0c21e7ebaa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government contested that argument and considered the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant compatible with the \u201c requirement\u201d set out in Article 6 of the Convention. They acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been quashed twice on appeal, and that the trial court had returned the case file to the prosecutor, which had contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Government further submitted that the applicant\u2019s lawyers and the interpreter had failed to appear in court on several occasions, which had also protracted the proceedings. Lastly, they pointed out that the hearing of the case had been adjourned on one occasion in view of the applicant\u2019s counsel\u2019s request to study the material in the case file."], "id": "f9559b60-4ff5-45e2-8f53-7ee1ba304022", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant disagreed and maintained his complaints. He submitted, in particular, that despite two judicial orders under Article 250t of the CCP, there had been no actual acceleration of the administrative proceedings in question. Resorting to that remedy for the third time would have had no better chances of genuine success. In response to his second action under Article 250t of the CCP, the Regional Court had imposed a fine on the Land Office, but in the absence of any accelerating effect this had had no benefit for him since the fine had not been payable to him but to the State. The constitutional judgment in his favour had not been concerned with the alleged violation of his right to a hearing within a by the Land Office, as complained of in the present case, but with the violation of his right to a fair hearing by the Regional Court. On a careful reading, the precedent relied on by the Government (see paragraphs 34 et seq. and 40 above) actually disproved the effectiveness of the remedy under the State Liability Act. It was true that the domestic law had enabled him repeatedly to use various remedies, but the reality was that the domestic courts dealing with those remedies were not capable of actually resolving his problem. Lastly, in so far as the Government could be understood as attaching some responsibility for the length of the proceedings to his procedural behaviour, the applicant strongly denied any such responsibility."], "id": "6a9a0aba-59fb-447e-b59e-dda3aabe2819", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["123. The Government submitted that the overall duration of the proceedings against the applicant had not exceeded the requirement under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In the course of the trial the court had dealt with a considerable number of requests filed by the participants to the proceedings; it had examined extensive material from the case file (four co-defendants and over twenty witnesses had been questioned and over fifteen expert examinations had been carried out); on a number of occasions the hearings had been adjourned owing to the non-attendance of witnesses, jurors or defendants."], "id": "c6f5b70a-79a9-47d8-8579-ed08ee0fee95", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government further argued that the delays caused by the changes in the composition of the Town Court should be attributed to the applicant because he had successfully petitioned for them. Bearing in mind the prominent place which the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal holds in a democratic society (see, inter alia, De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 16, \u00a7 30), the Court considers that the State should bear the responsibility for a delay incurred through a successful challenge of the trial bench by a party to the proceedings. If a court accepts a party's motion for a change in the composition of the bench, it inevitably means that the fears of that party as to the impartiality and independence of the tribunal were justified. The Court further reiterates that Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet the obligation to decide the cases within a (see, among other authorities, L\u00f6ffler v. Austria, no. 30546/96, \u00a7 57, 3 October 2000). Therefore, the responsibility for an aggregated delay of approximately twelve months caused by the changes in the composition of the Town Court rests ultimately with the State (cf. Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, \u00a7 39, 5 October 2006)."], "id": "c48054fb-08b0-43ff-9402-bc2721a53ef1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant argued that the proceedings concerning a plot of land had lasted between 1996 and 2007. He stated that the proceedings had not been complex, that he had not contributed by his conduct to their prolongation and that the domestic courts had caused delays incompatible with the requirement guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "4aae0f87-bbce-43c0-b901-e6d442da1e66", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant argued that the case-law relied upon by the Government could not be applied when the complaints concerned the overall length of proceedings, which was the situation in the present case. In his view the principles from the Lazi\u0107 case were applicable only in respect of the complaints concerning a new violation of the right to a hearing within which had taken place in the period after the first domestic court\u2019s decision on that matter. Therefore, he considered that, by lodging his complaint about the overall length of proceedings with the Constitutional Court, he had exhausted domestic remedies."], "id": "46e48686-a0c5-48b5-978d-b2415bbce855", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government argued that the applicant had sufficient time to prepare his defence. Referring to the case of Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium (judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, pp. 20-21, \u00a7 41), they argued that \u201csufficient time\u201d was to be assessed in view of the circumstances of the case, including the complexity of the case and the stage of the trial. The applicant was brought to the police station at 17h30, while the court hearing took place at 19h30. During this time he failed to avail himself of his procedural rights, despite all the efforts of the police officers. The applicant was familiarised with the materials of the case against him and informed about his right to lodge motions and challenges, which he failed to do. The applicant signed the record of an administrative offence voluntarily and, by doing so, he agreed with its content and in essence admitted his guilt. Taking into account that the applicant signed the record, refused to have a lawyer, did not lodge any motions and did not avail himself of other procedural rights, the police officers considered two hours to be sufficient for the preparation of the applicant's defence. Furthermore, the applicant had the right to request an adjournment of the examination of his case, which he also failed to do. By failing to request such an adjournment, the applicant admitted that he had had ample time to prepare his defence. Finally, by immediately presenting the case to the court, the police officers ensured that the trial took place within a ."], "id": "facb6816-76c9-47d4-a83c-4b5f029f8bcd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["150. The applicant was of the view that the proceedings had exceeded a . In particular, the first hearing had been held more than three months after the institution of the proceedings. The arbitrary re\u2011qualification of the action as one under the general tort law, made by the Plovdiv District Court on 23 January 1998, had unduly delayed the proceedings until 2 November 1998. The adjourning of the case on 4 February 1999, which had occurred because of the absence of the prosecutor, had led to a further delay of fifty\u2011five days. The second, completely unwarranted attempt of the Plovdiv District Court to discontinue the proceedings had occasioned a further delay of eleven months. The delay in the examination of the \u201ccomplaint about delays\u201d by the chairperson of the Plovdiv Regional Court had caused the adjourning of the hearing listed for 8 May 2000. The Plovdiv Regional Court had taken more than six months to hold a hearing pursuant to the applicant\u2019s appeal. Likewise, the Supreme Court of Cassation had listed a hearing for more than fourteen months after the lodging of the appeal on points of law."], "id": "6c0297f8-ca06-46c2-aa2f-d349bd712326", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted that the present restitution case had been complex. They further submitted that the applicants had contributed to the length of the proceedings as they had not properly specified their action in time, had failed to excuse their absence at the hearing on 4 June 1996 and had not tried to accelerate the proceedings. While the District Court, Supreme Court and constitutional jurisdiction had examined the applicants\u2019 case within a , the Government acknowledged that there had been some delays in the proceedings before the Regional Court, caused by staffing and technical conditions."], "id": "72470de1-d3cf-4590-adaa-790d6bf6fb01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants claimed jointly 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, referring to the Court's case-law. They stated that the anxiety suffered by them had been exacerbated by the fact that at the relevant time inflation had run high and with the passage of time the applicants had practically lost the value of their claim. In the applicants' view, where a State had chosen \u2013 as Bulgaria had done \u2013 to apply, in court judgments, low interest rates fixed by law in disregard of the inflation, the judicial authorities of such a State must undertake special measures to secure the right to a trial within a as any failure to do so undermined the very essence of the right to a court."], "id": "84b4a2a9-fd70-4aab-a380-d6a76cc49214", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government explained that under section 15(1) and (2)(a) of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 48 above), individuals had standing to lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court claiming a breach of their Convention rights. Having regard to the Constitutional Court\u2019s new practice of granting compensation or redress in the form of an award of costs to a complainant in cases in which it found that the proceedings had lasted unreasonably long, a constitutional complaint had to be classified as an effective remedy to assert the right to a hearing within a under Article 6 \u00a7 1."], "id": "3a15e7de-c5e1-424d-9205-16910a8e8093", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government raised an objection that the applicant cannot be considered a \u201cvictim\u201d, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of his right to a hearing within a . The Court notes that this issue falls to be determined in the light of the principles established under the Court's case-law (Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, \u00a7\u00a7 69\u2011107, ECHR 2006\u2011... and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, \u00a7\u00a7 178\u2011213, ECHR 2006 - ...)."], "id": "fa20c061-8cb1-4af1-852c-76c0905564c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government disputed this allegation, submitting that the proceedings at issue had not exceeded a . They submitted that the applicant's case was a complicated inheritance dispute. There were three parties to the case: the applicant, the Treasury and the Dar\u00fclaceze. There were other proceedings pending at the same time concerning the same inheritance (paragraphs 11 and 13). The domestic court had to wait for the outcome of these proceedings."], "id": "7a5cb575-02ec-4db7-b367-49cb4f74f5db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government argued that the applicant had had sufficient time to prepare her defence. Referring to the case of Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium (judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, pp. 20-21, \u00a7 41), they argued that \u201csufficient time\u201d was to be assessed in view of the circumstances of the case, including the complexity of the case and the stage of the trial. On 7 April 2003 the applicant was brought to the police station at 7.30 p.m., while the court hearing took place at about 9.30 p.m. On 9 April 2003 the respective hours were 2.30 p.m. and 5 p.m. During both periods she failed to avail herself of her procedural rights, despite all the efforts of the police officers. The applicant was familiarised with the materials of the cases against her and informed about her right to lodge motions and challenges, which she failed to do. On both occasions the applicant signed the record of an administrative offence voluntarily and, by doing so, she agreed with its content and in essence admitted her guilt. Taking into account that the applicant signed the records, refused to have a lawyer, did not lodge any motions and did not avail herself of other procedural rights, the police officers considered these periods to be sufficient for the preparation of the applicant\u2019s defence. Furthermore, the applicant had the right to request an adjournment of the examination of her cases, which she also failed to do. By failing to request such an adjournment, the applicant admitted that she had had ample time to prepare her defence. Finally, by immediately presenting the cases to the court, the police officers ensured that the trials took place within a ."], "id": "b69c7a88-36a2-40a0-b524-572e78569fd5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that the total amount awarded by the Chamber was exorbitant and inconsistent with the spirit of Article 41, which provided only for the award of just satisfaction for the damage sustained. They added that, when examining other cases concerning Greece in which it had found more serious violations than that of the right to a hearing within a , the Court had awarded smaller sums. In their opinion, in cases concerning the length of proceedings, the Court should vary the application of Article 41 depending on the number of individuals involved. In particular, they considered that the costs of proceedings and the legitimate interests in issue were completely different according to whether the litigants had applied to the courts collectively or individually. The same was true in respect of the possible frustration experienced as a result of undue delay in judicial proceedings. Turning to the impugned proceedings, launched by an application to have a decision set aside, the number of applicants could have had no impact on the eventual outcome. The Government concluded that the Grand Chamber should reduce the total amount awarded by the Chamber in respect of non-pecuniary damage."], "id": "136f2156-8921-412a-9e71-4ca04e2c2f7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Reasonable Time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In particular, he had failed to lodge a request for review and an action for fair redress provided by the Right to a Trial within a Act (see paragraph 21 above). He had also failed to make use of a constitutional appeal (see paragraphs 16-20 above)."], "id": "3bdbee73-dd2f-4bee-aab1-173ada901e00", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government disagreed, arguing that the proceedings in their entirety had been fair. They referred to Fejde v. Sweden (judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212\u2011C), submitting that, as in that case, the Court of Appeal had considered that the appeal did not raise any question of fact or law which could not be adequately resolved on the basis of the case file. The actions of the applicant outside the building were undisputed: all that was disputed was the applicant\u2019s intention in raising the hammer, and the Court of Appeal had been able to determine the facts on the basis of the case file. The Government also pointed out that other considerations, including the right to a trial within a and the related need for the expeditious handling of the courts\u2019 case-load, had to be taken into account in determining the need for an oral hearing at second instance. Finally they argued that it followed from the domestic legislation that persons, who had no information material to the case, need not be called as witnesses. Considering S.H.\u2019s evidence at the pre-trial stage, it was highly improbable that hearing S.H. would have changed the appellate court\u2019s assessment of the case or that it would have been beneficial to the outcome of the applicant\u2019s appeal."], "id": "a567784d-e850-4376-8cbf-e33bae4e86df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government submitted that the fact that the time-limit of ten days laid down by the Prison Administration Act had been exceeded could not be regarded as a breach of the obligation to conduct a judicial review. The court responsible for the execution of sentences had always ruled within a given the time needed to investigate cases. In the instant case the delay in responding had not resulted in the applicant\u2019s being denied access to a court."], "id": "3786297e-b635-462f-b162-607e192fc213", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["10. The applicant alleged that the length of the administrative proceedings exceeded the requirement, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention. He further maintained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the default interest paid on the compensation awarded by the \u0130stanbul Administrative Court was insufficient. The Government submitted that the case had been complex and that there had been no delay in the proceedings which could be attributed to the authorities. The Government further submitted that the amount of compensation paid to the applicant had sufficiently compensated him for the damage he had suffered."], "id": "2c1d0623-24fa-4f4c-bf8f-8742e99c228b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant argued that the domestic courts had not decided her case within a . She denied causing any delay in the proceedings. Regarding the delay of more than four years before replying to the second defendant\u2019s request for further and better particulars (see paragraph 13 above), she noted that the second defendant had not reiterated the initial request, nor sought an order from the High Court directing her to reply. She pointed out that in mid-2005 the second defendant changed solicitor, retaining the same firm that was already representing the first defendant. She inferred that, having already received further and better particulars in relation to the claim against the first defendant, the solicitors no longer required further details from her regarding the claim against the second defendant. It could not therefore be said that this had delayed the hearing of the case in the High Court."], "id": "61ba04de-f244-4bb3-8ca5-436f5312882f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant\u2019s complaint concerns the detention pending trial, in respect of which this Court has constantly held that the presumption under Article 5 is in favour of release. As established in Neumeister v. Austria (27 June 1968, \u00a7 4, Series A no. 8), the second limb of Article 5 \u00a7 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a or granting him provisional release pending trial. Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (as confirmed in McKay, cited above, \u00a7 41)."], "id": "1f0b53da-62a4-4950-a9dd-db4a645944c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant argued that the overall duration of the proceedings was not in line with the requirement that proceedings be concluded within a . The different sets of proceedings had been brought between 2 February 1998 and 6 October 1998, and had lasted until 29 November 2005, thus more than seven years and nine months for the longest, and seven years and a little more than one month for the shortest. The case came before three levels of jurisdiction. The applicant also maintained that no complex question of law or fact had had to be determined."], "id": "4054c0ee-4e37-463b-8036-8358ca74be06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government concurred with the Constitutional Court in that the length of the proceedings in this case had been unreasonable. However, they expressed the view that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a . They argued that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged such a violation and the amount of just satisfaction awarded had not been manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "15cf335a-c6b5-4179-8111-57e0976ae38b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicant complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that both the Ankara State Security Court and the public prosecutor who had brought the charges against him had not been impartial and had infringed a number of procedural requirements of a fair trial. He also submitted under the same head that the criminal proceedings against him had not been concluded within a . Lastly, the applicant alleged, under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) of the Convention, that the Chief Public Prosecutor\u2019s submissions to the Court of Cassation had never been served on him, thus depriving him of the opportunity to put forward any counter-arguments."], "id": "e3205134-b1d6-4735-b763-f9a3845d63d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicants contested the above argument and argued that although they had turned to the Constitutional Court, the latter's decision had not provided them with any redress. Pointing to the quoted judgments of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 13 above) the applicants argued that termination of the proceedings in those two cases had not been an obstacle to finding a violation of those applicants' right to a hearing within a ."], "id": "b00c6036-7e23-4f8b-bdcd-a27736f4bbd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government maintained that the period to be taken into consideration had begun on 11 September 1997 when the Convention entered into force in respect of Ukraine. In their view, the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings by requesting adjournment of hearings, by failing to appear before the courts on several occasions and by introducing procedural requests and appeals, and that there had been no significant periods of inactivity attributable to the domestic authorities. The Government argued that the proceedings, including the enforcement stage, had been completed within a ."], "id": "79aa47dd-7a3f-48ce-8d30-b174dfc91282", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government pointed out that in the judgment of 13 July 2006 the Constitutional Court had admitted that in proceedings no. E 182/98 the Bardejov District Court had violated the applicant\u2019s right to a hearing within a . They also drew the Court\u2019s attention to the reasons for which the Constitutional Court decided not to award any just satisfaction to the applicant. As to the duration of the proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s requests for enforcement of 25 May 1998 and 10 June 1998, the applicant\u2019s complaint was not manifestly ill-founded."], "id": "0c87aae0-348d-461a-991a-7ec5cefa855c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government objected that, in respect of the proceedings examined by the Constitutional Court, the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their right to a hearing within a . They argued that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged such a violation, had ordered the District Court to avoid further delays and the amount of just satisfaction awarded was not manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "47cca117-f2c4-4027-a076-b330977d56cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained that his detention on remand exceeded the requirement. He also contended that he had no effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention on remand. In respect of his complaints the applicant relied on Articles 5 \u00a7 3 and 13 of the Convention. However, the Court considers that the applicant\u2019s second complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 5 \u00a7 4, rather than Article 13."], "id": "78774fa1-2b88-4142-b7c6-3aef03bedf23", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted that the Zalaegerszeg High Court was a \u201ctribunal established by law\u201d as being part of the ordinary court system in Hungary. The reassignment of a case from a court with general territorial competence to another was a well-known legal institution both in Hungarian and other European laws. Reassignments were to be applied only in exceptional cases as a temporary measure with a view to alleviate the serious regional imbalances between the workloads of courts and to eliminate excessive backlogs hindering the conclusion of judicial proceedings within a . They took place between courts and not between judges. The assignment of a case to a judge (or to a judicial formation) at the assignee court remained subject to the generally applicable rules governing the allocation of cases, determined by the president of the assignee court in accordance with the law. Therefore, due to the designation of the assignee court in accordance with the law and due to the subsequent allocation of the case to the assignee judge in accordance with the generally applicable rules, the judge having actually proceeded in the applicant\u2019s case became a \u201clawful judge\u201d for the purposes of domestic law."], "id": "4781b0d8-342b-4212-b105-12b76d7b5607", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant complained of the fact that the Tax Authority's decisions concerning additional taxes and tax surcharges had been enforced prior to a court determination of the disputes. In particular, he maintained that the tax assessment proceedings had not been determined within a and that he had been unable to obtain a fair hearing in those pending proceedings. Moreover, he had been deprived of his right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as is relevant to the complaint, provides:"], "id": "f6b91567-f50a-4f28-8356-ddad526de485", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government pointed out that in the judgment of 7 May 2003 the Constitutional Court had acknowledged that the District Court had violated the applicant\u2019s right to a hearing within a . The Constitutional Court had ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant\u2019s costs. In view of the applicant\u2019s conduct that decision provided appropriate redress to the applicant in the circumstances. The Government concluded that the applicant had lost the status of a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention."], "id": "542dc52b-b126-429e-a9a0-681e6b925681", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["125. The applicants did not agree that the case was of any particular complexity. They argued, in particular, that the length of the pre-trial investigation (one year and seven months) had been unreasonable and resulted from the remittal of the case on two occasions for additional investigation, the responsibility for which lay entirely with the domestic authorities. As a result, the proceedings had been delayed by over six months. The applicants further submitted that the length of the proceedings before the court had amounted to one year and nine months. It had taken the trial court two months to prepare the record of the trial (in contrast to the three-day time-limit set out in domestic law) and another three months to submit the case to the Supreme Court for examination on appeal. Moreover, it had taken the appeal court six months to start its examination of the case (in contrast to the maximum of two months set out in domestic law). In view of the foregoing, the applicants contended that the domestic authorities had failed to process their case within a and had therefore breached the relevant requirement of Article 6 \u00a7 1of the Convention."], "id": "8fa1857f-4623-474f-88a8-21d3961b3828", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant reminded the Court that, in its judgment in Davies v. the United Kingdom, no. 42007/98, 16.07.2002, it carried out an assessment of the reasonableness of the length of these same proceedings up to January 1988, and found them to have been too long. The period held by the Court in Davies to have violated the guarantee included a year\u2019s delay, between May 1995 and May 1996, when Mr Davies appealed against the decision to admit the Secretary of State\u2019s late evidence: this delay could not be attributed to the present applicant. The proceedings against Mr Eastaway lasted three years and five months longer than those against Mr Davies. Although the Government criticised him for bringing proceedings for judicial review and under the Human Rights Act, the applicant was obliged to exhaust his domestic remedies and bring his Convention complaints before the domestic courts in the manner provided for by the law as it stood at the time."], "id": "bfd93ce1-d568-41bf-8347-570bfce9c1e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government argued that in view of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 21 July 2004 the applicant had lost his status as a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention of a violation of his right to a hearing within a . They pointed out that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged the violation of the applicant's right, that it had ordered acceleration of the proceedings and that this order had been effectively implemented. Furthermore, they considered that the reasons relied on by the Constitutional Court in its ruling dismissing the applicant's claim for just satisfaction and compensation in respect of costs and expenses were sufficient."], "id": "969ff82a-de82-445f-92b9-25a7999a91a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing within a by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of the military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court. He further alleged that he had been denied a fair hearing before the domestic courts since his conviction was not based on concrete evidence. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "62080759-3be8-40a5-b3ce-733784d041f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government objected that, in respect of the proceedings examined by the Constitutional Court, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of its right to a hearing within a . They argued that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged such a violation and the amount of just satisfaction awarded was not manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. As to the period subsequent to the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment, the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies by lodging a fresh complaint with the Constitutional Court."], "id": "b4fd7c6c-85b0-4948-aea2-110d056841a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government submitted that the problems illustrated by the two sets of criminal proceedings at issue in the present case were not such as to call for the adoption of a pilot judgment. The mere fact that there had been many judgments in which the Court had found Bulgaria in breach of its obligation to provide applicants with proceedings within a did not show the existence of a systemic problem. It had to be borne in mind that the two applications concerned proceedings which had taken place between 1996 and 2009. The assessment whether they were indicative of a structural problem called for the consideration of the reform of the criminal justice system which had taken place during that period. Many of those reforms, which had started in 1999, had been a result of rulings made by the Court. The increasing incidence of adverse rulings against Bulgaria and the high number of pending applications evinced not only problems with the Bulgarian criminal justice system, but also the increasing popularity of the Court. Another fact showing the lack of a structural problem was that the Committee of Ministers had not adopted an interim resolution in relation to the group of Bulgarian cases concerning length of proceedings. More time was therefore needed to assess the effect of the ongoing reform of the judicial system and the impact of the newly adopted rules of procedure."], "id": "352b83ff-c19a-43f3-a2f1-60efdd505736", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained of a violation of her right to a fair hearing within a and also that she had been a victim of discrimination on grounds of sex. She further alleged that she had been unable to obtain redress for the violation of her fundamental right as acknowledged by the Constitutional Court. She relied on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 14 of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "61b6d5f9-db38-4a7f-8199-a6a8ad2d6268", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies since she had not availed herself of the complaint provided for by the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki \u2013 \u201cthe 2004 Act\u201d)."], "id": "3d6938ec-4332-4993-9ef9-074f4408defc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government invited the Court to reject the application on the ground that the applicant had not exhausted all domestic remedies as required under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They maintained that for the period following the Constitutional Court's decision the applicant could have lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within with a higher court and a constitutional complaint against a higher court's decision, which he had failed to do."], "id": "a611835e-a7e0-435a-9c24-a2eeb1946e22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government contested that argument. As regards the first proceedings, they claimed that the applicant could not be regarded as a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention. In this respect they pointed out, that the domestic courts not only accepted that the proceedings exceeded a but they significantly reduced his sentence solely on this ground. As regards the second proceedings, the Government submitted that they ended with the service of the final decision more than six months prior to the introduction of the application. As to the third proceedings, they claimed that the applicant contributed to the protraction of the case to a great extent."], "id": "8e769f9d-6e56-4b4e-9c42-bdbcd02e9bed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government argued that the non-enforcement of the judgment in question had not been intentional but had resulted from the administration of public funds within a State authority. The Ministry of Finance had kept the applicant company informed as to the progress of the enforcement proceedings and taken all the necessary steps in order to enforce the judgment within a ."], "id": "4305fbe6-ca83-4077-a450-2b3a63b64c7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that their right to a fair hearing within a had been violated, that the District Court judges involved were not impartial and that the way in which the case had been processed amounted to a denial of justice. The relevant part of Article 6 \u00a7 1 reads as follows:"], "id": "84e09ea2-3d9f-4d99-a20e-f61bb8f3bb26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted that the period to be taken into consideration began on 26 July 2000 when the applicant\u2019s appeal became pending before the Accident Board. The Court points out that in civil matters the may begin to run, in certain circumstances, even before the issue of the writ commencing proceedings before the court to which the plaintiff submits the dispute. This is the situation, inter alia, when the applicant cannot seize a competent court before having the lawfulness and the expediency of impugned administrative acts examined in preliminary proceedings before an administrative authority (see K\u00f6nig v. Germany, 28 June 1978, \u00a7 98, Series A no. 27)."], "id": "f1c2af24-5098-4870-b5e2-f5b16108fa9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government submitted that some adjournments of the proceedings had been caused by circumstances beyond the parties' control (the illness of the defendants and their representatives) and some by circumstances beyond the control of the domestic authorities (such as the replacement of representatives by the defendants and review of the case file by the defendants' newly appointed representatives). The applicant and the other defendants had made full use of their procedural rights and should have been aware that this would result in the protraction of the proceedings. There had therefore been no fault attributable to the domestic authorities and no violation of the applicant's right to have her case heard within a , as provided for in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "aa5277b0-9eac-4657-ad05-7a1cf840e5bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government invited the Court to reject the application for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the applicant could have lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. In support of their argument, the Government produced a copy of the Constitutional Court decision of 2 February 2005 (see paragraph 15 above) in which that court had found a violation of the complainant's right to a hearing within a on account of lengthy enforcement proceedings."], "id": "a3a439d9-4ae8-4302-82d9-5b5dedd9af5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government argued that the Constitutional Court had examined the applicants\u2019 complaint on the merits, had found a violation of their right to a hearing within a , and had ordered the District Court to proceed with the matter (see paragraph 11 above). It had also awarded the applicants compensation which was appropriate considering the particular circumstances of their case. The violation complained of had therefore been remedied at the domestic level and as a result, the applicants had lost their victim status."], "id": "7ebd58ec-d1b8-45b5-891a-8ef7556212d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month rule because he had erroneously believed that the constitutional complaint that he had lodged against the Supreme Court\u2019s decision of 6 June 2011 (see paragraphs 27-28 above) had constituted an effective remedy to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and had thus been capable of interrupting the running of the six-month time-limit prescribed in that Article. They explained that after the entry into force on 29 December 2009 of amendments to the relevant legislation providing a remedy for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, a constitutional complaint could no longer be lodged in respect of Supreme Court decisions rendered in proceedings for protection of the right to a hearing within a . According to the Government, the Constitutional Court had already adopted that view in its decision no. U\u2011IIIVs-3669/2006 of 2 March 2010, which was published in the Official Gazette on 19 March 2010. The applicant, who had been represented by an advocate, should have been aware of that. Consequently, the final decision, within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, for the purposes of calculating the six-month time limit in the applicant\u2019s case was not the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision of 12 December 2012 (see paragraph 29 above) but the Supreme Court\u2019s decision of 6 June 2011 (see paragraph 27 above). However, the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 16 April 2013 (see paragraph 1 above), that is to say more than six months later."], "id": "6ba0ff2e-8900-4d0a-95af-27894752c746", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible. Any delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 13 August 2002 had been caused by the workings of the federal budget. The authorities had not idled; they had paid the award as soon as funds had become available. The other three judgments had been enforced within a . The applicant had abused his right of petition, because he had impertinently accused the authorities of falsity."], "id": "6ee5a09c-9254-455a-a421-a8d1cf9ebd5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicants complained that they were not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal within a \u201c .\u201d They asserted that, since they were detained during the trial, their right to the presumption of innocence was breached. They further asserted that their consultations with their lawyer were subjected to very strict regulations which hindered the preparation of their defence. They claimed that they were not allowed to consult a lawyer during their police custody, before the public prosecutor or the first time they appeared before the trial court. They finally claimed that they could not put questions to the main prosecution witnesses. With respect to their complaints, the applicants invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2, and 3 (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which in so far as relevant read as follows:"], "id": "d342c136-920a-44ed-a413-7fd854721e90", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government invited the Court to reject the application for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the applicant could have lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. In support of their argument, the Government produced a copy of the Constitutional Court decision of 2 February 2005 (see paragraph 18 above) in which that court had found a violation of the complainant's right to a hearing within a on account of lengthy enforcement proceedings."], "id": "7674f6be-4e32-4d2f-ba9b-a6209120742c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government also referred to the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia of 22 September 2005 in the case U-I-65/05. In that judgment, the Constitutional Court found that the Administrative Disputes Act, in the part governing the right to a trial within for the proceedings which had already been terminated, is not in conformity with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court ordered the legislator to right this unconstitutional situation within one years' time."], "id": "5766c3ae-5298-44e1-a6d1-d9bc43de75c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant argued that the overall duration of the proceedings was not in line with the requirement that proceedings be concluded within a . The different sets of proceedings had been brought on 7 September 1998 and 5 October 1998, and had lasted until 29 November 2005, thus between seven years and a little more than two months for the longest and seven years and a little more than one month for the shortest. The case came before three levels of jurisdiction. The applicant also maintained that no complex question of law or fact had had to be determined."], "id": "4d87df9c-7ccd-4f37-8658-18c3d6aae2e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government reiterated that the domestic courts had correctly declined to consider the applicant's request for the protection of the right to a hearing within since the criminal proceedings complained of did not involve a criminal charge against the applicant or determination of his civil rights and obligations. In their view, the applicant should have availed himself of this remedy in respect of the two sets of the civil proceedings initiated in 2003 and 2004, which he had not done."], "id": "eddc9e7f-887e-4a7f-80c7-72f638fbd615", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the courts that had dealt with her case had not been impartial and that she had not had a fair trial. She also considered that her claims for compensation had not been decided within a by the courts and that the final decision had not been pronounced publicly, as it had taken more than eight months for her to get a copy of that decision."], "id": "f69bd16f-1757-454e-a87e-d6976f3c7707", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government submitted that, under Georgian law, the primary role of the Supreme Court in cassation was to review the lawfulness of appellate decisions (Article 408 \u00a7 3 of the CCP; paragraph 26 above). Thus, where the cassation court could not inquire into the circumstances of the case and was only called upon to assess the already established facts from a legal point of view, the parties' participation at an oral hearing might not always be necessary. This rule could be justified by such legitimate considerations as the right to a hearing within a and the demands of economy."], "id": "d9d8cd7d-e040-4137-9e07-e962def0e0c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["10. The Government argued that in view of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 23 August 2006 the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a . They expressed the view that, as the applicant had lodged a fresh constitutional complaint, his complaint as to the period of the proceedings after the Constitutional Court's judgment of 2006 was premature."], "id": "1ada796c-9276-44b5-b403-06b92f615b29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government expressed the view that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a . They argued that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged such a violation and had awarded the applicant sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage suffered. The applicant should have lodged a fresh constitutional complaint in respect of the subsequent period in the inheritance proceedings as well as in respect of the related civil proceedings (file no. 6 C 156/04)."], "id": "60093b43-09ee-40b7-92bc-172133901976", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Reasonable Time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government submitted that the applicants had not exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to them. Primarily, they failed to \u201cseek inspection\u201d of the impugned proceedings. Further, they failed to lodge a request for review and an action for fair redress provided by the Right to a Trial within a Act (see paragraph 30 above). In this respect the Government referred to Grzin\u010di\u010d v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, ECHR 2007\u2011V (extracts). Lastly, the applicants had not made use of a constitutional appeal (see paragraphs 26-29 above)."], "id": "991ad0c9-d405-4fbf-bcda-352e8204ae0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government stressed that, as regards administrative criminal proceedings, Austrian law provided for very short periods of prescription within which the authorities have to act (see \u00a7\u00a7 21-26 above). This regulation ensured that a decision is taken within a . Moreover, the Government asserted that the authorities determining the sentence had to take into account the duration of the proceedings."], "id": "06bc3426-c08f-4e1e-9546-3bc6e0a9e8b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government averred that the proceedings had been fair. The Administrative Court had conducted the proceedings within a and in accordance with the relevant procedural law. That court had rendered a reasoned judgment based on the legislation in force. In addition, the Government argued that the principle of equality of arms had also been respected in the applicant\u2019s case. The applicant could at any time have sought access to the case file and had in fact subsequently submitted comments on the Municipal Office\u2019s response to her claim. Moreover, the Government argued that the Municipal Office had not raised any new material facts in its response, but had simply reiterated its arguments from the impugned decision."], "id": "3fbde2d4-6b49-41cd-a3fe-7ccd92a9d9d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government accepted that it was incumbent on the State to organise its legal system so as to allow the courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7 1, including the right to have a hearing within a . Yet, in their submission, the authorities had discharged that duty in the present case by increasing gradually, that is to say from 1993 up to the present, the budgetary spending on the judiciary and, especially, on the Warsaw Regional Court, which was the most overburdened court in Poland."], "id": "5882f24a-7041-41c1-8750-cdac9a53ffa2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government submitted, first, that the applicant was legally aided until May 1996, and so his costs up until that date had already been reimbursed. Once his legal aid certificate was discharged the applicant acted in person and did not, therefore, incur any legal costs. In any event, any legal costs and expenses incurred by the applicant during the domestic proceedings were not caused by the alleged violation of the Convention, and would have been incurred whether or not the proceedings had been determined within a ."], "id": "047de4eb-8bae-4bd3-b414-fbe09d552387", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["13. The Government objected that, in respect of the proceedings examined by the Constitutional Court, the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of its right to a hearing within a . They argued that the Constitutional Court had expressly acknowledged such a violation and the amount of just satisfaction awarded and paid without undue delay was not manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case. As to the period subsequent to the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment, the applicant company had not exhausted domestic remedies by lodging a fresh complaint with the Constitutional Court."], "id": "1389d747-3c1a-4975-9c40-945168421795", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings was incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement, laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In particular, she complained that the amount of compensation she had been awarded for the breach of her right to a hearing within was not adequate and that the impugned proceedings are still pending. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "3f118e7e-aeab-4b0e-9fc9-4054431f26b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "reasonable time", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["122. The Government submitted that the applicant was promptly and adequately informed of the charges against him. His lawyer\u2019s request for additional time to study the bill of indictment was granted by the trial court. While a number of his requests were granted by the domestic courts, the request for the conduct of expert reports was rejected because his involvement in the crime was beyond doubt. The testimonies of witnesses \u00c7. and M. were obtained in accordance with domestic law. The applicant had voluntarily left the hearing room on 29 October 2001 and had stated that \u201cno one dares take up my defence\u201d. In response to the trial court\u2019s request to provide an ex officio lawyer, the Albanian Bar Association was unable to assist with the request, having regard to the constraints imposed by Articles 49 \u00a7 6 and 51 \u00a7 1 of the CCP. Faced with such limitations and the obligation to conduct a trial within a , the trial court had decided to proceed with the hearing."], "id": "70572d65-1607-413c-ad44-e5a8ec2a6c09", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government argued that the application should be dismissed for the applicant\u2019s failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies in respect of his grievances. In their opinion, it had been open to him to complain to the Judicial Qualifications Board or a prosecutor\u2019s office about the violations allegedly committed by the judge. Those bodies had authority to institute criminal or against a judge."], "id": "5879062a-6776-481c-bec7-638e1b85d2cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government argued that a separate investigation had been conducted by the disciplinary bodies in the present application. They had heard the applicant, the witness and related parties, and had considered the evidence before them to be sufficient to conclude that the applicant\u2019s conduct had been incompatible with that expected in the civil service, as provided for under section 125. The Government pointed out that the standard of evidence and burden of proof applicable in were different from those applicable in criminal proceedings."], "id": "917ad64a-1063-43b8-9bc1-52b7eecae8e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant submitted that in the light of the established case\u2011law of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, a refusal to prepare a cassation appeal could not by itself be regarded as negligence giving rise to an action for damages before a civil court. Hence, the lawyers\u2019 refusals could not be seen as a valid ground for either a complaint about their conduct, either to be pursued in or giving rise to civil liability on the lawyers\u2019 part. In any event, the opinions prepared by legal-aid lawyers in the present case had been detailed enough. It could not therefore be said that they had failed in their duty to properly examine the applicant\u2019s cases."], "id": "aa5b459c-9553-424a-a725-d3b3bf2dc275", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government further argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, they maintained that the applicant could have instituted against the judge who had dealt with his case. They further submitted that the applicant could have instituted criminal proceedings against the judge and then lodged a civil claim seeking compensation. Lastly, they alleged that the applicant was not interested in consideration of his cassation appeal since he had lodged his complaint only in 2001."], "id": "5675dd38-8c01-43cf-891a-10da326623da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant argued that the against him had run foul of the requirement of fair trial because the statement he had given to the police had been obtained illegally. He further argued that two other statements, also given to the police, by B.J. and H.\u0106. had been relied on in the judgments of the disciplinary courts although these statements had never been communicated to him, nor had their content been revealed."], "id": "d341516b-f660-44a1-a349-7ca283926a5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of Convention that the against him had been conducted unfairly. He submitted that the Disciplinary Council\u2019s decision was based on the facts established in the criminal proceedings, and that those proceedings had also been unfair. In particular, he complained that the Disciplinary Council had failed to hear his secretary, who had allegedly erroneously transferred ATS 20,000,000, which sum was the subject of the trusteeship agreement. She had not been heard as a witness in the second set of criminal proceedings for fraudulent conversion. The applicant, relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, also complains that the sanction imposed on him, namely being struck off the register, was excessive."], "id": "7d30cc6e-a65a-417b-8218-cc3f54d84a19", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant maintained that three members of the National Judicial Council had expressed bias against him in the interviews published in the national newspapers at a time when the against him had not yet been concluded. Although the NJC had already adopted its first decision when the interviews in question were published, that decision had subsequently been quashed by the Constitutional Court and in the resumed proceedings before the NJC all three of the members in question had again participated."], "id": "fd505910-a836-46cf-a9df-326a822f3e41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant argued that there were several periods of inactivity on the part of the authorities. Although on 7 April 2006 the Ministry of Economics and Labour had ordered his compulsory retirement as from 1 May 2006 on the grounds that he was suffering from a personality disorder, it took the domestic authorities more than three years to arrive, eventually, at the same conclusion. He pointed out that, despite the precise orders given by the Appeals Commission in its decisions of 14 December 2006 and 2 December 2008, the Disciplinary Council had committed the same procedural errors again and its decisions constantly failed to assess the evidence correctly. Furthermore, the right to prosecute him had already become time-barred in 2009, but the Disciplinary Prosecutor nonetheless insisted on continuing the against him. Finally, given that his monthly pension was EUR 1,526.52, any reduction of this amount would have seriously affected his economic existence."], "id": "7d50f94b-6d3f-4ad9-8a4b-b3f7b1a68f5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained that he had been denied access to court in relation to an order suspending him in the exercise of his mandate as a judge pending the outcome of against him. In that respect, he alleged a violation of his rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "id": "527d2a23-ebf1-4e36-bd6f-515ef0a2c033", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["896. The applicants submitted that the restrictions imposed upon their fair trial rights in the course of their trial and appeal were specifically linked with \u201cother reasons\u201d, contrary to Article 18. There were many breaches of their rights which showed bad faith on the part of the authorities. Similarly, the decision that the applicants should be sent to the Chita Region and to the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region to serve their sentences, thereby greatly impeding their contact with their families and lawyers, was taken for improper reasons. Whilst at the penal colonies the applicants had been targeted with illegal, unfair, disproportionate and discriminatory designed to affect their prospects of release on parole. The applicants further gave an account of what they called \u201cthe consistent pattern of harassment and intimidation of the ... lawyers\u201d."], "id": "5d0641d5-eb25-494c-ad61-a5c447e42269", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant reasoned that the proceedings were unreasonably long. The issues in the case were not particularly complex. Only eight witnesses were heard and the volume of the case files merely resulted from numerous documentary evidence (that is copies of fees imposed by the applicant for issuing copies of arrest warrants and protocols). Furthermore, he did not contribute to the length of the proceedings. Thus the remedy provided for by Article 61 \u00a7 1 of the Code (see paragraph 31 above) was not open to him during the stay of proceedings between 29 November 1990 and 21 May 1995. After that period he could not avail himself of this remedy as he had never been advised of the legal remedies available to him (Rechtsbehelfsbelehrung). In any event that remedy would have been unsuccessful as the Administrative Court of Appeal considered, even on 1 July 2003, that the delays in the proceedings were irrelevant. Moreover, his requests to hear evidence were all rejected and his complaints for bias were decided within a few weeks so that they did not delay the proceedings. According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is mainly attributable to the German authorities who waited three and a half years before continuing the after the parallel criminal proceedings had ended and then took three years to file the indictment with the Administrative Court. Finally, the applicant emphasised that the delay in the proceedings had a severe effect on his employment and financial situation."], "id": "879480c6-6a00-4b41-9c2d-5e6f68353039", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government, relying on the Court\u2019s decision in the case of Banfield (cited above) pointed out that the State\u2019s entitlement to bring against the applicant in addition to criminal proceedings was not in question: the criminal proceedings related to the breaches of criminal law and the disciplinary proceedings to the applicant\u2019s breach of the relationship of trust which must exist between all employees and their employer. They observed in this respect that the situation in the present case had been the same as in Banfield: the applicant had benefited from procedural protection, and the penalty imposed on him had been a discretionary one."], "id": "c47e22c6-5a81-46ef-9780-c843b6415a6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant submitted that the against him had been a drastic step. By their very nature and consequences a \u201cright\u201d in the sense of Article 6 of the Convention had been created. Any public\u2011law features of a disciplinary nature in the case did not exclude the proceedings from the scope of Article 6 since their outcome had been severe and far-reaching: the applicant had been dismissed from his post, affecting his career and professional activities. The fact that Articles 12 \u00a7 5 and 30 of the Constitution, which contained equivalent guarantees to Article 6 of the Convention, had been applicable to the disciplinary proceedings were indicative of the civil nature of the right at stake."], "id": "1268a459-e9a7-4863-a52c-2c1dc68d6438", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant claimed 88,789 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. This amount consisted of various allowances, a prospective salary increase and a bonus, all of which the applicant claimed to have been deprived of as a result of his suspension. Moreover, he claimed EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, referring to the repercussions on him of the against him and statements of the then President of the Supreme Court about him."], "id": "95ce5be3-cd53-4bab-b42a-5943f5539226", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government observed that there was no question of any lack of subjective impartiality on the part of Judge J.M. and that it was therefore necessary to determine whether the circumstances of the case were such as to raise serious doubts regarding the Court of Cassation\u2019s objective impartiality. Referring to the effect of the statement made in July 2000 by Judge J.M., who at the time had been serving on the Paris tribunal de grande instance, they pointed out that the statement, made many years before the hearing of the Criminal Division, concerned a different case from the present one and that the terms used reflected a personal position which related only to the conditions in which against a fellow judge had become known. The Government concluded that those remarks, which were limited in scope and had been made a long time before, were not sufficient to establish that, in his capacity as judge of the Court of Cassation, J.M. lacked objective impartiality."], "id": "a1e74bfb-533f-47c0-b022-3a1892c2b7f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["157. The applicant argued that the penalty imposed was disproportionate with regard to any legitimate aim, and that it had a substantial impact on his family, as he was supporting two minor children. In his view, the sanction should have concerned exclusively the supplementary part of his pay, which related to his role as President of the Supreme Court, but not his remuneration as a judge. The sanction was disproportionate also in view of the range of pecuniary penalties under the Criminal Code and the restrictions in law in respect of judges suspended from office pending the outcome of ."], "id": "e94be051-355c-4f4f-babe-0a89ec35d13e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government argued that by virtue of section 131 of the Public Service Act, were conducted independently and were distinct from criminal proceedings. The Government also drew the Court\u2019s attention to section 127 of the Public Service Act, which prescribed time-limits for the commencement of disciplinary proceedings. In this respect, the Government noted that it was possible for disciplinary proceedings to be suspended until criminal proceedings were concluded, as long as the time-limits permitted. However, the Government argued that where existing evidence was found to be sufficient a disciplinary decision may nevertheless be taken."], "id": "d9686c20-b5f9-4060-892c-d4b0eda4fd20", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government argued that issues arising from civil service employment concerning material and financial matters, such as salary arrears and other forms of compensation, were to be dealt with by the ordinary courts in civil proceedings, whereas issues concerning the existence and the nature of the civil service, such as termination of employment within the civil service or , were to be dealt with by the administrative courts. This was clearly provided by the relevant provisions of the domestic law and the Supreme Court\u2019s case-law. Furthermore, on 15 December 2008, prior to the applicant bringing his administrative action, the Civil Division of the Supreme Court had adopted an opinion stating that the ordinary civil courts had subject-matter jurisdiction over disputes concerning the salaries of civil servants. The applicant, being represented by a qualified lawyer, should have been aware of this. Therefore, instead of bringing an administrative action before the High Administrative Court, he should have brought a civil action in a municipal court. Further to this, the applicant had had the possibility to lodge an appeal on points of law against the Slavonski Brod County Court\u2019s judgment of 12 August 2013; such an appeal was possible when the case-law of domestic courts had to be re-examined in the light of changes in the domestic legal system. Moreover, he could have lodged a constitutional complaint against the Slavonski Brod County Court\u2019s judgment of 12 August 2013."], "id": "eb548fbd-39cf-46e3-a6b0-023a24aaf57a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that Article 6 of the Convention did not apply to the proceedings at issue because, at the time of the events, the Court's judgment in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007\u2011IV), had not yet been given and under the Pellegrin test (Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, \u00a7 ..., ECHR 1999\u2011VIII) Article 6 would not have been applicable to against a civil servant such as the applicant."], "id": "b1672fb0-0c20-480a-a05e-bbde077e5afe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government lastly asked the Court to declare the complaint inadmissible because the applicant had lost his status as a victim as required by Article 34 of the Convention. In its judgment of 20 May 2014 the Supreme Court had reduced the additional disciplinary penalty by half, explicitly mentioning that the length of the and the length of the maintenance of the interim measure constituted a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 6 of the Convention."], "id": "c8ec22b4-9816-4917-9d3b-82eb9613bdc1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant considered that the courts were responsible for most of the delay in the proceedings. He pointed to, for example, a fourteen-month delay between the High Court hearings (May 1992) and the delivery of its judgment (July 1993). He had delayed in lodging his books of appeal because of the pending and relevant against SC (see paragraph 15 above). He also alleged that KC had attempted to engineer delays and was obstructive about discovery."], "id": "17688ae6-d54d-4eb8-96f0-9cc56d6c7bba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of his detention in excess of the maximum forty\u2011eight-hour period permitted by the domestic law prior to being brought before a judge, because the domestic courts had already acknowledged the violation of his right. The Government further pointed out that had been instituted against the police officers, including the investigators and the deputy head of the Police Office, who had violated his right to liberty. In support of their argument, they submitted a letter dated 8 September 2010 from the Minister of Internal Affairs containing information that the disciplinary responsibility of the police officers had been established in respect of the applicant\u2019s unlawful detention on 6 and 7 March 2010."], "id": "2daec5b7-1a34-4f41-a1de-e16d62336604", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that the discontinuation of infringed his right to a fair trial, because no decisions on the merits of the cases were rendered. Under the same provision he also complained that the disciplinary panel was not impartial, because it refused to open proceedings against Dr K., President of the Vienna Bar Chamber, whose law firm had lodged a disciplinary complaint against the applicant in the proceedings."], "id": "980ce94d-9e7c-4618-8ffa-e65859a63858", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted that the applicant, who was represented by counsel, had failed to request a hearing in his complaints with the Constitutional Court and Administrative Court and must therefore be deemed to have waived his right thereto. In any event a hearing before these courts had not been necessary. Moreover, since matters subject to official secrecy are as a rule discussed in and as the civil servant charged with a disciplinary offence is not restricted in his defence by the duty of official secrecy, the exclusion of the general public from an oral hearing was therefore justified."], "id": "db671c4a-7180-40cc-9a6e-eca49eca15d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government argued that this complaint should be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae since Article 6 of the Convention was not applicable to under either its civil or criminal head. They referred in particular to the Court's case-law in Eskelinen Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, \u00a7 62, ECHR 2007\u2011...), which, they argued, suggested that Article 6 of the Convention merely applied to ordinary labour disputes such as those relating to salaries, allowances or similar entitlements. Disciplinary proceedings must be excluded from the guarantees of Article 6 \u00a7 1 as the relationship between civil servants and the state was not comparable to that between employees and their employers."], "id": "1a62a93b-3dab-47ac-b73b-252c388c1e78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant disagreed and submitted that the underlying his suspension were not related to any action undertaken or omission made in the course of his judicial activity but rather had been instituted on account of his exercise of his freedom of expression. In addition, he argued that the actions ascribed to him had not been capable of attracting the penalty of removal from office and that, consequently, the disciplinary charges against him could not serve as a basis for his suspension. The applicant further submitted that, during the period of his suspension, not only had a part of his salary had been withheld from him and he had been unable to exercise his judicial mandate, but at the same time he had continued to be subject to restrictions applicable to judges, such as not being able to conduct business, engage in political activities, or be gainfully employed. He contended that the disciplinary proceedings themselves had been lengthy, which had amplified the repercussions of the suspension for him, and that the withheld part of his salary had only been restored to him in July 2012, even though the disciplinary proceedings themselves had effectively already been terminated in September 2011."], "id": "f91b9d46-e41e-440a-8b4e-4b614f0c51c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["164. The applicant argued, in particular, that (i) unlike in the case of other judges including those of the Constitutional Court, he had not benefited from two levels of , (ii) the Constitutional Court had reached a different conclusion than in proceedings PL. \u00daS 97/07, which concerned a similar issue, without giving relevant reasons, and (iii) the way the Constitutional Court had interpreted and applied by analogy the provisions of the Judges and Assessors Act 2000 which govern disciplinary proceedings against judges was discriminatory."], "id": "be9e10fd-4688-481f-b972-b1faacae346c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government noted that disciplinary bodies were allowed to resort to the criminal investigation file and admit evidence that was otherwise inadmissible in criminal proceedings, and to come to a different assessment of the facts than the criminal courts. The Government also noted that were subject to judicial review by the administrative courts, which could revoke an administrative decision if it did not comply with the law or if the proceedings had been unfair."], "id": "76313d29-e513-4981-8066-78a1ebbe75d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant submitted that the were of no particular complexity. However, they had been pending for almost nine years when the Disciplinary Council held a hearing in February 2005. In his view the disciplinary authorities should have proceeded with the case diligently, without waiting for the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant also underlined that the proceedings were of particular importance for him, as the temporary ban on practising as a lawyer remained in force throughout almost the entire period."], "id": "aaf1069f-e76c-4ffa-a9c6-62b5e3d9040c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant argued that in its Eskelinen judgment the Court had not restricted the matters to disputes concerning salaries, allowances and similar claims, but rather expressly based its decision on the general presumption that Article 6 was applicable to disputes to which a civil servant was a party. Furthermore Hessen disciplinary law did not exclude access to the courts for civil servants but provided the possibility of appealing against the decisions of the Administrative Court in and thus satisfied the Eskelinen test."], "id": "f568f43a-675a-4e13-973e-e057dff68220", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained that the disbarment proceedings which ended with the judgment of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 16 August 2004 had been unfair. In particular, he claimed that any judge in the Arkhangelsk Region would have been biased against him on the basis that the against him had been initiated by the President of the said court. He referred to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "dcacf13d-142e-495f-972b-9aad5930e88a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government contested that Article 6 applied to the proceedings concerning the interim measure. Referring to the Court\u2019s case law in M\u00fcller-Hartburg v. Austria (no. 47195/06, 19 February 2013) it stated that would give rise to a \u201cdispute over civil rights\u201d but not involve the determination of a \u201ccriminal charge\u201d within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. However, this provision would not be applicable for proceedings for an interim measure. The aim of the preliminary proceedings was not to impose sanctions upon the person concerned but to avoid serious damage especially in regard to the interests of the public and the reputation of the profession. An order for an interim measure did not deal with the alleged offences in themselves but exclusively with the question of whether in view of the nature and seriousness of the alleged disciplinary offence an interim measure was needed to avoid serious damage to the public interest or the reputation of the legal profession and those who need representation before the courts and other authorities. The Disciplinary Council only examined such a measure if the preconditions set out in section 19(1) of the Disciplinary Act had been fulfilled. At this stage, it was not the task of the Disciplinary Council to examine the evidence of the criminal proceedings."], "id": "f74a57aa-cc0c-4127-96ce-9981b8752b34", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained that his case had not been heard by an impartial tribunal as the same three judges \u2013 Mr K.K., Mr G.Ch. and Mr I.K. \u2013 had taken part in the first and appellate . He further complained that the composition of the Disciplinary Council that examined his case at the appellate level on 4 August 2005 could not be considered to have been established in accordance with the law because two members \u2013 Mr K.K. and Ms N.K. \u2013 had allegedly lacked the professional qualifications required under Section 25(1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act."], "id": "1c9e5cfa-1843-4504-96fc-d6de884db0ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["116. The applicant\u2019s contentions of personal bias on the part of certain members of the HCJ should also be considered as regards the activities of the Chairman (S.K.) of the Parliamentary Committee on the judiciary, who was also a member of the HCJ. Firstly, his role in refusing[6] to allow the applicant to take the oath of office as a member of the HCJ should not be overlooked. Secondly, his opinion published in the official parliamentary gazette on 14 June 2007 suggested that he strongly disagreed with the interlocutory court decision in the case concerning the unlawfulness of the parliamentary resolution on a temporary procedure for appointing presidents and deputy presidents of the local courts. Even though S.K. did not directly criticise him, it is evident that he disapproved of the actions of the applicant, who had been a claimant in that case. The Court is not convinced by the Government\u2019s claim that this public statement was made much earlier, before the commenced. Given that the time between the two events, as alleged by the Government, was about six months, this period cannot be considered sufficiently long to remove any causal connection in this respect."], "id": "208f3552-fb32-4e3b-a82f-a95bc192a27e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["208. The applicant submitted that the CSM and the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court never held public hearings in (see paragraph 168 above). In that connection the Court reiterates that, notwithstanding the technical nature of some discussions and depending on what is at stake in the proceedings, public scrutiny may be viewed as a necessary condition for transparency and for the protection of litigants\u2019 rights. It is true that it has previously found that holding disciplinary proceedings in private with the consent of the person concerned is not contrary to the Convention (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere, cited above, \u00a7 59). However, in the present case the applicant had requested a public hearing. She should therefore have had the possibility of obtaining a public hearing before a body with full jurisdiction for the purposes of the Convention (see, for example, Martinie, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 43-44, and Vernes v. France, no. 30183/06, \u00a7 32, 20 January 2011). Such a hearing would have allowed for an oral confrontation between the parties (see, mutatis mutandis, in a criminal-law context, Grande Stevens and Others, cited above, \u00a7 123)."], "id": "acb37472-6e27-4ec1-9f71-1bb913de75eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant made the following complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention: that three members of the National Judicial Council had not been impartial; that the exclusion of the public from the proceedings had not been justified; that the against him had been unfair; and that the length of proceedings had exceeded the reasonable time requirement. The relevant part of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention provides:"], "id": "eee89ccf-fadd-4f86-a9b0-1e082fdee07f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government maintained that Article 6 \u00a7 2 was not applicable since the against the applicant could not be regarded as proceedings concerning the determination of a criminal charge against the applicant. The proceedings at issue had examined the applicant's responsibility for disciplinary offences in performance of his duty as a policeman and concerned his dismissal from a public official post."], "id": "3d9d453a-cb7a-4133-8170-ab65af59d7eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government also maintained that the public was, in principle, excluded from hearings held in against any high-ranking State official. Furthermore, the NJC had decided not to make an exception from that principle in the proceedings against the applicant, on the ground that the exclusion of the public had been necessary for the protection of the applicant and the judiciary as such; in the Government\u2019s view, those reasons were justified and compatible with the requirements of Article 6. In addition, the public had not been completely excluded, since the NJC had allowed representatives of international organisations for the protection of human rights to be present at the oral hearings."], "id": "812b7cf3-ac19-4266-9174-b4dcdeba84a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government acknowledged that the extremely long duration of the proceedings had exceeded the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement as set out in Article 6 \u00a7 1. However, the proceedings were unusually complex as demonstrated by the voluminous case file (48 volumes) and the comprehensive judgment (47 pages). Extensive investigations were necessary to determine the large number of misdemeanours committed over a long period of time by the applicant. Furthermore the applicant contributed significantly to the length of the proceedings in that he failed to apply for a court decision to challenge the suspension of the in accordance with Article 14 \u00a7 4 of the Code (see paragraph 30 above) and to make use of the remedy provided for by Article 61 of the Code (see paragraph 31 above) to accelerate the proceedings between 21 May 1995 and 21 January 2000. As to the alleged unlikelihood of success, it would be mere speculation as to what decision the Administrative Court might have reached if the applicant had in fact availed himself of that remedy. Furthermore the applicant delayed the proceedings by lodging two wholly unsubstantiated requests to hear two witnesses and by challenging the President of the Frankfurt Court of Appeal twice for bias."], "id": "c2f0ef5d-1e2d-4350-9175-55528dc57ba9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government argued that the applicant's complaint was inadmissible, as the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, she had not challenged the decision of 27 November 1998, by which the Lokhvytskiy District Court had suspended the hearing until the full investigation of the criminal case. They further maintained that the applicant had a possibility to institute against the judges who dealt with her case."], "id": "3d9f29ae-5ad4-4ff1-941a-0dd97e36de24", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Disciplinary Proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government also submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They stated that the applicant should have applied to the Constitutional Court of Georgia and requested that the impugned provisions of the Act, which allowed for the same judges to sit both at first instance and at appeal, be repealed as being unconstitutional."], "id": "57ffd3b7-ef88-422f-b38b-bf11712f3673", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["209. The applicant claimed 300,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He argued that the fact that he had been imprisoned for such a long time while innocent had caused him severe mental suffering, equivalent to cruel torture, and physical suffering. He asserted that the authorities had taken every step to obtain his conviction, in particular by ensuring that the case had been heard by the \u201cright\u201d jury composition, and subsequently to make him serve his sentence in harsher conditions, namely by placing him in prisons in remote regions in breach of the relevant legislation, which had inevitably hindered his contacts with his family and affected his emotional state, and by artificially creating circumstances \u2013 in bringing against him for keeping a mobile phone \u2013 which had ultimately prevented the applicant\u2019s pardon by the President of the Russian Federation in 2007. The applicant also referred to his deteriorated health and his hospitalisation in February 2008."], "id": "3ef9b777-ffbb-41ce-b97e-dc4204340b93", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government argued that the applicant had not only been dismissed from the police force because he had had sexual intercourse with S.K., but because his conduct had been considered as an abuse of authority. In their view, the wording of the administrative court judgment of 4 July 2003 did not impute criminal liability to the applicant but was founded on the premise that the applicant had had sexual intercourse with a woman by abusing his position as a police officer while he was on duty. The Government argued that the administrative court judgment did not contain any statement that explicitly accused the applicant of rape. The Government further argued that the had been autonomous from the criminal proceedings and could therefore not be regarded as having infringed the applicant\u2019s right to be presumed innocent in those other proceedings."], "id": "24d266d3-25f9-4f2d-b2c0-4cfd029cb366", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["151. The applicant further submitted that the only remedy against excessively lengthy civil proceedings was the \u201ccomplaint about delays\u201d introduced in 1999. In his view, however, it was not effective, because it could not lead to the acceleration of the proceedings or to a compensation for their excessive length. The only possible consequence was the opening of against the judge concerned. However, thus far no judge had been disciplined under this provision."], "id": "93745d65-94c5-4466-9224-d10043a81934", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant further complained under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of the outcome of the proceedings instituted in 1996. Under the same heading, she alleged a violation on account of the events that allegedly took place on 13 September 1995 and 15 April 1997. Additionally, she claimed a violation of Articles 5 \u00a7 1 and 17 of the Convention as regards the latter event. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, she also complained on account of the criminal prosecution brought against her. Under Article 4 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, she complained that she was unlawfully dismissed from work. She further alleged a violation of Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the courts\u2019 assessment of evidence and interpretation of the national law challenging the outcome and reasonableness of length of all the proceedings. Additionally, relying on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, she complained of the Supreme Court\u2019s refusal to examine her second appeal in cassation. The applicant further complained, referring to Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention, that no were instituted against unspecified persons. Lastly, relying on Article 14 of the Convention, she complained on account of not being redeployed to another post in 1996."], "id": "c2f74d2c-853e-4a47-be4f-57acff39821c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant firstly complained that the against him were unfair, and in particular that the disciplinary courts had relied in their judgments on the statement he had made to the police, which was illegal evidence, as well as on statements given to the police by several persons, which statements had not been communicated to him, nor these persons heard in the proceedings. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention."], "id": "cce6462f-b7ff-4075-840a-f638d2e2fff3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["2. The applicant is a former pastor of the Hungarian Calvinist Church. His remuneration was set out in an appointment letter issued by the parish presbyters. He was removed from service, as a disciplinary measure, by the first-instance ecclesiastical court. (The fact that the applicant was removed from service allegedly for, inter alia, telling the media that State subsidies had been paid unlawfully to a Church establishment, could merit separate consideration, but the applicant raised this issue neither before the domestic courts nor before this Court.) The removal was upheld by the ecclesiastical court of second instance, which terminated the applicant\u2019s service more than ten months after the had been initiated against him. Even prior to the removal, the applicant\u2019s service had been suspended pending a decision on the merits, for a maximum of sixty days, and the applicant had been informed that he was entitled to only a half of his service allowance during the period of his suspension."], "id": "6a7c84d5-30fd-4510-8337-ccb2bbe873d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicants endorsed this approach and conclusion of the Chamber. While certain offences are characteristic of a disciplinary system as their very existence depends on the status of the person as a prisoner, other charges are \u201cmixed\u201d in that they belong simultaneously to the criminal and disciplinary spheres, which factor tends strongly in favour of treating those charges as criminal for the purpose of Article 6. In this latter respect, the applicants reminded the Court that the offences with which they were charged were of a general character; the elements of the offences were precisely the same as those of the equivalent criminal offences; the conduct alleged could have been the subject of criminal prosecution outside the prison; the proceedings were adversarial in character; the burden and standard of proof adopted in were the same as in a criminal court; and the penalties imposed were both punitive and preventative in nature, purpose and effect."], "id": "2ebf1f2a-1be4-46e7-aa86-fecf50ceb9e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government further argued that the applicant had not been entitled to access to a court, since section 26 \u00a7 3 of the National Judicial Council Act expressly excluded judicial protection in connection with against judges. However, they agreed that the National Judicial Council itself satisfied all criteria to be regarded as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "cfd0ec86-3ea9-4d00-91d9-b4692ea7cbab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant claimed 200,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He explained that the unfounded accusations against him in the at issue, namely that he had had sexual relationships with minors and had used his position to secure the gains of criminals, accusations which had been continuously repeated in the media, had harmed his dignity and reputation and created an extremely negative image of him, which had caused him severe mental suffering. Furthermore, the stress caused by the proceedings led to his hospitalisation for cardiac difficulties and high-blood pressure."], "id": "30ce3b70-3e3b-4af0-a803-ff20eee4001a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government objected that Article 6 was not applicable to contempt of court proceedings. They argued that the proceedings in question did not fall under the criminal limb of the aforementioned provision according to the three criteria used by the Court. Firstly, the proceedings were not classified as criminal. The fine was imposed by a civil court, which decided on the matter of its own motion, meaning that there was no prosecutor in the case. The fine was not entered into any criminal record and the personal circumstances of the offender were not taken into account when determining the sentence, as was the case in criminal proceedings. Secondly, the purpose of the proceedings was to ensure order in court, and their nature was similar to ."], "id": "156a961e-92f7-46ed-a412-9ff7da9e4e72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["87. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They submitted that under domestic law there existed remedies sufficient to allow redress in cases of alleged medical malpractice in that criminal investigations, civil compensation proceedings and professional could be instituted in such cases. The applicant had availed himself of these remedies. Criminal investigations were pending and it could not therefore be said that the competent authorities had remained totally passive in the examination of the circumstances of the applicant\u2019s wife\u2019s death or that the investigations which had been undertaken were so ineffective as to make recourse to the domestic remedies meaningless. Likewise, disciplinary and civil proceedings were pending. Hence, the applicant\u2019s complaints were premature."], "id": "572ef696-d2c2-46ca-986a-4802e2697a86", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government maintained that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them, in that they had failed to lodge with the higher courts complaints about the first instance court's alleged failure to consider the case in due time. The Government stated that such complaints might have resulted in against the first instance judges, dealing with the case."], "id": "4b5e89f0-9a35-4c79-a2b4-423c2f9e0d91", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["168. The applicant also complained that the concerning her had been confidential, and more specifically that neither the proceedings before the CSM nor those before the Supreme Court had been public. In her submission, neither the CSM nor the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court had ever held a public hearing in disciplinary proceedings. Hence, although the applicant had formally requested a public hearing before both the CSM and the Supreme Court (in the proceedings in issue in application no. 74041/13), her request had been refused on each occasion, despite the existence of a dispute as to the facts, namely the content of her alleged remarks. In her view it had been necessary, in order to assess the evidence, to test the credibility of the statements of the only witness against her, the judicial investigator F.M.J. Against that background, in her submission, the taking of evidence on this point had been essential in order to secure her defence rights."], "id": "6873008c-b7b4-49f2-9ded-3c7d2eae6450", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government accepted that Article 6 applied under its civil head to the at issue, but contested that it applied under its criminal head. Referring to the criteria established by the Court\u2019s case-law for classifying an offence as \u201ccriminal\u201d, the Government submitted, firstly, that disciplinary law was not part of criminal law in the Austrian legal system. Disciplinary offences were not dealt with by the criminal courts and the Supreme Court as last instance, but by specialised disciplinary authorities under the supervision of the Constitutional Court. Secondly, the Government noted that unlike criminal law, which applied generally, disciplinary law applied to members of specific professional groups, such as lawyers, notaries, doctors, judges or other civil servants, and was aimed at maintaining the confidence of the public in certain professions which were of importance for the functioning of public life. The Appeals Board\u2019s considerations when setting the sanction in the present case emphasised the specific character of disciplinary law, in that it focused on the damage which the applicant\u2019s conduct had caused to the general public\u2019s confidence in the legal profession. Thirdly, turning to the nature and severity of the penalties at stake, the Government noted that although the sanction imposed had a decisive impact on the applicant it was not primarily deterrent in nature, but was aimed at restoring the confidence of the general public. In addition they noted that striking a lawyer off the register did not necessarily have a permanent effect, as it was possible to re-apply for admission after three years."], "id": "cfbf2a9a-35a3-4208-87fe-55c44b677016", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) of the Convention of the lack of legal representation and, in the alternative, of legal aid for their hearing before the prison governor in the brought against them under the Prison Rules. In determining whether Article 6 was applicable to the proceedings the Court referred, at \u00a7 126, to \u00a7 82 of Engel and Others (cited above), and then stated the following:"], "id": "b9fe5f59-11a5-4046-803d-6818490777cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["147. The applicant complained that the RUC took steps to have brought against the solicitor, Mrs C., who represents her in domestic proceedings, alleging that she had disclosed witness statements to the applicant's representatives before the Court. In particular, they used submissions to the Court which contained extracts from these statements to seek to punish Mrs C. because the applicant sought to inform the Court fully about the circumstances surrounding this application. She argued that the likely impact of their actions would be to restrict the ability of the Court to deal properly with cases of this nature and dissuade applicants from taking cases to Strasbourg."], "id": "c0c29dd9-6974-4728-a0f1-e6de390712f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government contested the claims for damages, arguing that the applicant's submissions regarding the possibility of having found a new position as bailiff were mere hypothesis. In particular, and given his suspension from office on account of the , the chances of his re-employment in the public service were slim. As to the claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Government maintained that they would be adequately compensated by the finding of a violation given the applicant's conduct and the fact that he received his full salary throughout the proceedings."], "id": "c33858fa-66d4-4ee6-a2b7-c558ae46a917", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government referred to section 23 (2) of the Disciplinary Act, which states that no disciplinary decision may be issued before the termination of criminal proceedings relating to the same facts as those which gave rise to the disciplinary offence. They argued that the de facto only started on 24 May 2004, when the Vienna Court of Appeal\u2019s final judgment in the criminal proceedings was served on the Disciplinary Council. The proceedings were then conducted with reasonable speed and were terminated by the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision of 28 February 2006."], "id": "a3a093f3-1f87-4265-b296-005b359bd4c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government argued that the case was a complex one and that the domestic courts could not be criticised for not being active in the proceedings at issue. Before being quashed by the Constitutional Court, the case was decided by a final decision in five years and seven months, despite the involvement of seven instances. They pointed out that the applicant made use of virtually all available legal remedies in the relevant proceedings. He also requested that criminal and be instituted against the judge and lodged a compensation claim against the State. While admitting that to make use of those remedies was the applicant's right, the Government stated that it should not be ignored that dealing with them required additional time. In particular, the first-instance court did not have in its possession the case-file for more than a year due to the institution of separate proceedings."], "id": "f7f50912-ff4f-4d72-869b-c2c2c565832d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government further submitted that in any event the cumulative preconditions set out in Eskelinen had not been met as the \u201cright to a court\u201d covered only the right to institute proceedings before courts and the right to have a final, binding judicial decision. However, under German law the applicant could neither institute against himself nor could he appeal against the institution of such proceedings. The fact that he was able to defend himself in the proceedings merely ensured a fair trial but did not prove that he had a \u201cright to a court\u201d."], "id": "5894afca-3bd9-4de3-9f30-328c88859868", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government submitted that after the applicant had lodged a complaint with the local Chamber, an inquiry into the cause of death of his had wife started. These proceedings had subsequently been stayed, regard being had to other sets of proceedings concerning the same act pending at that time. The reasons for the staying of the were justified since the results of the criminal investigations might have had an impact on the final decision of the Chamber of Physicians."], "id": "92145204-9503-45f9-9d2c-9ff224c44dfc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "disciplinary proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant submitted that the automatic forfeiture of his retirement benefits upon the imposition of the penalty of dismissal had not been in the public interest and could not be considered justified or proportionate. The applicant had pleaded guilty to twenty-four charges in the criminal proceedings and had been sentenced to five years\u2019 imprisonment. The Assize Court when sentencing the applicant had taken into account the seriousness of the offences and had explained why a custodial sentence was appropriate and why it could not be suspended. Despite the fact that the penalty provided by the domestic law ranged from three years\u2019 imprisonment to life imprisonment, as part of the arrangement reached with the Government the applicant had received a five year sentence, which he had served. The applicant had also repaid the amount taken as part of the deal. The PSC had then through decided to impose the strictest punishment provided by the law, namely dismissal. In the applicant\u2019s view the above had constituted an adequate response to his misconduct and had been commensurate to the damage to public confidence. However, as a result of the dismissal he had also been automatically deprived of all his retirement benefits, including his pension which had been earned during his thirty-three years of employment as a civil servant. This could have been avoided if the PSC had imposed compulsory retirement, which would not have affected his retirement rights. Consequently, even though the applicant had repaid his debt to society having been convicted by a criminal court, served a prison sentence, reimbursed the amount due, and lost his job, all his retirement benefits were forfeited, exposing him to great financial and emotional hardship. The applicant had been subjected to a triple punishment, which was contrary to the principles of international law and the spirit of the Convention, as no one should be punished more than once for the same offence. Furthermore, the punishment was of a continuing nature: the longer the applicant lived the harsher the punishment was, as he remained without a pension."], "id": "a212fa47-9182-4f69-ba9a-47cab8bda862", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant, who received EUR 630 in from the Council of Europe in connection with the presentation of his case, also claimed, in total, EUR 6,758 for the costs and expenses incurred both before the domestic courts and before the Court. The applicant did not submit any receipt or invoice in support of his claims. He relied on the Diyarbak\u0131r Bar Association\u2019s recommended minimum fees list."], "id": "2717f3b9-c915-4219-99da-016646e63d2c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government maintained that the Supreme Court had rightly dismissed the applicant\u2019s request since legal aid was not available under the domestic law for administrative proceedings. They submitted that Article 6 \u00a7 1 did not place an obligation to provide legal aid for every dispute relating to a \u201ccivil right\u201d. The issue to be determined in the present case was whether the lack of legal aid deprived the applicant of a fair trial and breached his right to present his case effectively in the appeal proceedings he had lodged. However, none of the factors set out in the Court\u2019s relevant case-law were applicable in the present circumstances, where the lack of legal aid did not operate to deprive the applicant of a fair trial."], "id": "a1cb8e9e-b003-460d-9308-215b24f9ba35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government noted that Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention guaranteed litigants an effective right of access to court. However, the Contracting States had a free choice as to the means to be used to that end and were not compelled to provide free , unless the assistance of a lawyer proved to be indispensible by reason of the complexity of the procedure (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, \u00a7 26, Series A no. 32)."], "id": "a728f140-6787-4a0b-b575-b09746ea2283", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant considered that the domestic case-law referred to by the Government was not applicable to the case at hand. She reiterated that her ownership rights to the apartment had been terminated by the judgment passed in the criminal proceedings, and that the judgment had been upheld on appeal. Therefore, any attempts to address the issue of the right of ownership by means of civil or administrative court proceedings, or even constitutional proceedings, would not have yielded positive results. The applicant also pointed out that although she had reached the legal age of majority by the time the criminal proceedings were at their final stages, she had not been able to fully exercise her rights and represent herself, because she lacked proper education and legal knowledge, especially in the circumstances, as she had never been informed about the decision, her right to participate in the hearings, or her right of appeal against the decision of the court. Lastly, the applicant submitted that she had had insufficient income to pay for legal representation, several lawyers had refused to represent her, and State had not been available in those circumstances."], "id": "e9a0a258-99c1-43e3-b777-2b8e0e84709a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicant complained that the proceedings concerning his sick leave, that is the second and fifth sets of proceedings, had been unfair and discriminatory. The applicant further submitted that he had not received any during the second set of proceedings. With respect to the first set of proceedings, the applicant also complained about the lack of a public hearing."], "id": "3b7b24b7-f237-41ee-bdfd-d75afe52810e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government pointed out that, in order to compensate for potential disadvantages resulting from delays occurring within the competent court, domestic law provided that the running of time for the purposes of limitation was retroactively suspended with effect from the day a request for was lodged, if the notification of a request for legal aid was arranged \u201cshortly after\u201d it was lodged. The Government submitted that it was constant case-law of the domestic courts that the term \u201cshortly after\u201d was to be interpreted in such a way that the risk of a delayed notification was distributed fairly between both parties to the dispute and, therefore, the litigant concerned must have acted with the necessary diligence to effect the immediate notification and there must not be legitimate interests of the defendant that conflicted with such retroactive effect. The Government submitted that the applicant had not acted with the necessary diligence as he had at no point indicated the particular urgency of the matter, namely, the imminent limitation of the claims, nor had he asked the Regional Court to arrange for immediate notice of the request for legal aid to be given to the defendant, which he could have done without any costs or procedural disadvantages. The defendant, who learned about the applicant\u2019s intention to bring legal action against her only two and a half years after the expiry of the limitation period, had a legitimate interest that the notice did not have retroactive effect."], "id": "179f512e-741d-4884-8044-8545cf8719ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant argued that while the proceedings were not complex there were some legal issues of an exceptional nature. However, there were significant delays in the course of the proceedings. In particular, he referred to a delay of six months in waiting for a defence to his original claim to be lodged. It took twenty-two months to hear the defendant's motion for a split trial and thirteen months to obtain to commission expert reports. Finally, three months were lost while the defendant refused to accept service of one of these reports. He did not accept that certain of the delays in the course of the proceedings were attributable to him and argued that all delays were attributable to his solicitors, for whom he could not be held responsible, the defendants and the competent authorities. As to what was at stake for him, the applicant argued that as a result of the negligence of CJM, he and his family had suffered due to a shortage of funds from 1993 until judgment was given in 2003."], "id": "5305ab07-6400-4763-b2ee-b637ec3a2844", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["135. The Government have not contested that for free legal representation was not available for these applicants before 1 June 1997, when they introduced regulations to make provision for legal aid before a magistrates\u2019 court following Benham (see paragraph 87 above). Nor is it contested that what was at stake for them and the complexity of the issues before the magistrates, as in Benham, required that in order to receive a fair hearing these applicants ought to have benefited from free legal representation during the proceedings before the magistrates which led to their committal to prison."], "id": "7674c2d6-4327-45cb-9cd9-2dff6c582212", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government averred that the applicants had failed to pursue their case actively. The fact that a lawyer had been appointed to represent them had not exempted them from the obligation of due diligence, binding on all parties to civil proceedings. In the present case, they had informed their lawyer about their request to have the second\u2011instance judgment served on them; they had not sent him a letter asking him to take steps to lodge a cassation appeal against this judgment and had failed to check with the registry of the court whether this judgment had been served on him."], "id": "bff797cd-cbcd-40e3-b8fc-516d1f05a63e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant, who had been granted , claimed an estimated total of EUR 6,000 in costs and expenses for legal fees incurred in the proceedings before the Court. He further claimed an estimated total of EUR 15,000 for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts. He claimed an additional amount in the range of EUR 30 to EUR 40 for copying costs and postal charges without specifying which part of this sum had been incurred before the domestic courts or the Court."], "id": "245dfb77-ed0d-42ce-8561-46d35fabbd3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government pointed out that the existence of a legal burden of proof was not unique to English law of defamation, but was almost invariably a feature of every civil legal action. The fact that, in the present case, that burden rested upon the applicant as defendant did not, they said, indicate that he must be provided with ."], "id": "0a0c8127-7ecc-4f33-8418-a74d01687fc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government submitted that the claims for legal fees incurred during the domestic proceedings were excessive and not sufficiently specified as to the time spent on every measure. They also noted that Mr Rosengren had represented six petitioners who were not applicants in the present proceedings. Furthermore, the hourly rate claimed exceeded the Swedish hourly fee, which for 2013 was SEK 1,552.50 (VAT included). In total, the Government accepted compensation for the domestic proceedings in the amount of SEK 62,125 (approximately EUR 6,800), corresponding to 30 hours of work by Mr Rosengren and 10 hours by Mr Ebbesson. As regards the proceedings before the European Court, the Government found also these claims excessive, noting that both representatives were already familiar with the circumstances of the case as they had acted on the applicants\u2019 behalf in the domestic proceedings. The compensation for the present proceedings should thus not exceed SEK 54,375 (approximately EUR 5,900), corresponding to 20 hours of work by Mr Rosengren and 15 hours by Mr Ebbesson. Finally, the Government submitted that the compensation should be reduced in the event that the Court found a breach of the Convention in relation to only part of the applicants\u2019 complaints."], "id": "b2fac82f-39d4-4251-8ca1-72ae1f7da744", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust relevant domestic remedies. She should have brought a civil action for compensation against the legal\u2011aid lawyer. They were of the view that a civil action was an effective remedy where a lawyer, either or privately hired, was negligent in carrying out his or her duties regarding legal representation in judicial proceedings. They also referred to a complaint to the local Bar Association under Article 28 of the Bar Act."], "id": "81cea9a7-c93b-4a05-b035-aae731b3f4a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant claimed PLN 51,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage she had suffered in connection with the case and PLN 32,965 for the pecuniary damage resulting from the loss of her disability pension. The applicant, who was granted for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court, further claimed EUR 3,500 for the costs incurred in connection with the domestic proceedings and the proceedings before the Court."], "id": "15d61cae-3e79-4360-b410-e8bdab9a198c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant argued that by refusing his request the Malatya Administrative Court had breached his right of access to court. In that connection, he maintained that the required court fees were excessive. He further claimed that he had been denied legal aid although he had submitted evidence attesting to his poor financial situation and establishing that he had a well-founded case."], "id": "3382ed2d-0371-4e21-99ce-d3eb842f3cc5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government admitted that the right to State had not been explained to the applicant by the civil court. However, in their view, the Code of Civil Procedure did not expressly provide for an obligation on a court to instruct the parties to proceedings of such a right. Neither could a right to State legal aid be regarded as one of the procedural rights of the parties. Article 161 of the CCP merely provides that a presiding judge may suggest that a party obtain legal representation in the proceedings, should he or she consider that party to be incapable of adequately protecting his or her rights. This right of a court, as opposed to an obligation upon it, is to be exercised in compliance with the other principles of civil proceedings, such as the principle that the parties control the litigation (principle of disposition), and after having assessed the particular circumstances of each case. Above all, the applicant herself had not made any submissions to the civil court of first instance about her inability to submit certain evidence or inability to represent herself effectively, in which case the court could have examined such submissions and possibly advised the applicant to seek legal representation. However, as was clear from the case file, the applicant had failed to indicate any difficulties of such a kind. Moreover, the case file did not contain any indications as to the applicant\u2019s inability to state her case effectively or provide evidence."], "id": "b3b2b363-7101-4d4e-9fa6-6ed92ca4409b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["96. The applicants accepted that the right of access to a court did not encompass also a right of access to a court competent to examine appeals on points of law. However, if the legislature chose to create such court, it should respect the principles of procedural fairness in the procedure before it. These principles applied also to the proceedings in which the party's access to that court was determined. Under applicable Polish legislation, these principles had not been observed properly, as indicated by the Supreme Court in its resolution of 21 September 2000. It had emphasised therein a certain conceptual confusion to be noted in the provisions governing as a whole, mostly because the legislator had failed to harmonise the relevant provisions of civil and criminal procedure. The applicants stressed that these systemic shortcomings had manifested themselves in the concrete circumstances of their case."], "id": "2045990a-b3c3-49c2-8cae-d28107b1e7f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["142. The Government considered that the amount claimed by the applicant was manifestly excessive and that it had no relation to normal legal costs in human-rights litigation in Malta. Moreover, the applicant had not provided any proof that the expenses incurred in Malta had been taxed according to law. Without being obliged to do so, he had engaged the services of celebrity London barristers, whose fees were notoriously higher than those of Maltese lawyers. Under these circumstances, the Government were of the opinion that the applicant should bear most of the fees he had incurred and that a fair assessment of the costs and expenses should be made in accordance with the rates applicable in Strasbourg proceedings."], "id": "e0f3e13d-5399-46b2-8ec1-e6eea5ce11fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government contested the claim, arguing that the applicant was represented by counsel and did thus not have to bear any costs at the domestic proceedings; furthermore the costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings did not serve to prevent the long duration of the proceedings. Moreover, the costs claimed for the proceedings before the Court were excessive."], "id": "6c312120-1c24-4a74-9d1d-42528bbade7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant argued that, owing to his mental state, he should have been legally represented throughout the criminal proceedings against him. Since he had had no means to pay for legal representation, the interests of justice required that a lawyer be assigned to him right at the beginning of his trial. Although he had made such a request orally before the presiding judge of the trial court, it had not been recorded in the transcript. His further written request had not been answered. It had not been until he had already lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment that the appeal court had remitted the case to the first-instance court and a legal aid counsel had been assigned to him \u2013 at a very late stage in the proceedings. However, the officially assigned counsel had never attempted to contact the applicant and had not provided him with an address or telephone number at which to contact him."], "id": "9a2719b5-b56a-494e-9a13-9e120b2f6a2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government drew attention also to the fact that the applicant had been entitled to for legal representation before the court martial, was offered such aid subject to a \u201cmodest\u201d down-payment in line with that which would have been required in the civilian courts, and chose to decline the offer. It followed, according to the Government, that the defending officer was not, and was never intended to be, a substitute for a legal representative. They contrasted the position with criminal proceedings in the civilian context where, if an accused refused an offer of legal aid, he would generally have to represent himself at trial. The Government highlighted that the applicant had the right to select his own defending officer from outside his own unit, and that he was provided with a document informing him of this right in October 1996, but had chosen not to do so."], "id": "b079a32a-5072-4dea-8e6a-9ef9c80dccf7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Legal Aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government further submitted that the new Act, in force since 1 January 2006, made provision for effective legal aid in all sorts of proceedings. Under that Act, counsel had to be appointed under the legal aid scheme in every case where legal representation was mandatory by law. The competent authority had to appoint such counsel of its own motion or upon the request of the individual concerned. The legal aid scheme was administered by the National Legal Aid Bureau and the bar councils and was funded by the State budget. That legislative arrangement, which was applicable to all proceedings commenced after it had come into force, was fully in line with the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention."], "id": "116f81d1-d768-473d-9e4c-c1c72a3e8009", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust relevant domestic remedies. She should have brought a civil action for compensation against the legal\u2011aid lawyer. They were of the view that a civil action was an effective remedy where a lawyer, either or privately hired, was negligent in carrying out his or her duties regarding legal representation in judicial proceedings. They also referred to a complaint to the local Bar Association under Article 28 of the Bar Act."], "id": "4f4b4bd7-c2f1-4d7c-b28d-4643c4090212", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant submitted that, having been served by her lawyer with the copy of the second-instance judgment on 6 December 2004, she had believed that the thirty-day time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal had started to run, according to information provided for by Z.W, on 9 October 2004. Accordingly, she had been convinced that it had expired on 9 November 2004. Even assuming that she had known that on 6 December she had still had three days within which to lodge a cassation appeal, she did not have any realistic opportunity to have a legal aid lawyer assigned to the case within such a short time and to have the appeal lodged on her behalf."], "id": "354b301e-ee79-4fd6-8636-7630b6c6fdd8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government submitted, first, that the applicant was legally aided until May 1996, and so his costs up until that date had already been reimbursed. Once his certificate was discharged the applicant acted in person and did not, therefore, incur any legal costs. In any event, any legal costs and expenses incurred by the applicant during the domestic proceedings were not caused by the alleged violation of the Convention, and would have been incurred whether or not the proceedings had been determined within a reasonable time."], "id": "12e953da-9dbc-4c9f-8567-5f93f16dfda3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government considered that the total amount of compensation for costs and expenses should not exceed EUR 2,000 (without VAT), from which sum any granted by the Court should be deducted. Part of the costs and fees claimed concerned complaints which the Court had declared inadmissible, nor did the applicants\u2019 medical expenses in any way relate even to the complaints which had been declared admissible. "], "id": "74b668ee-d15b-4d9e-8819-8c5c843287f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government argued that this aspect of the applicant's complaint should be restricted to the MP's press statement, since any cause of action in respect of his speech would have been bound to fail and thus could not have required the provision of . They submitted that the national authorities had determined within their margin of appreciation that it was not in the public interest to allocate limited legal aid resources to the pursuit of defamation actions. However, they pointed out that, as of July 1998, it had been open to the applicant to seek legal assistance by way of a conditional fee arrangement. The \u201cGreen Form\u201d scheme would also, they said, have allowed the applicant to secure initial advice on the strength of any claim."], "id": "c902a4d8-956a-4344-b979-0d68fcd1d0bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government further submitted that, at a hearing held on 3 February 2009, the applicant had given up on the idea of commissioning a report from an expert. Moreover, he had not provided further evidence and had not raised an objection when the first-instance court had set aside its decision of 22 December 2008. They also pointed out that the applicant had failed to prove that he had not been able to pay the costs of the expert\u2011witness report, because he had failed to submit a certificate from the competent tax authority confirming his income and assets, as provided for under the relevant rules of the Civil Procedure Act. He had also had a possibility to ask for , as provided for in the Legal Aid Act, which would have allowed him to be exempted from paying the costs of an expert witness. Lastly, had he succeeded in the proceedings, his opponent would have reimbursed all his litigation costs."], "id": "829efca5-e8e6-4abe-99dd-160eed852879", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government also contended that had been granted to both applicants when they had complained of a violation of their right to a fair trial and about not being provided with legal aid. Moreover, they stated that the requirement to be assisted by a lawyer in the cassation proceedings was not contrary to requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. The fact that the applicants were rejected legal aid to prepare their cassation appeal did not impair their right of access to court as their cassation appeal would have probably been rejected as not raising important legal issues."], "id": "f6587a65-5aa2-4660-8dfb-05d295c34380", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant argued that he was not able to institute proceedings for damages for his allegedly unlawful detention on remand. Given the complex nature of court proceedings for damages, he could not have prepared the action himself. Although was granted by the Tel\u0161iai District Court, M.M., the lawyer assigned to represent the applicant under the free legal aid scheme, refused to lodge an action on his behalf."], "id": "9d7973dd-4745-4a8e-970b-80bec39c24a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant argued that in the proceedings before the administrative courts the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal started to run on the date when the judgment of the regional administrative court with its written grounds was served on the party concerned. It was open to that party to apply for afterwards. However, when legal aid was subsequently granted and a legal-aid lawyer was assigned to the case after the expiry of the thirty-day time-limit, he or she could only ask for retrospective leave to appeal out of time. As the applicable provision of the Act on the Procedure Before Administrative Courts provided for a seven-day time-limit for taking procedural steps out of time, the time\u2011limit for the actual preparation of a cassation appeal was then effectively shortened to only seven days. Moreover, it was left to the court\u2019s discretion to grant leave or refuse it. That procedural framework was burdensome and, importantly, also unclear."], "id": "93015ffe-0b27-4f6b-913c-c7135ec7bf0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government submitted that the German system was compatible with the Convention, as was the Court of Appeal\u2019s refusal to grant legal aid for lack of prospects of success. It pointed out that the criterion applied by the Court in this respect was whether the domestic courts\u2019 decisions appear arbitrary. In view of the detailed decision of the Court of Appeal, which dealt in depth with the applicant\u2019s arguments and with the case-law of the Federal Court of Justice, the Government argued that there was no appearance of arbitrariness."], "id": "bf6ba1d3-c0a1-40f3-8b37-100b57dc4d6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government argued that the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not require the applicant to be defended by a lawyer in the criminal proceedings at issue. They maintained, further, that at the hearing held on 13 July 2004 before the Pula Municipal Court the applicant had been informed of his right to be legally represented but had chosen to represent himself in person. The report of the applicant's psychiatric examination showed that the applicant maintained the capacity to participate in the proceedings against him. Finally, his request for a lawyer had been complied with at the appeal stage."], "id": "2c7691c2-05a3-406a-bcfb-744bcecbe638", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant contested the Government's submissions. He pointed out that although could cover exemption from court fees, such exemption was only temporary and could be revoked within three years of termination of the proceedings if the financial situation of the party concerned had changed. Regarding the possibilities under section 9 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Judicial Collection Act, the applicant claimed that he did not qualify for application of this provision. He referred to the case-law of the Administrative Court, arguing that it only accepted in cases of default of payment that the collection of court fees would cause special hardship."], "id": "0eb1ae8e-3d33-450e-b2b5-50777e24a569", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant claimed 1,437.50 Cyprus pounds (CYP) for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts. This sum included CYP 500 for the proceedings before the Family Court, CYP 750 for those before the Supreme Court and CYP 187.50 in VAT at a rate of 15 % on the above amounts. She provided the Court with an invoice in this respect. The applicant, who received from the Council of Europe for her representation in the present case for the proceedings before the Court, did not seek reimbursement of the relevant costs."], "id": "fd1aa2d8-79b6-490d-9f3a-e94be5cc5885", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicant submitted that her inability to secure for the purposes of bringing defamation proceedings in respect of the untrue allegations made against her violated her right of access to a court under Article 6 \u00a7 1. She argued that the Commission's case-law dismissing complaints against the United Kingdom about the non-availability of legal aid in defamation proceedings was limited to the facts of each case. She maintained that it would have been wholly unrealistic to expect her to commence proceedings as a litigant in person, since she had no formal qualifications and was an unmarried mother of two young children. She argued that publicly funded legal assistance was particularly warranted on the facts of her case due to her financial situation and the severity of the consequences of the MP's allegations both for her and for her children. "], "id": "284ccf58-5be2-4558-a599-7b680cfcb5fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Legal Aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant submitted that he was not to blame for this error, since it was the Assistant Advocate for who had signed the relevant appeal application. He submitted that in the present case he required representation, both because according to Maltese law the signature of an advocate was mandatory in all written pleadings, and because this field of law (emphyteusis) was complex and required experience to guarantee any chances of success."], "id": "dbd888a9-de3a-445e-ae86-4aa5dd782f54", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant company contested these arguments. It emphasised from the outset that the instant case was of general relevance for the effective legal protection of small third-world companies doing business in Germany and Europe. As German companies were typically financially stronger than their third-world partners they were, as a rule, in a position to dictate German law and a German venue for their contractual relationships. The denial of would, therefore, be an incentive for them to drive their third-world counterparts into bankruptcy, as they would be protected from legal prosecution by the denial of legal aid."], "id": "706875e0-ba74-47f1-8d54-aed58ca62836", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Legal Aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant complained about the lack of involvement in the proceedings regarding his incapacitation. As a result of those proceedings, however, he had been deprived of all of his \u201chuman and civil\u201d rights and, in his words, had had no right to appeal to any court on any grounds. He also complained of a lack of assistance on the part of the Akmen\u0117 District Court, which had refused to give him a copy of his incapacitation decision, and the Service, which had not supported him when he had attempted to have his legal capacity restored. Another example of this lack of effective access to justice was his forced hospitalisation on 13 March 2007, when a lawyer he had never met had \u201crepresented\u201d him during the hearing of that day at the \u0160iauliai District Court. He argued that the lawyer had in fact represented the interests of the \u0160iauliai Psychiatric Hospital, which earlier that day had asked the Legal Aid Service to secure a lawyer. It was not the practice of the \u0160iauliai Psychiatric Hospital for a person who was treated there to have a lawyer to represent his interests."], "id": "c88b111e-6cd2-42c5-a98c-cce9c28572b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government submitted that P. had been provided with but her lawyers withdrew as they were being asked to conduct the case unreasonably. The judge carefully considered the applicant's application for an adjournment to allow her to instruct new lawyers and balanced all the relevant factors. The judge found that she was able to conduct her own case adequately and would be assisted by counsel for the other parties, while he himself allowed her considerable leeway. He concluded that the result of the proceedings was not affected by any lack of legal representation. In the circumstances and with particular regard to the expert evidence that, in order to prevent damage to S., any decision on her long-term future had to be both made and if possible implemented before her first birthday, the applicant was not deprived of fair and effective access to a court."], "id": "cdd5aa03-c91f-4aa9-8c61-afb86aa84f13", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant accepted that he could have sought judicial review of the decision by the Board to refuse but argued that he had a good reason for not doing so. He contended that the Government had failed to discharge the burden upon them to show that such an application had reasonable prospects of success and could be determined with reasonable speed. He explained that the grounds for judicial review were limited, being restricted (broadly) to errors of law by the decision-maker or the claim that the conclusion reached was manifestly unreasonable."], "id": "72734d39-8c7f-4084-b99c-a7d9126c74d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Legal Aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that the error in the appeal application could not be attributed to the Advocate for , since on that date no legal aid had yet been granted and no legal-aid lawyer had yet been assigned. Moreover, while it was true that Dr M. had signed the application in his capacity as Assistant Advocate for Legal Aid, it had been Dr S. who had drafted the application. The Government contended that the mistake had been deliberate, to avoid immediate eviction while also avoiding the embarrassment of putting forward manifestly unfounded claims. Indeed the applicant, who was not an emphyteutae, was claiming that he should not be evicted, despite the fact that the actual emphyteutae (Caral Ltd) had been evicted and that the emphyteusis contract, to which the applicant had never been a party, had been rescinded. Moreover, the Government considered that the appeal would in any event have been declared deserted, since the applicant\u2019s own address did not allow for service (see paragraph 12 above). As a result, notice of the hearing could never have reached him. In reply to the applicant\u2019s argument the Government also noted that the period of six months for the setting down of a hearing was applicable following the closure of written pleadings (Article 151 of the COCP). In this case, this stage could not be concluded, since the appeal had not been notified."], "id": "27070aaf-bf6f-4654-8431-f0647b9e75a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["104. The applicant\u2019s main objection with regard to the review proceedings lay in the district court\u2019s decision to turn down her express request to be provided with independent . The explanation that the applicant was already represented by her guardian\u2019s lawyer had misunderstood the competing interests of the two parties. The effect had been to severely prejudice the ability of the applicant to engage with the procedural aspects of the hearing on which the district court\u2019s decision had turned."], "id": "2e25bdbd-6196-4287-91a6-d74edf860d89", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government further submitted the case\u2011law of the Polish civil courts indicated that retrospective leave to appeal out of time could be granted where for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal had been given, but the legal\u2011aid lawyer could not comply with all the relevant formalities within that time-limit. Had the applicant requested such leave, it was likely that her request would have been granted."], "id": "99529112-2a90-409a-80e2-4d1a63910f56", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicants maintained that it was of little importance that the judgment was finally served on the lawyer on 21 January 2000. Even assuming, as the Government did, that the time-limit for the lodging of the cassation appeal started to run from that date, it did not justify the fact that the conduct of the representation by the lawyer had been negligent during a period of more than eight months."], "id": "b25618fb-a6c3-4f61-babc-bfab0223bd35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicants accepted that there was no obligation under the Convention to make available for disputes (contestations) in civil proceedings, as under the Court's case-law there was a clear distinction between the wording of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c), which guaranteed the right to free legal assistance on certain conditions in criminal proceedings, and of Article 6 \u00a7 1, which made no reference to legal assistance (Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, \u00a7 20, ECHR 2002\u2011II)."], "id": "faa50b73-cdde-429b-ab04-09bb38878c3d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) of the Convention of the lack of legal representation and, in the alternative, of for their hearing before the prison governor in the disciplinary proceedings brought against them under the Prison Rules. In determining whether Article 6 was applicable to the proceedings the Court referred, at \u00a7 126, to \u00a7 82 of Engel and Others (cited above), and then stated the following:"], "id": "dbc573e2-e86c-4bf7-85a6-a7dfa760f40f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government argued that the Katowice Court of Appeal had informed the applicant about his legal-aid lawyer's refusal and held that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal would start to run anew, starting on the date on which the refusal had been served on the applicant. They reiterated that the mere fact that a lawyer could refuse to represent a defendant in proceedings before the highest court could not be said to be, of itself, tantamount to a denial of legal assistance which would have been incompatible with the State's obligations under Article 6 of the Convention. Furthermore, in case of a lawyer's refusal to draft a cassation appeal, the State Parties were not obliged to provide assistance by successive legal-aid lawyers."], "id": "f55690ef-de00-4090-8fb4-bffbd743322d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention that the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against him was undermined because he had not been provided with a lawyer after his arrest, had been ordered to pay fees for representation in supervisory review proceedings, and because he had not been able to question a witness against him."], "id": "4717a888-d06a-4542-b244-38e288037b5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government have not contested that for free legal representation was not available for these applicants before 1 June 1997 at which point they introduced regulations to make provision for legal aid before a magistrates\u2019 court following Benham (see Lloyd, \u00a7 87). Nor is it contested that what was at stake for them and the complexity of the issues before the magistrates, as in Benham, required that in order to receive a fair hearing these applicants ought to have benefited from free legal representation during the proceedings before the magistrates which led to their committal to prison."], "id": "c1baff1a-39b2-413f-a460-ddcab415eaad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant claimed reimbursement of the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings on his second appeal to the Supreme Court as well as in the proceedings before the Commission. Counsel for the applicant had spent 26.4 and 27.6 hours of work respectively on these two sets of proceedings. In the remainder of the domestic proceedings the applicant had been in receipt of Government-funded , and in the present proceedings before the Court he had received legal aid from the Council of Europe. The applicant submitted that he had been free to choose whether or not to apply for legal aid and the fact that he had chosen not to do so for his second appeal to the Supreme Court or for his application to the Commission should not be held against him."], "id": "275999d6-b049-4f0f-a664-5fa4dfd58c55", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant submitted that at the relevant time he had not had concrete information about the whereabouts of his son and the child\u2019s mother or enough knowledge of Italian law to institute proceedings under Article 29 of the Hague Convention. In this light, he had availed himself of the procedure established by Articles 7-9 of the Hague Convention, whereby proceedings could be brought through the relevant Central Authority. In those proceedings, he had been the aggrieved party \u2013 despite the fact that it had been the Prosecutor\u2019s Office which had brought the proceedings, as required by the Hague Convention. However, the faults in the system in his case had denied him the right to appeal against the decision of the Youth Court by which it had refused to order the return of his son."], "id": "6062833a-a448-403f-976e-6800fb534903", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government admitted that Polish law made legal representation in cassation proceedings compulsory. The courts considering each case had a right to assess whether was really necessary, having regard to the circumstances of the case. In the present case, the refusal had not prevented the applicant from lodging a cassation appeal because he could have appointed a lawyer of his choice and could have had such an appeal \u201cfiled and signed by an advocate\u201d, as required by law. The fact that the applicant had not seized that opportunity could not, in the Government\u2019s view, be held against the national authorities."], "id": "f5d66f46-0829-40c9-8851-02882fdb3bff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust relevant domestic remedies. He should have brought a civil action for compensation against the legal\u2011aid lawyer. They were of the view that it was an effective remedy where a lawyer, either or privately hired, was negligent in carrying out his or her duties regarding legal representation in judicial proceedings. They also referred to a complaint to the local Bar Association under Article 28 of the Bar Act."], "id": "dd524e49-4715-44b8-9a3d-95b0236efe1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government contested that argument, suggesting that the complaint should be declared manifestly ill-founded. In the Government's view, unlike in the case of Tabor v. Poland (no. 12825/02, judgment of 27 June 2006), where the decision refusing to appoint a legal-aid lawyer contained no reasoning, in the present case the domestic court gave reasons for its decision. They submitted that the Regional Court had refused to grant on the grounds that the applicant had in fact been represented by a professional lawyer, and that he had failed to inform the domestic court in due time that his lawyer was no longer representing him, and of the reasons for that."], "id": "67d5d1ba-adac-4af3-8f62-32762bd95f4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant claimed EUR 7,693 for legal fees, including those incurred before the domestic courts. He further asked to be awarded an amount corresponding to the given by the Council of Europe, in respect of costs and expenses. The applicant submitted a time sheet prepared by his legal representative and the Diyarbak\u0131r Bar Association\u2019s scale of fees. He further referred to an oral legal fees agreement concluded with his lawyer."], "id": "84a964af-3db1-472b-be7d-0c707e821f03", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant submitted that the lawyer's refusal had made it impossible for the applicant to proceed further with his case. The Supreme Court had accepted, by way of a resolution given in 2000, that a lawyer could refuse to lodge a cassation appeal. However, the existing regulations did not properly address a situation of a legally\u2011assisted party whose lawyer declined to prepare a cassation appeal. This legislative lacuna had negatively affected the applicant's position. The applicant had been informed of the legal-aid lawyer's refusal after the time-limit had already expired."], "id": "997604ac-11f4-44d9-a1c5-4008ad80bdeb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government argued that in so far as the applicant had complained of erroneous advice as to the time-limit for lodging of a cassation appeal given by his privately hired lawyer, the State could not be held responsible for it. They further argued that the sixty-day time-limit for lodging of that appeal had in the present case started to run on 14 February 2006, when the applicant had been served with the written grounds of the second-instance court\u2019s judgment. The applicant\u2019s request for had been allowed on 27 February 2006. The legal-aid lawyer had been assigned to the case on 3 March 2006, forty-two days before the time-limit within which to lodge a cassation appeal was scheduled to expire. On 7 April 2007, one week before the expiry of the time-limit, she had informed the applicant of her refusal. Therefore, the applicant had been represented by the legal\u2011aid lawyer in a proper manner."], "id": "dcd40e87-5f22-4c1a-ba7e-ee770ed33f5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government further argued that after the lawyers\u2019 refusals the applicant could have lodged cassation appeals with requests for leave to submit the appeals out of time, provided for by section 87 of the Law on the Procedure before Administrative Courts. The established practice and case-law of the administrative courts provided that a protracted examination of the motion for the grant of constituted a basis on which retrospective leave to submit a cassation appeal out of time could be granted."], "id": "de097c42-577f-4e2f-8a8a-cfdf6c774570", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government stressed that the notion of was not to be understood as providing legal representation in proceedings in all cases. It also comprised the provision of legal advice on the prospects of success offered by a given legal remedy in the particular context of each case. The lawyers' tasks could not be perceived as following uncritically their clients' instructions and wishes. Hence, the lawyer's refusal to appeal had served the purpose of securing the proper administration of justice by the Supreme Administrative Court."], "id": "30a093e3-2176-43f8-b036-51102a5fa5ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["132. The Government affirmed that the considerations relevant to the present complaints under Article 6 concerning the availability of were examined by the Court in Benham (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 57-64) and in Perks (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 75-76). In the following applications (Group i) the Government accepted that the relevant magistrates\u2019 court hearing had taken place before 1 June 1997 and that there was no feature to distinguish them from the findings in Benham and Perks:"], "id": "b413cbac-f7e0-4be0-8fb6-d321a5fc5510", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government asserted that the proceedings were extraordinarily complex, relating to an international network of firms, involving a number of suspects, necessitating numerous requests to the German, Swiss and Austrian authorities, the hearing of countless witnesses and the taking of expert opinions. The exceptional complexity of the case was demonstrated by the fact that the courts allowed an extension of the statutory time-limit for filing an appeal against the conviction."], "id": "08e3c61b-bf53-45ae-a76a-729630c50945", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["150. The Government indicated that some of the expenses claimed had not been incurred in order to prevent or redress the alleged violations of the Convention (namely, expenses for the representation of the applicant in the criminal proceedings). The Government further submitted that some of the expenses claimed were not supported by any documents or bills and that since the applicant had been granted , his claims for costs and expenses should be rejected."], "id": "46e6fc06-2bc5-4446-bdd8-0b3a541d767d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant claimed to have spent 35,000 EUR on legal expenses in the proceedings before the German courts for the services of the defence counsel acting for him in addition to the officially appointed defence counsel. The applicant, who received from the Council of Europe for the presentation of his case, which was paid to his representative in Strasbourg, further sought the reimbursement of 10,000 EUR for costs and expenses incurred for the services of his lawyer in Zagreb in the proceedings before the Court. Despite having been granted an additional deadline, he did not submit any documentary evidence relating to his request."], "id": "8e3dc4b3-ccdd-4c68-b69a-26710e9ef517", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant further submitted that during the appeal hearing he had not been represented by counsel. His legal services contract with Mr S. had covered legal representation at the trial stage only, and had not covered the appeal proceedings. He had had no financial means to pay for legal representation in connection with his appeal. His request for counsel had, however, been rejected and he had been left unassisted. Given that the case had been complex and involved a severe custodial sentence, and since he had had no legal training or background, he had been unable to defend himself effectively."], "id": "7b557132-0894-43b1-b2d1-c388c0335e7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicant contested these allegations. He alleged, in particular, that the Regional Court had been the only body that could have provided certified copies of the documents requested by the Court\u2019s Registry. He further submitted that his mother, not being a party to the criminal proceedings, had not had standing to copy the documents and that, being in detention and lacking funding for , he could not have hired a lawyer to perform this request."], "id": "6515e88a-6d74-4479-8aa1-af9fdc9bf06e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant submitted that the legal-aid lawyer\u2019s refusal to prepare a cassation appeal and the court\u2019s refusal to assign a new legal-aid lawyer to the case rendered the proceedings unfair. He had thereby been deprived of the possibility of having the shortcomings of the proceedings examined by the Supreme Court and of access to that court. The mere fact that he had been granted should not have been regarded by the domestic authorities as offering him an effective guarantee that his defence rights would be duly observed. The applicant further criticised the case\u2011law of the Supreme Court to the effect that the court could only assign a new legal-aid lawyer to the case if it had been shown that the first lawyer had been negligent in his or her task of assessing whether a cassation appeal had any prospects of success. This approach had been followed de facto in his case. The applicant concluded, referring to the Court\u2019s judgments in the cases of Sia\u0142kowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, 22 March 2007 and Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, 22 March 2007, that he could not effectively enjoy his right to defend himself with the benefit of legal assistance, including before the Supreme Court."], "id": "aa151ee8-acf8-47db-8fea-6e337163e976", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government stated that in domestic law there were two types of court fees. The first type was a fixed amount established by the Ministry of Finance at the end of each year, and it was published in the Official Gazette. The second type was calculated on the basis of the value of the litigation and varied in each case. They further pointed out that court fees were required in order to ensure the proper administration of justice and prevent vexatious applications. In their observations the Government contended that the decisions regarding had been made by the judges on the basis of the case file and that there was no obligation for them to grant it under the domestic law. They argued that in the instant case the applicant had failed to submit the documents attesting to his poverty. In this respect, they stated that the applicant had been represented by a lawyer during the domestic proceedings and thus could have sought legal assistance as regards the documents that would have supported his legal aid request. The Government therefore concluded that the domestic court\u2019s refusal to grant legal aid had not impaired the essence of the applicant\u2019s right of access to court."], "id": "584d5ba3-620c-44df-adf7-a6763bc1be41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial \u2012 because he had not been provided with a lawyer at any stage of the criminal proceedings \u2012 and that the trial court which convicted him had lacked impartiality to the extent that a substantial part of his trial had been conducted in the absence of a prosecutor. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which reads, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "c88ac5ae-56f6-446b-951c-0fbf404cf580", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant submitted that the compatibility of the system in civil cases in Poland, and in particular the issue of refusals to lodge cassation appeals by legal aid lawyers should be seen against a general background governing cassation appeals introduced into the Code of Civil Procedure in 1996 as applicable at the material time. She drew the Court's attention to Articles 393, 393 1 and 393 3 of that Code as applicable at the material time which, read together, defined conditions under which cassation appeals were deemed fit to be examined by the Supreme Court."], "id": "f61a8f0c-0383-46b6-b5ba-de90df19f682", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust relevant domestic remedies. They asserted that he should have brought a civil action for compensation against the legal\u2011aid lawyer, referring to either Article 415 or Article 448 of the Civil Code. They were of the view that a civil action was an effective remedy where a lawyer, either appointed through or privately hired, had been negligent in carrying out his or her duties regarding legal representation in judicial proceedings. They also referred to a complaint to the local Bar Association under Articles 28 or 80 of the Bar Act."], "id": "79e2785c-1263-4a27-aa1b-5dfb1e4885d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government further submitted that although the State was not responsible for the actions of the lawyer, it had nevertheless remedied the fact that the applicant had had no access to the Supreme Court because of the failure of the advocate to file a cassation appeal within the time-limit by providing new State to the applicant for filing a request for the reopening of the case after the Bar Association had ascertained the breach of duty by the advocate. The new legal-aid lawyer had filed a request for the reopening of the case with the Supreme Court on the grounds that the former counsel\u2019s failure to file a cassation appeal within the time-limit had meant that the applicant had had no access to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had examined the request for the reopening of the case and had decided not to accept it for proceedings."], "id": "1d8ab032-1f80-475e-96e4-558d5cad7d3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government first argued that the application was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. In the present case the court had acknowledged the need for the applicant to be represented by a lawyer and such a lawyer had been assigned to the case. However, any disagreements that might have arisen between the applicant and the lawyer in connection with the issue of lodging of the cassation appeal had not incurred the liability of the State. The lawyer had been a member of an independent and self\u2011governing professional association, which adopted its own rules of conduct and disciplinary regulations. The public authorities did not exercise any direct control over the methods of the lawyers' work and could not impose on a legal aid lawyer an obligation to draw up a cassation appeal."], "id": "ceeece02-de1c-46af-ad5d-45740e2cf126", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant, relying on Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention, alleged that, in his position of insolvency administrator of the company, he was an impecunious litigant and was discriminated against compared to a litigant with sufficient financial means. He submitted that an impecunious litigant depended on a judge, who must arrange for notice to be given to the defendant of the request for , to suspend the running of time for purposes of limitation. If he were a litigant with sufficient financial means, who could have lodged an action without requesting legal aid, the claims at stake would not have become time-barred."], "id": "0fbd1280-d6f4-4ada-97c1-db8aab802733", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government submitted that the Court should be slow to impose a duty to provide in civil cases, in view of the deliberate omission of any such obligation from the Convention. In contrast to the position in criminal proceedings (Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c)), the Convention left Contracting States with a free choice of the means of ensuring effective civil access to court (the Government relied on Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 14-16, \u00a7 26). States did not have unlimited resources to fund legal aid systems, and it was therefore legitimate to impose restrictions on eligibility for legal aid in certain types of low priority civil cases, provided such restrictions were not arbitrary (see Winer v. the United Kingdom, no. 10871/84, Commission decision of 10 July 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 48, p. 154, at pp. 171-72)."], "id": "a6757c10-1290-4aba-977a-29e807908484", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant submitted that he had lodged a request for which complied with all requirements \u2013 and which turned out to be successful when it was decided upon in May 2007 \u2013 on 30 December 2004, that is, prior to the statutory time-limit. He had thus done all he was required to do in order to suspend the running of time for purposes of limitation. The act required for suspending the running of time for purposes of limitation \u2013 namely arranging for notice to be given to the defendant \u2013 was outside his sphere of influence."], "id": "6ca43b09-3305-4673-b58a-7841976c35f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government emphasised that the primary issue was not whether the lack of as such constituted a violation of Article 6. Nor was it of immediate relevance how the applicants had financed their counsels in the domestic proceedings or how their financial situation had been affected by the legal costs incurred. Instead, the crucial issue was whether the applicants had been afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case effectively under conditions that had not placed them at a substantial disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis the landowners, and thus whether they had been granted a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6. The Government maintained that this was the case and argued that the applicants had been represented by legal counsel during the entire domestic proceedings and had been able to appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Moreover, during the major part of the proceedings, they had been assisted by two counsels, one of whom was a member of the Swedish Bar Association. In the Government's opinion, there was nothing to indicate that the legal representation was insufficient or that the courts handled the issue of legal costs in an unreasonable way or otherwise in contravention of domestic law. The Government further pointed out that the applicants' opposite party had not been a powerful company like, for example, McDonalds in the case of Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom (no. 68416/01, ECHR 2005-II), but had mainly consisted of private individuals. Thus, the parties had been on a relatively equal footing. Moreover, the applicants had been granted advantageous interest-free loans from the Sami Fund to enable them to pursue and accomplish their action."], "id": "4e309560-18f0-47d5-9014-72f4e7a7db11", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant maintained his complaint. He argued that the judicial authorities had not explained his right to take part in the appeal hearing and that he had not been aware of the procedure to follow. If the authorities had taken his conduct as a waiver of his rights, they should have obtained his respective written statement. He could not afford legal assistance by a lawyer of his own choosing therefore the appeal court should have appointed counsel to represent him."], "id": "8ce8a344-cfbd-42c8-b93e-438cea2af328", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government argued that the refusal of for the applicant\u2019s second appeal was not incompatible with his Article 6 rights. They accepted that denial of legal aid could, in certain circumstances, amount to a failure to ensure a fair hearing under Article 6 \u00a7 1. However, they pointed out that the Convention did not grant a general right to legal aid in civil cases: there was no obligation for States to make legal aid available for every civil dispute, and far less for multiple appeals. Having regard to the fact that resources were not unlimited, States could impose restrictions on legal aid. Such restrictions could validly be based on the prospects of success in the proceedings (citing Steel and Morris, cited above, \u00a7 62)."], "id": "ac119d34-2efe-48a8-bd8f-71fd667d3435", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government stated that in domestic law there were two types of court fee. The first type was a fixed amount established by the Ministry of Finance at the end of each year and published in the Official Gazette. The second type was calculated on the basis of the value of the litigation and varied in each case. They further pointed out that court fees were required in order to ensure the proper administration of justice and prevent vexatious applications. In their observations, the Government contended that decisions regarding were given by judges on the basis of the relevant case files and that there was no obligation for them to grant legal aid under domestic law. They argued that in the instant case the applicant had failed to submit documents attesting to her poverty. In this respect, they stated that the applicant had been represented by her lawyer during the domestic proceedings and thus could have sought legal assistance as regards the documents that would have supported her legal aid application. The Government therefore concluded that the domestic court\u2019s refusal to grant legal aid had not impaired the essence of the applicant\u2019s right of access to court."], "id": "71681c39-0475-498b-bbbb-8e6b6b59c639", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government contended that the length of the proceedings may still be regarded as reasonable. They argued that the case was extremely complex in that it necessitated the taking of several expert opinions. They further submitted that the applicant contributed to a considerable extent to the length of the proceedings, namely in that she challenged the competent judge and requested a rectification of five-year-old records relating to her case. She had further repeatedly requested the court to stay the proceedings in order to wait for the outcome of friendly settlement negotiations. "], "id": "0f86d1ea-1eb3-4b92-9fb6-110f6474a4c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["136. The applicants maintained their alternative argument under this limb of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) that the interests of justice required a grant of free , arguing that the guidelines approved in Hone and McCartan (cited above) did not meet the Convention \u201cinterests of justice\u201d test. Alternatively, they complained that, where a deprivation of liberty was at stake, the interests of justice in principle required free legal representation both before and during the hearing on all questions of guilt or innocence (see Benham, cited above, p. 757, \u00a7\u00a7 61-64)."], "id": "4e7324d1-536b-41a5-9adb-515af0b6081e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants maintained that they had been denied access to court as the court fees were set at a level far beyond their means. They further stated that the administrative court's decision rejecting their request had been unfair. In this connection, they stated that, although they had submitted the relevant documents which attested to their indigence, the Administrative Court had refused to grant legal aid because they were being represented by a lawyer."], "id": "5f28d2dc-2ab8-4615-a228-e8d732116c14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government recalled that both the City Court and the High Court had exempted the applicant from paying fees to counsel. As regards costs and expenses related to the proceedings before the Court the Government submitted that the applicant had failed to provide itemised particulars as required by Rule 60 \u00a7 2 of the Rules of Court. Finally, they recalled that the applicant had provisionally been granted up to an amount of DKK 40,000 pursuant to the above Legal Aid Act, and that the final account of the applicant\u2019 right to legal aid under the Act has yet to be decided."], "id": "0eaf2e9d-6ea0-4da8-aea1-2e97abfe1ccd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant complained that his defence rights had been violated at various stages of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, the applicant claimed that (a) he had been denied access to a lawyer during the first few days of his police custody; (b) his counsel had failed to provide effective representation during the trial; and (c) he had not been provided with legal assistance before the court of appeal. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "b16d1020-8a50-4326-a511-75981df83b1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government, however, noted that during the first-instance proceedings the applicant had been represented by a lawyer of his choice (Dr S.). Following the first-instance judgment (31 October 2002), including the date the appeal was lodged, until he was granted , the applicant was assisted by Dr M. and Dr S. (who acted behind the scenes). From 28 January 2003, the date when the applicant was granted legal aid and assigned the services of Dr A., until 4 November 2004, the applicant was officially being represented by Dr A., and yet the applicant made no contact with him, but had kept in touch with Dr S. Thus, throughout the proceedings the applicant had had the assistance of a legal adviser, at times of two legal advisers, which constituted an abuse of the legal-aid system."], "id": "a1fa1662-fb58-4e40-9758-330eb0ce3e88", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that she had not been able to present her case effectively on account of the dismissal of her application for in the appeal proceedings. She alleged that the courts dismissing her application had failed to take into consideration her particular circumstances. Furthermore, she complained that the refusal of legal aid in cassation appeal proceedings had deprived her of access to the Supreme Court. Article 6 \u00a7 1 reads, in its relevant part, as follows:"], "id": "c6d3a112-ffd3-4ce1-afe2-a63878aa03b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to act diligently. She had received the judgment of the appellate court on 21 November 2001 and it was from that date that the thirty-day time\u2011limit had started to run. However, she had submitted her request for almost three weeks later, on 10 December 2001. Moreover, she had submitted it to the wrong court and her request had had to be forwarded to the Gda\u0144sk Court of Appeal. Her request had been processed very quickly as it had taken the latter court only three days to grant her legal aid. Subsequently, the Gdansk Bar Association assigned the case to a lawyer within five days. The lawyer had examined the applicant's case within sixteen days and had given a reasoned legal opinion on the prospects of success of a cassation appeal."], "id": "00c3f390-9688-4026-b1e7-5e67728b7a9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government argued that the applicant could and should have made use of further possibilities namely requesting under Article 63 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and/or requesting respite or exemption from the payment of court fees pursuant to section 9 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Judicial Collection Act. The Court considers that these issues are closely related to the substance of the case and should therefore be examined together with the merits."], "id": "552295c9-4dbc-4582-be36-5744dc2756b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government emphasised that only costs and expenses relating to the complaint concerning the length of proceedings could be taken into account. None of the domestic proceedings had been instituted to avoid, or obtain redress for, the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. Further, the Government left it to the Court's discretion, whether the applicant had submitted sufficient documents to support her claims. Counsel's rate also appeared somewhat excessive. The Government considered that the total amount of compensation for costs and expenses should not exceed EUR 3,500 net of value-added tax. Any paid by the Council of Europe should be deducted from that amount."], "id": "cb9365fb-2612-439f-88f6-6adea4c5c854", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government submitted that the claim for legal fees incurred during the domestic proceedings had not been sufficiently specified as to the time spent on individual measures and that the hourly rate claimed exceeded the Swedish hourly fee. As regards the procedure before the Court, the Government submitted that the claim was excessive, considering that the applicant had been represented by the same legal counsel before the Court as in the domestic procedures. In total, the Government submitted that any sum should not exceed SEK 188,000 (approximately EUR 20,000), corresponding to SEK 156,819 for the domestic proceedings and SEK 31,000 for 20 hours of work at the Swedish legal aid rate for the proceedings before the Court."], "id": "33217b88-d3a0-4537-a2d2-d9351b6e452a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government contested these claims. The Government maintained that no specification relating to the costs and expenses, as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, had been submitted. Moreover, it appeared that the applicant had received . In any event, the Government found the applicant's claims for costs and expenses, to the extent the amounts had been specified, too high as to quantum and that the total amount of compensation should not exceed EUR 7,500 (inclusive of value-added tax) in respect of the proceedings before the domestic courts and EUR 2,000 in respect of the proceedings before the Court."], "id": "25d0cde6-2b8e-4c70-9c99-7d1eebdd448f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government further submitted that in principle the grant of did not affect the running of the thirty-day time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. However, the case\u2011law of the Polish civil courts indicated that retrospective leave to appeal out of time could be granted where legal aid for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal had been given, but the legal\u2011aid lawyer could not comply with all the relevant formalities within that time-limit."], "id": "ab86e858-75e1-48f8-a51a-10b0d56d76fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government argued that it was possible to obtain damages for the excessive length of proceedings by means of an action to establish the State\u2019s liability. Where delays amounted to a breach of a judge\u2019s official duties, there could be an entitlement to compensation for the damage sustained. This was so where the judge wrongfully refused to conduct proceedings or delayed them, particularly in the event of a total lack of activity. On account of the principle of judicial independence, the entitlement generally applied only in cases of flagrant abuse (krasse Missbrauchsf\u00e4lle). Compensation could be awarded for non-pecuniary damage where, for example, a person\u2019s physical well-being or health had been harmed. It was for the civil courts to rule on the award of compensation, there being no need for a prior finding by the Federal Constitutional Court that the length of the proceedings was unconstitutional. The Government cited a recent decision delivered by the Munich I Regional Court on 12 January 2005 (see paragraph 74 above) in which the claimant had been refunded the legal costs necessarily incurred in lodging a complaint about the excessive length of proceedings before an administrative court of appeal. They further noted that the proceedings brought by the applicant in the Hanover Regional Court in 2002 had not concerned the State\u2019s liability for the excessive length of the proceedings but solely an application for ."], "id": "dac7f42b-879f-45df-a318-68c5afd2a632", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant submitted that he had been kept in unrecorded detention from 19 to 22 July 2010 and ill-treated, resulting in the injuries recorded in the medical expert\u2019s report of 29 July 2010. According to the Court\u2019s case-law, such injuries created a presumption of ill-treatment unless they were sufficiently explained, which the Government had failed to do. To explain the delay in lodging his complaint about ill-treatment, the applicant submitted that he had considered lawyer O. to be \u201cpart of the system\u201d so had not trusted him to make the complaint. As soon as he had engaged a new lawyer, he had started complaining about ill-treatment and had taken measures to document his injuries by means of a forensic medical examination."], "id": "c98250da-adee-4163-a8b2-2ec1f91228a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["112. The applicant claimed EUR 1,177 for the proceedings before the Chamber, including EUR 850 for written pleadings, EUR 250 for translation of documents and EUR 77 for administrative costs, and EUR 2,193 for the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, including EUR 850 for written submissions, EUR 350 in connection with the preparation of the request, EUR 300 for preparation of the address to the Grand Chamber, EUR 250 for translation of written pleadings, EUR 300 for the appearance at the oral hearing and EUR 143 for administrative costs."], "id": "d13a8bee-4129-4351-b3a6-9c751985e5bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government further submitted that in principle the grant of did not affect the running of the thirty-day time\u2011limit for lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. However, the case\u2011law of the Polish civil courts indicated that retrospective leave to appeal out of time could be granted where legal aid for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal had been given, but the legal\u2011aid lawyer could not comply with all the relevant formalities within that time-limit."], "id": "c167b3ff-d429-48da-9249-f94364eedfeb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant stated that he had been denied effective access to a court by reason of the unavailability of for the purpose of defending the defamation action brought against him by Mr Christie. He argued that the relevant provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (\u201cthe 1988 Act\u201d) were arbitrary in that they barred those involved in defamation proceedings from legal aid whatever the justice and facts of the particular case. He asserted that such a blanket refusal could not constitute a legitimate prioritisation of legal-aid resources by the government."], "id": "0044acd9-db64-40f2-b993-d3d9732e0d54", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that there had been no breach of Article 6. In the particular circumstances of the case, was not necessary for a fair hearing. There was nothing to indicate that the applicant could not represent herself effectively, as the only fact in dispute was the period that the applicant and her husband had been separated. This was a matter of simple fact, not a complex legal issue."], "id": "2f7ba177-4c82-4560-8f66-c81dc941c28b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "legal aid", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["126. The Government in the present case provided no specific information or made any specific submissions about the domestic law relating to access to information held by public authorities in such circumstances. For its part, the Court notes that an advocate is entitled under Russian law to seek information and documents from public authorities for the purposes of court proceedings relating to his client (see paragraph 74 above). However, it is noted that the applicant did not retain an advocate to assist him in his court proceedings. Nor does it transpire that he was entitled to any form of from the State (see Vladimir Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 28370/05, \u00a7 85, 10 January 2012)."], "id": "57461376-edc0-470d-b203-5a6ba7258cfd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He alleged that his statement, taken under duress in police custody, was admitted in evidence and that the \u0130zmir State Security Court relied heavily on the statements of the co-defendants without giving him an adequate opportunity to cross-examine them. Finally, he complained that he had been tried in absentia. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "e0911533-7c81-414d-ad61-ced28a8a42d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government contended that Article 6 does not guarantee the right for a civilian to be tried by a civilian criminal court, but simply the right to trial by an independent and . The applicant\u2019s case should be distinguished from Incal v. Turkey, (judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998\u2011IV), where the applicant had been charged with an offence directly concerning a threat to the security of the country, and was tried by a national security court specifically set up to deal with cases affecting Turkey\u2019s territorial integrity. In the present applicant\u2019s case the charge was an ordinary offence of murder, not an offence specially created to combat a threat to the Government, nor one which affected the military any more than the civilian population. The offence did not contain any special characteristics which might encourage the military members of the court-martial to take into account irrelevant considerations."], "id": "eb974fe1-f616-43f8-8596-48c42690b47f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government further argued that the delays caused by the changes in the composition of the District Court should be attributed to the applicant, because he had successfully petitioned for them. Bearing in mind the prominent place which the right to a fair trial by an independent and holds in a democratic society (see, inter alia, De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 16, \u00a7 30), the Court considers that the State should bear the responsibility for a delay incurred through a successful challenge of the trial bench by a party to the proceedings. If a court accepts a party's request for a change in the composition of the bench, it inevitably means that the fears of that party as to the impartiality and independence of the tribunal are justified (see Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 4459/03, \u00a7 32, 8 March 2007). The Court further reiterates that Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet the obligation to decide the cases within a reasonable time (see, among other authorities, L\u00f6ffler v. Austria (No. 2), no. 72159/01 \u00a7 57, 4 March 2004). Therefore, the responsibility for an aggregated delay of approximately ten months caused by changes in the composition of the Ivolginskiy District Court and the transfer of the case to Sovetskiy District Court rests ultimately with the State (see Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, \u00a7 39, 5 October 2006)."], "id": "874d9866-e4c8-4bdd-92e4-6487f61a60c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges. He further argued under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that the prohibition of his access to the army\u2019s social facilities, while other retired officers could benefit from this right, had amounted to discrimination. Lastly, he contended under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that there was no appeal against the decisions of the Supreme Military Administrative Court."], "id": "152d7c9f-7858-4dee-8a0c-065fce084cca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and officers. He further maintained under Article 9 of the Convention that the decision of the Turkish General Staff to ban his access to the army's social facilities had infringed his freedom of conscience and religion."], "id": "0f8f3f0f-d64e-45ba-8aaa-069f9ef83442", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government considered that the bench of the Court of Appeal that declared inadmissible the applicant company\u2019s request for a retrial had been an within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. They underlined that there were no elements to call into question the personal impartiality of the judges composing the bench of the Court of Appeal. As to the objective test, the Government emphasised that it would have been contrary to the interests of a fair and speedy administration of justice if the judges had had to withdraw simply because a request for a retrial, which was not prima facie admissible, had been made."], "id": "1022c8f3-27df-492c-8eec-17f842833043", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained that she had not received a fair trial by an independent and due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court. In respect of her complaints, she invoked Articles 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "64256cc4-1f45-44df-8571-8275a38a7c3d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained in the first place that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Adana State Security Court, which tried and convicted him. He further alleged that he had been denied a fair hearing before the domestic courts. He asserted that he had been convicted solely on the basis of expert reports, which were not supported by any oral or other documentary evidence. In respect of his complaints, the applicant invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "f8d39bf5-e297-46eb-b907-e4157937d082", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants considered that they had exhausted domestic remedies. They acknowledged that they had not objected to the judge in question despite having been informed of his wife\u2019s position but claimed that they had feared a negative bias if they objected after the judge and his colleagues had not raised and decided on the issue on their own initiative. The applicants pointed out that once they had no longer been dependent on those specific judges, they had filed a petition for extraordinary reopening of the case, inter alia on the ground of \u00c1.K.\u2019s lack of impartiality. They further noted that in the cases of Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria (no. 10802/84, 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227), and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 11662/85, 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204), the Court had not considered a failure to object to judges on the ground of their lack of impartiality to constitute a waiver of the right to an ."], "id": "15311497-56d3-4b21-9ce1-c93ebcf502ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant company argued that when the members of the Court of Appeal refused to withdraw from the case and continued to hear an appeal against their own previous judgment, it suffered a violation of its right to a fair hearing by an . It was clear that a bench of judges confirming their own judgment could not be considered objectively impartial."], "id": "f074eae8-f9d7-4b31-9ced-2ff396d341dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which had tried and convicted them. They further submitted that they had been denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant reads:"], "id": "ce8823c7-b618-4008-8fcf-fcaf4512100f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant submitted, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that his right to a fair hearing by an independent and was breached as he was tried and convicted by the Martial Law Court composed of two military judges, two civilian judges and an army officer. The army officer who has no legal training is accountable to the commander of the state of martial law. The two military judges on the bench are servicemen who belong to the army and take orders from the executive. They are subject to military discipline and assessment reports are compiled on them by the army for that purpose. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which provides, as relevant:"], "id": "6e69d90b-bde4-40f7-8d26-5f087ed80745", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government further argued that the delays caused by the changes in the composition of the Town Court should be attributed to the applicant because he had successfully petitioned for them. Bearing in mind the prominent place which the right to a fair trial by an independent and holds in a democratic society (see, inter alia, De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 16, \u00a7 30), the Court considers that the State should bear the responsibility for a delay incurred through a successful challenge of the trial bench by a party to the proceedings. If a court accepts a party's motion for a change in the composition of the bench, it inevitably means that the fears of that party as to the impartiality and independence of the tribunal were justified. The Court further reiterates that Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet the obligation to decide the cases within a reasonable time (see, among other authorities, L\u00f6ffler v. Austria, no. 30546/96, \u00a7 57, 3 October 2000). Therefore, the responsibility for an aggregated delay of approximately twelve months caused by the changes in the composition of the Town Court rests ultimately with the State (cf. Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, \u00a7 39, 5 October 2006)."], "id": "c226ba01-f5fd-4724-a57e-74f91d3b217f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further submitted that he was convicted despite the fact that there was no evidence to support the charges against him. The applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention."], "id": "10e0f10e-4222-4f80-81ca-dd7028887d1d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government stressed that the instant case was distinguishable from the case of Brum\u0103rescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, ECHR 1999\u2011VII), as the protest was lodged by the President of the Regional Court and not by the prosecutor and concerned an interim procedural decision, not the final judgment in the case. The supervisory review procedure was expressly regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. It contained guarantees to ensure a fair hearing and was aimed at correcting judicial errors. The supervisory review did not contradict the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty. The procedure represented an effective legal mechanism created to correct erroneous judicial decisions. The Government considered that the applicant's case was examined by an independent and in adversarial proceedings."], "id": "ee660589-b981-4c4c-8208-e270821d8854", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and that it had acted as a first and only instance court, which had also infringed his right to an effective remedy. He further maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that he had been denied a public hearing due to the lack of reference to the principal public prosecutor\u2019s name in the court decisions. The applicant contended that his expulsion from the military academy had amounted to a punishment without a law, in violation of Article 7 of the Convention. Lastly, he maintained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been expelled from the military academy by reason of his father\u2019s affiliations with a certain trade union, which amounted to discrimination."], "id": "c8f540c2-33f1-4a3d-83e1-0fc353169ba4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["111. The applicants further maintained that the Government's suggestion that Article 5 \u00a7 4 provided sufficient protection was incorrect for the reasons set out in the Chamber's judgment, was inconsistent with the Government's own position that the original sentence by the court was the sole basis for detention during the period of additional days and amounted to an acceptance that separate issues of legality arose on the award of additional days which were not covered by the original sentence. In any event, whether Article 6 or Article 5 \u00a7 4 applied to adjudication hearings, both required an independent and and the Government had accepted that the governor could not constitute such a body. Applying for leave to take judicial review proceedings would not cure this deficiency since it would be a review on narrow legal grounds and not an appeal on the merits (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, pp. 32-33, \u00a7 69)."], "id": "fd4c748c-d929-4e44-966d-61fc83e1a1a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and officers and it had acted as a first and only instance. He further maintained under this provision that it had not been possible to know in advance which chamber of this court would examine the case. Lastly, he alleged violations of Articles 8, 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention on the basis of the above-mentioned facts, without further substantiation."], "id": "beec7eb7-5264-4ec6-b98d-a8b2c9fe795f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained in the first place that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court. The applicant further maintained that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since he had not been notified of the public prosecutor\u2019s observations at the appeal stage. In this connection, he invoked Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "c865b939-5d9b-4781-9118-3836c54e4f75", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant submitted that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Erzurum State Security Court which tried and convicted him. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "0b208dfb-93a7-4f27-8635-196be9d5a5b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complains under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he was denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of the military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further complains under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) that the written observation of the chief public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation on the merits of his appeal was not served on him. "], "id": "fa40c531-dc6b-4e60-8701-b3a99d27c288", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants complained that they had been convicted on the basis of statements given under torture and ill-treatment and without the assistance of a lawyer while being held in police custody. They further complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court, and that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had not been notified to them. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads:"], "id": "7640ff96-164d-44d3-a776-997386772336", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court which tried them. They further complained that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them was excessive and that there was no effective remedy in domestic law whereby they could challenge it. The applicants relied on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention, which reads:"], "id": "8245e5ae-c967-4376-8308-deb06642c217", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants complained that, as a result of the NIPO\u2019s protraction of the administrative proceedings relating to their patent application, they had been denied the right to the determination of their civil rights by an within a reasonable time, in breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The case-officer handling their application to the NIPO had displayed bias and hence a lack of impartiality. The applicants further complained that pending a final decision by the Board of Appeals it would have served no purpose for them to exercise a remedy in respect of the above. In a situation of administrative delay such as that in the present instance, the rule whereby patent rights were protected for twenty years from the date of the filing of the patent application had the effect of undermining the possibility of having such rights established through the use of legal remedies."], "id": "51a241e7-78d0-48da-819e-27d381e9cc85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained that neither the Istanbul State Security Court, nor the Istanbul Assize Court had met the requirements of independence and impartiality laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He further argued that he had been denied an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention as he had not been tried by an independent and and the Ninth Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation which had examined his appeal had been politicised. He maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his statements had been extracted under duress in police custody, including by way of physical ill-treatment, and that the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court had been erroneous, had lacked reasoning and had been based on insufficient evidence. Lastly, the applicant maintained that his imprisonment following an unfair hearing had amounted to \u201ctorture\u201d within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "2bc756fc-84d9-4c92-a12e-68b3da6b6d1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant company further complained that it had been denied a fair trial before an independent and . In this connection, it alleged that the domestic courts had misinterpreted the domestic law. According to the applicant company, the domestic courts had not taken the evidence into consideration and had taken the State\u2019s side. Moreover, the authorities had an unlimited margin of appreciation and the administrative courts did not provide an effective domestic remedy. Finally, the applicant company alleged that its right to work had been restricted as a result of the unlawful application of the International Highway Transportation Regulations. In respect of these complaints the applicant company relied on Articles 6, 7, 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "id": "b549de07-5e64-40d3-b84f-95710c767438", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant submitted that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court which tried and convicted him. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "de92dc71-89f2-41a9-9d20-86b5d739943f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant complained that she had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Van State Security Court which tried and convicted her. She further complained under the same head that her right to a public hearing as well as free legal assistance had been infringed. Finally, the applicant claimed that the principle of \u201cequality of arms\u201d had not been respected, since the bill of indictment was not in a language she could understand. The applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "id": "40c68a72-9cf8-4f53-84e4-1548bb382823", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicants complained in the first place that they had not received a fair trial by an independent and due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Izmir State Security Court. They further alleged that the national courts had convicted them on the basis of the statements that they had made to the police and to the investigating judge. The applicants finally maintained that they had been deprived of their right to defend themselves by a lawyer. In this connection, they invoked Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "2807cbf1-cb8c-4123-a351-5e99e809bc47", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant did not agree with the contention that her petitions challenging the participation of the judges had unduly prolonged the proceedings. She pointed out that those petitions had related to the fact that one of the participants\u2019 daughter was a judge in the court conducting the proceedings and by lodging those petitions she had exercised the right to a fair hearing by an . The applicant observed that only five years after her first challenge the case had been transferred to another court. In her opinion, this showed that the delay in the examination of the case had been caused not by her, but by the courts."], "id": "17c4f5be-398d-482d-8b79-55a361e5225d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Izmir State Security Court which tried them. They submitted that they had been convicted on the basis of their statements in police custody which had been taken under duress and that they had been denied the assistance of a lawyer at the initial stages of the proceedings. They complained that the domestic court had refused their request for a further investigation. Finally, they maintained that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter-arguments. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "a27e8f47-e53d-4f5a-afae-8b344142ad21", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and since he had been tried by a military court. He maintained that he had been convicted on the basis of tape\u2011recorded telephone conversations which had been unlawfully obtained. He also alleged that the court had failed to hold a public hearing and to secure the attendance of a witness who was important for his defence. In this connection, he relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention which provides as relevant:"], "id": "facaf0ed-4d37-4c1c-af52-d2a05f83bed3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant submitted that Judge M.G., who had been the president of the trial panel of the Zagreb County Court which had convicted him and sentenced him to six years\u2019 imprisonment, had also been part of a three-judge panel of the same court which had on 2 September 2004 extended his pre-trial detention in a decision worded in a manner that had expressed the judge\u2019s prejudice as to the applicant\u2019s personality and propensity to commit criminal offences. Therefore, in the applicant\u2019s view, the fact that Judge M.G. had been the president of the trial panel which had convicted him had violated his right to a fair trial before an . The applicant also stressed that he had never asked for Judge M.G. to be disqualified because he had considered that that would not have been an effective avenue to pursue in his case."], "id": "6e7b911e-da3e-4a4c-8727-a729ca1ca7c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government contended that the application for supervisory review had been introduced in accordance with Russian law, and that the supervisory-review proceedings had met the requirements of the Convention for a fair trial by an . The Government claimed that in the Russian legal system, especially in commercial litigation, judicial decisions became binding and enforceable only upon completion of the supervisory-review proceedings. In the instant case there existed continuity of the proceedings because the application for supervisory review was made in June 2000, that is four months after the Federal Commercial Court of the Volga Region had issued its judgment. The Government also pointed out that the applicant had been duly informed of the hearing."], "id": "322f2249-92c0-4bcb-8208-3f77696645b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government, whilst remaining convinced that respect for the right to an had to be examined according to the actual circumstances of each case, drew attention in the instant case to the repeated attempts by the applicant to hinder the progress of the proceedings (by putting pressure on witnesses, absconding, changing lawyer, having hearings adjourned). It was precisely for that reason that his appeal was severed from that of his co-defendants. The question therefore arose whether, in those circumstances, the national authorities could reasonably have been expected to proceed in such a manner as to leave no doubt concerning the impartiality of the court, even if that had been conceivable."], "id": "7dcedf97-5890-4145-8b39-b763b27b0a0b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court, which tried and convicted him. He further alleged that he had been denied a fair hearing before the domestic courts since his conviction was not based on concrete evidence. The applicant invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "29b97274-270c-4766-b814-842552ed07b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that they had not had a fair hearing by an independent and as one of the Court of Appeal judges, P.L., had represented the respondent in earlier proceedings brought by the applicants. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "b4efff53-a9b9-44c9-a357-e8cf80b3dae7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that she had been convicted on the basis of statements extracted from her under duress and alleged that she had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court which tried her. The applicant also complained about the assessment of evidence by the domestic courts and the lack of a hearing before the Court of Cassation."], "id": "a6a2c5a5-d41a-4608-a44e-fbb3ce9a28ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicants complained that they were not tried by an independent and within a \u201creasonable time.\u201d They asserted that, since they were detained during the trial, their right to the presumption of innocence was breached. They further asserted that their consultations with their lawyer were subjected to very strict regulations which hindered the preparation of their defence. They claimed that they were not allowed to consult a lawyer during their police custody, before the public prosecutor or the first time they appeared before the trial court. They finally claimed that they could not put questions to the main prosecution witnesses. With respect to their complaints, the applicants invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2, and 3 (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which in so far as relevant read as follows:"], "id": "348783bc-c8ed-410e-81a9-29017c5df767", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicants complained under Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention that they had not had a right to compensation in respect of the length of their detention in police custody and pending trial. They further alleged under Articles 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 that the \u0130zmir State Security Court had not been an independent and in that it had relied on unlawful evidence, such as the illegal recording of their telephone conversations and statements which had been taken from them under duress, added to the case file by the public prosecutor, and that it had convicted them without awaiting the judgment of the Ayd\u0131n Criminal Court. They submitted under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention that their detention in Ayd\u0131n prison had deprived them of the opportunity to contact their lawyer easily and that the State Security Court had not given them the opportunity to comment on the illegal telephone recordings submitted by the prosecution. The applicants further alleged under Article 7 of the Convention that their conviction had been unlawful as it had been based on insufficient evidence."], "id": "10fc3aeb-26a7-4289-a8f0-916f75ff3620", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant further complained under the same provision that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the different rules of procedure applicable in the proceedings before the State Security Courts and the fact that judges were appointed by the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors in Turkey. In his observations dated 8 August 2008, the applicant claimed under Article 34 that his right of individual petition had been infringed because the judgment of the Court of Cassation was never served on him."], "id": "2cd3293c-5741-46eb-b967-4a5c0f58b18b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained, in the first place, that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and that it had acted as a first and only instance court. He further maintained under this provision that the decision of the Supreme Military Administrative Court had lacked reasoning and that it had not been possible to know in advance which chamber of this court would examine the case. Lastly, he alleged a violation of Articles 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention."], "id": "5a5254f6-21c4-4ea8-ae11-53788b1b4adf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained in the first place that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court, which tried and convicted him. He further alleged that he had been denied a fair hearing before the domestic courts since his conviction was based on his statement obtained under duress in the course of his detention in police custody. Finally, he claimed that he was deprived of his right to a lawyer during his detention in police custody. The applicant invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "b9c07da7-d938-4352-9382-88b860795832", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained that he had been deprived of his right to a hearing by an because his constitutional complaint had been decided by a panel of judges that included Judge M.V., when both he and subsequently his daughter had previously represented the applicant's opponents. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "id": "57772210-0c17-4cfd-bc86-555360e902e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed the applicants' submission that they were not afforded a fair hearing by an in the appeal proceedings before the High Court. They submitted that it was beyond doubt that no element of subjective bias had existed on the part of Judge G. or juror W. or any other members of the High Court. Nor had the applicants any objective reason for fearing lack of impartiality."], "id": "ba387a6a-9312-458d-a2eb-4ce09da18c80", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried and convicted him on 15 April 1997. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "fef6ba9d-1782-4f40-b91a-244d4e7ba092", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained that she had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court which tried and convicted her. She maintained that her right to the presumption of innocence had also been breached since there was no concrete evidence to secure a conviction other than her statements obtained under duress by police officers. The applicant further claimed that she had been denied the assistance of a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings and that she had not been informed promptly of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. She finally contended that the State Security Court had heard the witnesses against her, but had refused to hear the witnesses who would testify for her. She relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (a), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "dfbd5a86-3d29-45a5-9f2f-0cb4f60b25bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained that, because of the close financial relationship between, on the one hand, Mrs Justice Gu\u00f0r\u00fan Erlendsd\u00f3ttir of the Supreme Court sitting in his case and her husband and, on the other hand, the National Bank of Iceland, his case brought against the bank had not been heard by an independent and as required by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read:"], "id": "e1c5b570-01ef-4129-913a-ed36cb38559f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant complained that he had not received a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of the military judge sitting on the bench of the trial court. He also complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been in breach of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Finally, he claimed that the domestic court had convicted him on the basis of a false document and the statements of his co-accused, despite the fact that he had never accepted the accusations against him. The relevant part of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "id": "d05ff741-f0c4-4dcd-8c74-b862aa0fe9f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant disputed that objection. He argued that the claim referred to by the Government could only be lodged in respect of acts and actions, and only when no other judicial proceedings were possible. There was an established practice whereby breaches of procedural rules had to be claimed in the proceedings in which they had allegedly been committed. He referred to the case-law of the Supreme Court, in particular its decision of 13 December 2007 (Up 726/2007). In that decision, the Supreme Court had upheld the Administrative Court\u2019s rejection of a claim of violation of human rights lodged under section 4 of the Administrative Disputes Act in which the claimant had complained that the judge in her civil case had not been appointed in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court had found that the claimant had had judicial protection at her disposal within the main proceedings before the ordinary courts. It pointed to the established case-law of the higher courts and the Supreme Court. The case-law indicated that the courts of general jurisdiction should decide on matters of violation of the right to an within their system of ordinary remedies. A reference was also made to the practice of the Constitutional Court which required the remedies available in the proceedings under general jurisdiction to be exhausted before a constitutional appeal concerning the right to a fair trial allegedly violated therein could be lodged."], "id": "e4c92e9b-54bd-403d-9487-97334d38f5e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant complained that the General Staff Court which tried him could not be regarded as an independent and , given that it was composed of two military judges and an officer, all of whom were bound by the orders and instructions of the Ministry of Defence and the general staff which appointed them. In that connection he submitted that, as a civilian, he should not have been tried in a military court. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "57f9f84e-8292-48b2-93ff-57547fd0b100", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court which tried and convicted them. They alleged that they had been convicted solely on the basis of their statements taken under duress in police custody. They maintained that they were denied the assistance of a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings. They submitted that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter-arguments. Finally, they complained that Turkish law does not give the possibility to cross-examine witnesses, thereby, depriving them of their right to confront the witnesses. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "774c010e-f8ea-49ba-b300-e3c3d839d111", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant complained that his action could not be considered as having been determined by an on the ground that the Supreme Court Chamber which had determined his appeal on points of law had included judge S. who had before been a member of the City Court Chamber that had dismissed his appeal in the proceedings concerning his dismissal of 1982. He also complained that he had not had a fair hearing in his rehabilitation proceedings in that the courts had failed to communicate to him the opposing party\u2019s written observations on his appeal on points of law and in that they had erroneously interpreted and arbitrarily dismissed his action. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides as follows:"], "id": "dfef0181-1ba7-4cb4-9c99-6bb6cc0f8684", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant alleged that the participation of Judge J.B.L. in the proceedings he had brought against the University of Castilla-La Mancha while the judge was also associate professor at that university at the time had affected the fairness of the hearing and in particular had infringed his right to an independent and . He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "2c7ac7f0-9c92-40b1-b217-3ed91ece5fba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant alleged that the General Staff Court which tried him could not be regarded as an independent and , given that it was composed of two military judges and an officer, all of whom were bound by the orders and instructions of the Ministry of Defence and the general staff, which appointed them. In that connection he submitted that the mere fact of being required, as a civilian, to stand trial before a court composed exclusively of military personnel constituted in itself a violation of Article 6. The applicant further complained that he had not been provided with a copy of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor attached to the Military Court of Cassation. He argued that this had constituted a violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "id": "266a8f7c-5b4e-41cc-9dd1-89d40673666a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["92. The Government noted that, in Morris, the Court had rejected the applicant's general argument (as had the House of Lords) that service tribunals could not try service personnel on criminal charges consistently with Article 6 of the Convention. The core question in Morris and the present case was not whether military tribunals were acceptable under Article 6 in times of peace or war but rather whether the applicant had obtained a fair trial by an independent and within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, and the Government maintained that he had."], "id": "45bfaf59-63e2-4db9-8581-a424c672c67e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and on account of the presence of the military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court. He further alleged that he had been denied a fair hearing before the domestic courts since his conviction was not based on concrete evidence. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "b3fcabc6-cbf2-4f60-9d5d-ac15b7d21fd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicants complained in the first place that they had not received a fair trial by an independent and due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court. The applicants further maintained that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since they had not been notified of the public prosecutor\u2019s observations at the appeal stage. In this connection, they invoked Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "37952e66-4534-4140-8f33-16e2369b8207", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant first complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court which tried and convicted him. Secondly, he claimed that the court had been influenced by the Army since the proceedings against him had been prompted by the request of the Second Chief of the General Staff. Finally, he maintained that he had been convicted solely on the basis of the statements of the journalist who had a personal interest in incriminating him. The applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "c37bc248-bb06-4cd2-98a9-248bf6aaa2c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complains under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that she was denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Izmir State Security Court which tried and convicted her. She further complains under the same heading that the Izmir State Security Court had limited jurisdiction and that it based its judgment on statements made by her which she had withdrawn. She finally submits under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) of the Convention that she was denied the right to examine one of the witnesses against her."], "id": "e8da3577-d088-493f-96ba-fdf4ff9b7686", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants complained that they had been denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody. The first applicant further complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which had tried him and that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been too long. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads:"], "id": "2dba0da7-d435-42ce-9a77-7d79e1e0d425", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant claimed that the professional and financial relations between Judge Sa. and the university that had brought the criminal proceedings against him had infringed his right to an independent and . He argued that Judge Sa. was an associate professor at the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Philosophy and that, in that capacity, he was functionally dependent on the rector of the university. Besides his teaching activities as an associate professor, Judge Sa. also directed the Tom\u00e1s y Valiente Chair (C\u00e1tedra) of La Laguna University; he was Secretary of the Law Sciences department and a member of the committee of the Erasmus scholarship programme of the Canary Islands Government."], "id": "af05d843-8e5a-4580-af42-7513b0585d3e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated under police custody. They further complained under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of their police custody and subsequent detention on remand. They also submitted that they were denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried them. Lastly, they referred to the different procedural rules applied before state security courts and ordinary criminal courts and invoked a violation of Article 14 of the Convention."], "id": "a5ee40de-5971-4fc7-9a1f-75117993600a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court had not afforded her a fair hearing before an in that: (1) it had decided of its own accord to take evidence without any involvement of the parties; (2) without giving the parties an opportunity to comment on the measure; (3) and with the aim of overturning the expert conclusions reached at first instance thereby favouring the applicant's adversary, the NUH; (4) it had based its findings on the opinion of the employees of the respondent party; and (5) decided the issue of disqualification on the basis of the wrong standard, namely that it had not been demonstrated that extraneous considerations had influenced the Board's opinion."], "id": "95fb3d4a-4452-4511-bd8e-573539380749", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant submitted that there had been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in that he had been deprived of the right to a fair trial by an . He submitted that the judges sitting in the Regional and Supreme Medical Courts had not been independent, as those bodies had been composed of doctors, members of the Regional Medical Council, and thus represented the interests of the doctors\u2019 lobby. Only one of the five members of the Supreme Medical Court was a professional judge, delegated from the Supreme Court. However, such a judge would often follow the conclusions of the majority. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s case had not been heard at the later stage by an impartial tribunal as the domestic law did not provide for a right to appeal to a court against the decision of the Medical Court when it had imposed a penalty taking the form of a reprimand."], "id": "ea07f13e-499a-4e96-ae9e-d75ebea5498e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant sought (1) ISK 28,522,474 (approximately 340,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for pecuniary damage, which corresponded to the award made by the District Court under this head. She asked for this amount to be increased by amounts of interest which she specified. The applicant further claimed (2) ISK 10,000,000 (approximately 116,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of suffering and distress occasioned by the violation the Convention. She maintained that after the District Court had ruled in her favour and ordered the State to pay her compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the Supreme Court had deprived her of her award by quashing that ruling in a procedure that had violated her right to a fair trial before an independent and . Had it not been for the fact that the Supreme Court had obtained and attached decisive weight to the SMLB's opinion, in breach of the Convention, it would most probably have reached the same conclusion as the District Court. There was thus a causal connection between the violation of the Convention and her damage."], "id": "34c341cb-7016-4119-8033-7ab5603aee2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["158. The applicant complained that his trial court had not been \u201can independent and established by law\u201d in view of the change in the composition of the court by way of reassigning the case from Judge Sh. to Judge K., the selection of the candidate jurors from an unpublished list of jurors and in a way that allegedly impeded verification of its lawfulness, and in view of Y.\u2019s participation in the trial as a juror."], "id": "aa5482d5-aaaf-45ab-9796-79bab9c01e84", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained that the General Staff Court which tried him could not be regarded as an independent and , given that it was composed of two military judges and an officer, all of whom were bound by the orders and instructions of the Military of Defence and the general staff which appointed them. In that connection he submitted that, as a civilian, he should not have been tried in a military court. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "eb18c357-8713-4c12-a600-5ef0408928f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicants complained that they had not received a fair trial by an independent and due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Malatya State Security Court. They further maintained that they were not informed promptly and in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against them and that the public prosecutor\u2019s indictment was not communicated to them prior to the court hearing. In respect of their complaints, they invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 (a) and (b) of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "8be89974-5518-4fba-8df1-2b092c428b09", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained that the length of his detention on remand exceeded the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. He further alleged that he was not tried by an independent and within a \u201creasonable time\u201d, contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He asserted that, since he was detained during the trial, his right to the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, was breached. He further alleged that he could not put questions to the main prosecution witness, contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) of the Convention."], "id": "9dde12f8-2b18-4fbd-a36c-f1875dfbc6b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant averred that he could not be blamed for being absent at thirteen hearings because he had not been summonsed. He provided the Registry with copies of lists of summonses issued by the Novocherkassk Town Court and included in the criminal case-file. He further noted that there was no evidence (copies of summonses, envelopes, acknowledgement of receipt cards, etc.) showing that the summonses had, in fact, been sent to him even when the Town Court's registrar had included them in the lists. The applicant also argued that he had been forced to challenge the composition of the bench because he had had the right to the determination of his case by an . However, the Town Court had been composed in breach of the Russian law."], "id": "d84daad8-be7b-4ce0-bf74-adaf3ca577ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court which tried them. The applicants further complained that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them was in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "1d0d3ad9-7778-4e0e-abc4-ecdecc348578", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant alleged a number of violations of his rights enshrined in Articles 6 \u00a7 1, 17 and 18 of the Convention. He complained, in the first place, that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and officers and that this court had acted as a first and only instance court. He further maintained that he had not had access to the classified documents submitted by the administration to the Supreme Military Administrative Court. Lastly, he alleged violations of Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention."], "id": "4b07808b-b1ef-4eb1-83b4-7a3932c77d73", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicants complained in the first place that they had not received a fair trial by an independent and due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court. The applicants further maintained that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since they had not been given the opportunity to put questions to all the witnesses. They also contended that the domestic authorities violated their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this connection, they invoked Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "d5aa0c85-96e9-4ca2-b6df-624fd25dcd14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the Commission could not be considered an independent and and that, since no appeal lay against its decision, they had been refused access to a court. On the same grounds they argued that they had been denied the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "5f361053-0f6b-42bf-9baa-097dada18ad2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complains under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that she was denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of the military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried and convicted her. She further submits under the same heading that the Court of Cassation had based its decision on witness statements taken at the police station, which the witnesses subsequently rejected as having been made under duress. The applicant finally contends under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) and (d) that the Court of Cassation did not respect the principles of an adversarial procedure or respect for equality of arms and did not hold a hearing."], "id": "fe7b7fef-3a23-4200-b8f4-c06efff9e696", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant complained that he had not received a fair hearing by an independent and within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court. He further alleged under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the \u0130zmir State Security Court had sentenced him on the basis of statements obtained in his absence, which he could not challenge during the proceedings against him and that, despite his requests, the court had not heard any witnesses in his favour."], "id": "5f1f834d-13ab-4213-95dd-926ba651b7a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant maintained that she had been deprived of access to court to challenge her dismissal from the judiciary since the courts did not examine the lawfulness of the President\u2019s decree concerning her dismissal relying on Article 160 \u00a7 1 of the CCP which the Constitutional Court later found to be unconstitutional. The applicant argued that the Council of Justice with its composition at the material time could not be considered as an independent and established by law which would satisfy the criteria under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In particular, before the major judicial reforms following the Constitutional amendments of 2005, the Council of Justice was presided over by the President of Armenia, the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Justice and was therefore fully dependent on the executive."], "id": "6a8fa14f-dc3f-4123-867d-85062f25b14a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial by an independent and on account of the composition of the Supreme Military Administrative Court. He maintained that the failure of the Ministry of Defence to inform him of the charges against him amounted to a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention and that the terms and conditions of his expulsion from the military academy violated his rights under Article 6 \u00a7 2. He lastly complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the Supreme Military Administrative Court failed to state explicitly what means of redress against its decision were available."], "id": "f6cd542b-c3ae-4a29-91ef-24cea0595756", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial before an independent and . He claimed, among other things, that his rights to be presumed innocent, to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusations against him and to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence had been breached and that the Court of Impeachment\u2019s appointment of defence counsel for him had been made too late."], "id": "51cb0eb6-abbc-4cc7-bf63-be6459f7f823", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court which tried and convicted them. They maintained that the domestic court relied on statements given by them under duress in police custody and failed to take into account their arguments presented during the criminal proceedings. They further complained that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter\u2011arguments. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "8a8b1682-4b15-4b3d-a788-44247615aada", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and officers. He maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a) and (d) of the Convention that this court had refused to hear his witnesses and under Article 6 \u00a7 2 that it had failed to postpone the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal case filed against him. Lastly, he claimed that his expulsion from the armed forces on account of his debts violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 4."], "id": "87210b73-8212-4336-98e1-daa9a138a1cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["131. The applicant alleged under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had not received a fair hearing by an independent and . In this respect, he pointed out that there had been a military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court until June 1999 and that the judges of the State Security Courts were attached to the Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors. The applicant further maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that he had been presented to the press as a criminal by the Istanbul Police Director and the General Director of Police following his arrest. He finally submitted under Article 6 \u00a7 3 of the Convention that he did not have the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody."], "id": "3afe855d-c725-4a49-93a8-e6094d7fcd4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained that his case had not been heard by an as the same three judges \u2013 Mr K.K., Mr G.Ch. and Mr I.K. \u2013 had taken part in the first and appellate disciplinary proceedings. He further complained that the composition of the Disciplinary Council that examined his case at the appellate level on 4 August 2005 could not be considered to have been established in accordance with the law because two members \u2013 Mr K.K. and Ms N.K. \u2013 had allegedly lacked the professional qualifications required under Section 25(1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act."], "id": "b8839ff6-ff67-46e6-84ce-18dded67d5e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained in the first place that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court. The applicant further maintained that the principle of equality of arms had been violated since he had not been notified of the public prosecutor\u2019s observations at the appeal stage. In this connection, he invoked Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "25d8a35a-88c9-4fa4-9d97-784b3a57815d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained under Article 3 that he had been subjected to psychological torture in police custody. Relying on Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, he further complained that he had been held in police custody for a long time. Under Article 6, the applicant alleged that the State Security Court which had tried and convicted him was not an independent and . He also complained about the length of the proceedings. Finally, the applicant alleged that his conviction, which was based on his visit to Iran, had been in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "0077674b-459b-4d8b-aecf-2e53b24a30ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the tariff had been fixed by the Secretary of State in accordance with the judicial view. As the applicant\u2019s tariff had expired it was no longer relevant to have an oral hearing in regard to the tariff. They pointed out that he was now able to have a review of his continued detention by an independent and , namely the Parole Board, which had the power to direct his release. "], "id": "b571f177-09a2-485b-bf0c-aca087ce4293", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained that he had not received a fair hearing by an independent and within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court. He alleged further that his conviction had been based solely on the confessions extracted from him under duress."], "id": "a8d8c6b2-275a-422b-84e4-5edd6ac684d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court which tried him. The Court notes that although at the initial stage of the proceedings the applicant was tried before the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court whose composition included a military judge, in 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court was replaced by a civil judge. While the proceedings were pending, the State Security Courts were abolished and the criminal proceedings against the applicant were transferred to the Diyarbak\u0131r Assize Court, which subsequently convicted him. The applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the independence and impartiality of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court should be therefore rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention (see, among others, Osman v. Turkey, no. 4415/02, \u00a7 17, 19 December 2006)."], "id": "3aea87e7-4852-404d-b03a-2a507b699a03", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["165. The applicants submitted that, in the light of the Court\u2019s judgments in Procola (cited above) and McGonnell v. the United Kingdom (no. 28488/95, ECHR 2000-II), the Administrative Jurisdiction Division cannot be regarded as an independent and within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In Procola, the Court indicated that, by reason of the combination of different functions within the Luxembourg Conseil d\u2019Etat, this \u201cinstitution\u2019s structural impartiality\u201d could be put in doubt. The applicants further submitted that the perception of appellants had to be regarded as decisive where it concerned a tribunal\u2019s objective impartiality. Any doubts by appellants \u2013 based on reasonable and objectively justified grounds \u2013 as to the impartiality of a tribunal had to be dispelled."], "id": "81330788-ac93-48d2-a76e-c899a6031620", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the \u0130zmir State Security Court which tried and convicted them. They further submitted that they were convicted on the basis of their statements in police custody which were taken under duress and that the court refused their demands for a supplementary investigation. They maintained that they were denied the assistance of a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings and that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter\u2011arguments."], "id": "6a61fde3-bc10-4a64-bef0-15ef65fe5156", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained that the administrative proceedings leading to the imposition of a fine on him had been unfair and that the relevant decisions had been arbitrary. He also complained that his right of access to a court had been breached in that he was unable to have the administrative decisions reviewed by an independent and . He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, in its relevant parts, reads as follows:"], "id": "59886a44-a3bd-4a7c-aa4a-09dbcaf9a69a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Izmir State Security Court which tried and convicted them. They further complain that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter\u2011arguments. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "f274ba61-5441-47d6-8d49-9722bfd4fb06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further submitted that he had been deprived of his right to the assistance of a lawyer during his police custody. Finally, he claimed that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was excessive. The applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "f494239b-83d7-4033-8734-7432df278128", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant alleged a violation of his right to a fair hearing in connection with the two sets of proceedings in the Constitutional Court, concerning Decree no. 40 and the merits of the impeachment charges against him. He submitted that because of collusion between the court's President and the member of the Seimas who had initiated the proceedings against him, the Constitutional Court could not be considered an independent and , and noted that that court had subsequently issued a public response to his accusations of bias on its part; in a supplement to his application, dated 30 November 2006, he added that the Constitutional Court's endorsement of the conclusions of the declaration of 25 March 2004 by the Seimas showed that it had been put under considerable pressure by Parliament as a result of such collusion. He further submitted that he had been unable to defend himself effectively and that, in the impeachment proceedings, his lawyers had not had access to certain classified documents which the special investigation commission had examined and the Constitutional Court had exceeded its powers by making findings as to the facts and the issue of \u201cguilt\u201d. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "234d414e-1c7b-4ebf-81e9-3afd7ac87e67", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant alleged a number of violations of his rights enshrined in Articles 6 \u00a7 1, 8, 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention. He complained, in the first place, that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and officers, that this court had acted as a first and only instance court and that it had not been possible to know in advance which chamber of this court would examine the case. He further maintained that he had not had access to the classified documents submitted by the administration to the Supreme Military Administrative Court. Lastly, he alleged violations of Articles 8, 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention on the basis of the above\u2011mentioned facts, without further substantiation."], "id": "2ff6ba52-b223-4b5c-8084-2f23fb07fb0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further submitted that he was convicted on the basis of his statements extracted under torture. Finally, the applicant maintained that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on him, thus depriving him of the opportunity to put forward his counter-arguments. The applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "9aca85d0-dc00-4223-9da6-b9504390dbee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried them. They further submitted that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had never been served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter-arguments. Moreover, the applicants also claimed that they had been denied the assistance of a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "id": "1e2bef7e-6b96-4fcc-a7cc-64204de714e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning her initial dismissal were unfair. She stated in particular that the District Court, when hearing her case in the second set of proceedings, was, contrary to domestic law, composed of the same single judge as in the first set. The applicant claimed to have suffered a violation of her right to have her case heard by an \u201cindependent and established by law\u201d within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "a4f579fe-9d55-40c9-9773-c306489e3bb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "impartial tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant also complained that the public prosecutor lacked impartiality. The fact that the proceedings had been brought by the public prosecutor rather than by the President did not guarantee the appearance of an independent and . Having regard to the relationship of dependence between a public prosecutor who was subordinate to the executive, and a civil party who was the head of the executive, the defendant could not be sure to have a fair trial. In the present case, the use of unusual investigative means, the rapidity of the judicial pre-trial investigation, and the manifestly zealous attitude of the public prosecutor in making submissions at the court hearing in support of the admissibility of the President\u2019s civil-party intervention, could only be attributed to the identity of the victim."], "id": "cbce2e06-4e3a-4fa4-93a6-5534d40d6415", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained that he had not had access to the classified documents and information presented by the Ministry to the Supreme Military Administrative Court, nor to the responses submitted by the Ministry to the questions posed by this court in its interim decision, which infringed the principle of and the right to adversarial proceedings as safeguarded in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "7cee9568-7b85-485f-9c26-cf01c476d0a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. He further maintained under the same provision that the principle of had not been respected during the criminal proceedings against him as the written opinion submitted by the Principal Public Prosecutor to the Court of Cassation had not been communicated to him, depriving him of the opportunity to submit his counter-arguments."], "id": "01cc30c5-4844-4f70-9446-05ce4f7ab8a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants contended that they had not been given a fair hearing. They complained that the court had refused to call and examine the witnesses they had requested and, in the first applicant\u2019s case, had refused to accept the video recordings of their arrest as evidence. Furthermore, the court had not respected the principle of in that it had rejected the testimony of the applicants as false while giving weight to that of the two police officers. In addition, the applicants complained that the hearing in the first applicant\u2019s case had not been open to the public, that their right to mount a defence had been violated and that they had not been given adequate time to prepare their defence."], "id": "d42c28a7-133b-4389-8ead-1980bf4999a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant also contended that the proceedings had not respected the principle. Firstly, he had not been allowed to cross\u2011examine a main witness (Ms Z., who had been present during the robbery and had been one of the plaintiffs) whose testimony had been of particular relevance in the light of the multiple inconsistent statements made by her husband. Moreover, despite her having been present at the scene, her written testimony had made no reference to the \u201cbuckets of gold\u201d, a crucial element in finding the applicant responsible. However, the court had accepted the ex parte doctor\u2019s statement to the effect that she could not testify without appointing an independent doctor to examine the witness and her condition or ability to do so. Nevertheless, his application not to allow her statement had been refused."], "id": "f8e6c0ef-aae6-4106-b11a-0e800f67174e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant further argued that, as regards , the provision of ad hoc pro bono legal assistance was no substitute for competent and sustained representation by an experienced lawyer familiar with the case and the relevant law (citing Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, \u00a7\u00a7 69-70, ECHR 2005\u2011II). This was all the more important in his case where both G. and the curator ad litem had been granted legal aid. Thus the fact that counsel and solicitors acted for him pro bono in the proceedings before the Supreme Court did not remove the significant imbalance that existed between the parties. He emphasised, first, that he had no protection from an adverse costs order while the other parties to the appeal enjoyed such protection. Second, while court fees were waived, he was still required to present documentation in accordance with the relevant Practice Directions and did not have adequate resources to do so. The costs were met by senior counsel and his wife. Third, counsel had to fit their preparation for his case into their remunerating practice. Fourth, the applicant had to rely on additional assistance with the preparation of his case from senior counsel\u2019s wife. Fifth, his legal advisers had to pay their own travel and subsistence fees in respect of the appeal before the Supreme Court in London. Finally, although the applicant had enjoyed the assistance of senior counsel, the latter had no experience in family law matters."], "id": "86caf9e5-cac7-41f0-8150-76e444512479", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant argued that the Berlin Tiergarten District Court was obliged to appoint, of its own motion, defence counsel for him in the first\u2011instance criminal proceedings, in which he was convicted of libel and two counts of assault, sentenced to a fine, and ordered to pay damages to the victim. The victim was represented by counsel as the private accessory prosecutor and with regard to his civil claims. Thus, the applicant was confronted with two lawyers, the public prosecutor and counsel for the victim. In this scenario, the District Court was obliged to appoint counsel for him ex officio and free of charge in order to respect the principle of , bearing in mind that he lacked sufficient means to pay for counsel himself. He had neither been informed about the possibility to apply for free legal assistance nor had he been asked about aspects speaking in favour of granting him legal assistance."], "id": "af8d1846-cd40-4d25-a03e-eaaba550b0c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government submitted that the administrative proceedings with respect to the applicant in both cases had been in line with national legislation. In the first case the Government noted in particular that the time-limit for lodging an appeal with the Court of Appeal against the decision of the first-instance court was ten days, so the applicant had had adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence. They also submitted in general terms that during the court proceedings the principle of had been respected. In the second case the Government argued in particular that the administrative-offence case had not been complex and the applicant had therefore been able to prepare his defence. In addition, the applicant had been present personally at the hearing of the first-instance court and had not objected to being represented by a State-funded lawyer. Lastly, he had been represented by a lawyer of his own choice before the Court of Appeal."], "id": "9f3d991b-f60e-414c-bcf0-5ffd42156bb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been fair. They had been public and adversarial and in compliance with the principle of . The applicant had been questioned by the investigator in the presence of her lawyer and had been advised of her right not to incriminate herself. During the trial, she had had ample opportunity to present her case and to challenge the admissibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The trial court had thoroughly examined the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody and the authenticity of the evidence against her."], "id": "0449c4f1-a118-4a86-9846-23c8457e4ef0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government submitted that the first detention hearing had been conducted in compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3. This Article could not be interpreted as guaranteeing a right to adversarial proceedings and . The main purpose of that Article was to afford individuals deprived of their liberty a procedure of a judicial nature designed to ensure that no one was deprived of his liberty arbitrarily and that any such deprivation of liberty was kept to the minimum. An accused was entitled to have access to all the materials of the case file only after the completion of the investigation. Thus, the fact that the applicant and his lawyers were not allowed to familiarise themselves with the materials submitted by the investigator in support of his motion of 10 October 2005 did not violate either the domestic law or Article 5 \u00a7 3."], "id": "a2bdc708-728e-4b56-9815-53c76fba225f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government submitted that the administrative proceedings with respect to the applicant had been in line with the national legislation. In particular, the time-limit for lodging an appeal with the Court of Appeal against the decision of the first-instance court was ten days, so the applicant had had adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence. The Government also submitted in general terms that during the court proceedings the principle of had been respected."], "id": "957072ba-2f88-428d-a14d-17c179c3aa78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government submitted that the hearing of 4 December 2007 had been held in the absence of the applicant\u2019s lawyer because, although he had been duly informed of the proceedings, he failed to appear in court. To ensure the and secure the applicant\u2019s interest, the latter was provided with the effective legal assistance of a lawyer appointed by the court."], "id": "9ab2b9b2-cd4b-4ed1-8c96-0c3c8086931c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government conceded that on 10 January 2008 the District Court had retrospectively authorised the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention from 27 October 2007 onwards, but that the authorisation had not been in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Russian law, a fact which had been brought to the attention of the domestic courts by the Deputy Regional Prosecutor in a supervisory review application in 2013 (see paragraph 29 above). The Government did not inform the Court of the outcome of the proceedings in question. As regards the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention from 28 April to 6 May 2008, they considered it to be lawful. The appellate court had been competent to rule on his detention. The fact that the prosecutor had not been present had no bearing on respecting the principle of . According to the rules of criminal procedure, the court could decide a defendant\u2019s pre-trial detention of its own motion. Given that the appellate court had adjourned the hearing, it could not have delved into the reasons underlying the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention. To do otherwise would have amounted to impartiality on its part."], "id": "63eefc39-65e6-49e5-8abe-11a245bd6c7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant further complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of the lack of impartiality and independence of the Medical Board, which had provided crucial expert evidence in the proceedings, given that its conclusions had been adopted in their entirety by the domestic court, and about the lack of disclosure of certain documents (for example, the full report of the applicant\u2019s fitness-for-service examination; the report by the commander in Lecce requesting a specialised assessment) which had meant that he had not been able to properly participate in the proceedings and had been denied during the proceedings. The proceedings had, moreover, been tainted by the fact that he had been unable to contest the findings of the report. Despite the fact that the expert report had only been submitted at the appeal stage, the Supreme Administrative Court (\u201cCS\u201d) had considered that, in its limited powers of judicial review of administrative acts, it could not examine the merits of that report. The relevant parts of Article 6 and 13 read as follows:"], "id": "c9c6b265-3b7a-4de6-9b55-d4d34cddcf69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government submitted that the Lithuanian courts had carefully reviewed the circumstances of the case. On the basis of all the collected evidence, including the classified information, the courts had taken into account the fact that criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant and they had adopted reasoned decisions finding that the data on the applicant had been lawfully recorded in the operational file. The applicant had been able to submit evidence, present his arguments, make submissions and participate in the decision-making process as far as had been possible without revealing to him the classified material, whose secrecy the courts had sought to maintain in the public interest. The Government stressed that the applicant had not complained that the Lithuanian courts had not been impartial or objective. As to the information in the operational records file, it had constituted a State secret. The interest in protecting State secrets was paramount. Consequently, it had been legitimate not to disclose that information to the applicant in the course of the judicial proceedings. Nonetheless, the fair-balance principle had been maintained, given that non-disclosure had been chosen in order to protect the proper administration of justice and to guarantee existing public needs and the safety of Lithuanian society. The State had had the legitimate aim of maintaining the secrecy of police criminal investigation methods, whilst at the same time ensuring that the courts themselves had been able to assess all the relevant materials in the course of the judicial proceedings in order to adopt a lawful and reasoned decision. In sum, a fair balance had been maintained between the general interests of society and the applicant's fair trial guarantees, in that the principle of had been compromised in proportion to the aims sought."], "id": "4562189b-f4a5-44a1-a523-013c157235fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant submitted that the principle of required that he be given an opportunity to evaluate the relevance of the statement and its withdrawal, and to comment if he considered it proper to do so. The Court of Appeal was not free to set aside this fundamental principle of fair proceedings. In the applicant\u2019s opinion the Court of Appeal simply chose to uphold one version of the testimony of a wholly unreliable witness, whereas it should have excluded that witness\u2019s testimony entirely. The applicant\u2019s representative further claimed that the affidavit was made entirely voluntarily on the part of the applicant\u2019s then wife."], "id": "904d16e9-7e01-4350-9988-1731c8684cd2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant emphasised that he had not only wished to challenge the validity of the findings of the relevant expert report. Since the report dealt with a technical subject, M.M.K. should have had to reply orally in court to the questions raised in the separate report by the expert D.K., who had been instructed by the applicant himself. The attendance of M.M.K. had been important in terms of ; her report had generated considerable publicity in favour of the prosecution authorities, and M.M.K. had in reality been a \u201cwitness for the prosecution\u201d."], "id": "6a664350-2f2a-4ac6-a677-8f59a0544588", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them had been arbitrary and unfair, in particular on account of the failure to comply with the principles of adversarial proceedings and when the evidence and witnesses had been admitted and examined. They complained about their conviction for acts which had not fallen under the legal classification assigned to them. They also alleged that they had been deprived of having the judgment against them delivered in public because the date of delivery had been moved to prevent attendance by the public and press and because only the operative part of the judgment had been delivered at the hearing. Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "c2f533fe-1932-49a0-ad7a-956702d7b212", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (d) of the Convention. He alleged that on all seven occasions the proceedings in which he was convicted of an administrative offence fell short of the fair hearing guarantees, in particular the principles of , adversarial proceedings, independence and impartiality of the tribunal, and the presumption of innocence. Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads:"], "id": "94227b69-91f9-4c22-87fa-b33c20556167", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the principle of had been respected in the instant case and that the fact that M.H. had not been heard by the trial court in the presence of the applicant had not breached his rights under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3. The Government stated that the applicant had been represented by counsel. His case was examined at a public hearing, in an adversarial procedure, during which he had had the opportunity to adduce evidence and request that new witnesses be heard. The applicant had had access to his case file and had been able to challenge the statements made by the principal witness, M.H."], "id": "b795c2a6-e627-4f3b-98a4-56ef220d3b62", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant does not dispute the fact that he was duly informed of the hearing scheduled for 28 January 2004 and he indeed appeared at that hearing. Therefore, what is at stake in the current case is whether the applicant was given the possibility to effectively participate in the proceedings and to enjoy with the opposing party."], "id": "faf9f3a8-1296-4d13-9419-9dbb333f45ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial. In support of this he maintained firstly that the domestic courts had wrongly assessed the court-appointed expert\u2019s opinion. He further complained that the refusal to admit the private expert opinion to the proceedings as evidence and the refusal to allow the private expert and B.S., J.H. and A.U. to testify as witnesses violated the principle of as provided in Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "6b69380d-e644-4025-a14a-dba926d46103", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained in the first place that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court. The applicant further maintained that the principle of had been violated since he had not been notified of the public prosecutor\u2019s observations at the appeal stage. In this connection, he invoked Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "3868007a-addd-4f12-95c9-fd12027dffe5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicants complained in the first place that they had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court. The applicants further maintained that the principle of had been violated since they had not been given the opportunity to put questions to all the witnesses. They also contended that the domestic authorities violated their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this connection, they invoked Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "50fc7b41-91b4-4fbd-9daf-33a9e2a26d7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government contested the applicant's allegations. In their view, the proceedings in question had been fair. The decision of the Council of the Regional Bar Association had been subjected to review by impartial domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction. The proceedings had been adversarial and in compliance with the principle of and other procedural safeguards within the notion of a fair hearing. The fact that the initial complaint against the applicant had been brought by the President of the Regional Court was of no relevance. The President had been responsible for the organisation of the work of the court only and had been in no position to influence the decisions delivered by the judges of the court. They further pointed out that the applicant had failed to provide any evidence in support of his allegations that the President of the Regional Court had exerted any pressure on the judges involved in the proceedings in question. Nor had the President exercised any function in the said proceedings. It had been open to the applicant to challenge the composition of the court which had considered his case. However, he had not done so before the District Court. As regards the hearing in the Regional Court, it had not been open to the applicant to challenge the partiality of the whole court. He should have challenged only the judges appointed to consider his case."], "id": "155ec6c0-f71e-496b-a97f-32b0a2c14306", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant contended that the principles of and adversarial proceedings required the submissions of the prosecution to be forwarded to the defence, who then had discretion to choose whether to reply to them or not. In the applicant\u2019s view, the relevant domestic law was deficient as no provision was made for forwarding the opinion of the immediately superior State Attorney\u2019s Office \u2013 in the present case, the State Attorney\u2019s Office of the Republic of Croatia \u2013 to the defence to allow them, should they so wish, to reply to the opinion before the second-instance decision was adopted."], "id": "fcd209a8-29a8-455b-b209-273ceee2a9bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["129. The applicant submitted that the principle of was infringed where one of the parties to administrative proceedings had not had an opportunity to fully acquaint him or herself with all the evidence that had served as the main basis for an unfavourable decision. He conceded that in some circumstances State security interests defined by law took precedence over the interests of a person seeking protection from the courts in proper adversarial proceedings. He observed that in the present case, however, his right to a fair trial or to a position of equality before the law should not have been restricted because the statutory conditions under Czech law for such a procedure to be followed had not been met. The author of document no. 77, which the applicant had not been allowed to consult, had classified the report and the information contained in it in the lowest category of secrecy, namely, \u201crestricted\u201d. In the light of section 3(5)(e) of Law no. 412/2005, the author of the report had considered that information thus classified compromised certain intelligence operations in progress. However, under section 133(3) of that Law, in order for the courts to be able to exclude part of a document from examination by a party, there had to be a risk of interference in the activities of the intelligence services and that interference had to pose a major risk, as evidenced by the terms \u201cendanger or seriously compromise\u201d, which, by virtue of the law, required it to be classified at least in the \u201csecret\u201d category. According to the applicant, the legislature had sought to limit the application of the special procedure strictly to situations in which facts were referred to that had to be kept secret. In his view, the statutory conditions for limiting his procedural rights indicated in section 133(3) of Law no. 412/2005 had not been met because the information appearing in the report could not be such as to justify recourse to the special procedure."], "id": "fb2874f8-9620-40ff-9595-e8a2670ac4bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants contended that the Federal Court's express refusal to admit observations in reply to the tendentious and largely incorrect statements by the lower court constituted a breach of the principle of the . The lower court was able to pronounce itself twice: in its judgment, and later in its observations to the Federal Court. The applicants were only allowed one set of submissions. As such, there was no real difference between the present case and that of Nider\u00f6st-Huber v. Switzerland (see the judgment of 18 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, p. 101 et seq.). In the applicants' submissions, the powers of examination of the Federal Court were irrelevant here."], "id": "96c2139a-16f6-475c-b41a-0a0b2f5b10ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that the applicant had received a fair trial in the court proceedings before the first-instance court. He and his lawyer had participated in all the first-instance hearings. As to the hearings before the Court of Appeal, the Government submitted that in the present case the Court of Appeal had decided to examine the merits of the appeal without a \u201ccourt investigation\u201d and there had been no possibility of the worsening of the applicant\u2019s situation as a result of his appeal. In such circumstances, under Article 392.2 of the CCrP, the Court of Appeal \u201chad the right to hear the case\u201d in the applicant\u2019s absence. Furthermore, the applicant\u2019s lawyer had been present at the hearing on the merits and had been given the opportunity to present arguments on the applicant\u2019s behalf. In particular, in accordance with Article 394.3 of the CCrP, the defence counsel had made submissions in support of the appeal. The Government concluded that had been fully ensured in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal."], "id": "1da5e55a-95e2-47e0-9840-898a58b502a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant submitted that the presence of a lawyer before the appellate court could not be regarded as equivalent to the defendant\u2019s personal presence. He emphasised that under Polish law it had been possible for the court of appeal to accept new evidence. He referred to the Court\u2019s Belziuk v. Poland judgment, referred to above (paragraph 19). He further argued that he had expressly requested to be brought to the hearing before the court of appeal and that the principle of had been breached because the prosecutor had attended that hearing in his absence."], "id": "92634fbe-5911-4d08-a27a-e95c04fe4323", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant maintained his complaint. In his view, it was essential for compliance with the principle of the that he attended the hearing. The domestic judicial authorities' failure to ensure his presence in court had deprived him of the opportunity to make effective use of his procedural rights. He had been unable to produce and examine evidence, to lodge requests and to argue his case. He did not have the financial means to retain a lawyer to represent him. In any event, the nature of his claims was such that his personal presence was indispensable for proper examination of his claims."], "id": "94ad1620-7283-4372-945c-f368cdf92d81", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained about the unfairness of the lustration proceedings, the infringement of his right of defence and the lack of . In particular, he alleged that the material in his case had been classified as confidential, which had limited his right of access to it. Before the institution of the proceedings he had had no access to the case file prepared by the Commissioner. After the lustration proceedings had been instituted by the Warsaw Court of Appeal the applicant could consult the documents only in the secret registry of the lustration court. The limitations on access were not applicable to the Commissioner of the Public Interest. Thus, the applicant was placed at a significant disadvantage vis\u2011\u00e0\u2011vis the Commissioner who had unlimited access to the file in his secret registry. The applicant invoked Article 6 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads:"], "id": "560f8f75-ebc1-47c3-a7d5-eec2227af449", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that the use of unlawfully obtained evidence by the Ankara State Security Court in convicting him had violated his right to a fair trial. He further complained, under the same head, that the refusal by the same court to provide him with a copy of the audiotapes of his alleged telephone conversations had been in breach of the principle of ."], "id": "9e4dc9a5-d634-4eaf-af3a-a59e0b85b0cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants complained that they had not been allowed adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and that they had not had a fair hearing because they had not had access to all the evidence in the case against them. They submitted in particular that they had been denied access to the documents of the case as well as to a list of documents, during both the investigation and the trial at both instances. They maintained that no one had reviewed the prosecution\u2019s cherry-picking of the documents submitted to the court and that they had been denied the possibility of searching using the electronic system applied. In their view, the principle of required that they should have had the same opportunities as the prosecution to access and select evidence from the collection of documents gathered by the police during the investigation. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3(b) of the Convention, which is so far as relevant read as follows:"], "id": "d9477e7c-1d58-4947-962d-995c7b3c875c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant made several complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention that the proceedings against her were unfair. In particular, she submitted that (1) the principle of was violated, because she was in an unequal position in comparison to the prosecution; (2) the court was biased; (3) it heard primarily witness testimonies which supported the police's version of events; (4) it failed to give adequate reasoning in its judgment and did not perform a thorough analysis of the presented evidence; (5) she was not informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against her; (6) she did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence as a result of the proceedings having been organised very quickly and in view of the fact that after her arrest she had been held in isolation at the police station; (7) she was not provided the opportunity to retain an attorney of her own choosing; and, (8) she was denied the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against her even though she indicted she could do this on several occasions during the court hearing of 8 September 1999."], "id": "d6e79ef6-1275-4745-bcdf-b4f1c9d422cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant argued that the lustration proceedings had been unfair, that the principle of had not been respected, and that he had not been able to defend himself properly. Moreover, he had been placed at a significant disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis the Commissioner of the Public Interest given that the State had access to all the archives and had at its disposal the technical and financial means to examine the necessary materials and to choose those that were to be included in the file. Most of the documents were considered secret and lifting the confidentiality of materials was in itself arbitrary. The applicant further argued that the lustration court had failed to examine the case diligently and that he had not been allowed to challenge the evidence adduced by the Commissioner or call independent experts."], "id": "80625b06-741b-4a75-9bbd-ab25da3c9b97", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant company complained about the quashing of the resolution of the Review Panel of 11 March 1999, stating that the latter had been the final and binding decision given in its favour. It alleged that the procedure before the Plenary Court had been incompatible with the principles of legal certainty, and a public hearing. The applicant invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "5d43037c-3bcd-40a2-a671-94a873a8bd20", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the domestic courts had refused to examine Mr G.A., the only witness, whose letter served as key evidence on which his conviction rested. He also complained that the principle of had been violated since the trial court had ordered that his attendance at the trial be secured by force, which had not been the case with Mr G.A., who had also refused to appear in court. Lastly, he alleged that he had not been allowed to inspect the case file. Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "dffe12bc-9753-4908-8220-16c788fdcd19", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["79. The applicants complained about the courts\u2019 refusal to obtain, admit and give weight to exonerating evidence, contrary to the principles of and adversarial proceedings. Such evidence had included, in particular, financial documents and receipts proving provenance of the applicants\u2019 funds and other documents relating to the functioning of GPA and affiliated companies; a letter from Yves Rocher Vostok stating that it had not sustained any damage; and a statement from Russian Post that there were no grounds to impose any disciplinary penalty on the second applicant in relation to his activity concurrent with his employment at Russian Post. They also alleged that in its judgment the court had relied on evidence which had not been examined, or not properly examined, during the court hearing and that defence attempts to challenge the admissibility of certain evidence had not been given a proper assessment. Applications from them had been rejected on the grounds that the court had already heard sufficient evidence proving their guilt."], "id": "87a381d9-8b0e-4b90-afcf-866f8f85ca4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government submitted that the principles of an adversarial hearing and , as developed in the Court\u2019s case-law, applied only to parties to the proceedings. However, the applicant in the present case had not been a party to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. This was so because the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were sui generis proceedings in which there were no two opposing parties but a complainant who contested a decision of a judicial, administrative or other public authority alleging that his or her constitutional rights had been violated. In those proceedings, pursuant to section 69 of the Constitutional Court Act, a copy of the constitutional complaint was sent to interested persons and they were invited to respond to it only if necessary (see paragraph 25 above)."], "id": "514c5afa-b3ad-4bc0-9cdf-86359c2606c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant submitted that since his claim was based on various aspects of his personal experience (such as medication and treatment, lack or presence of certain documents) his personal testimony before the civil court was the decisive, if not the main, tool for ensuring the . The above-mentioned consideration acquired even more importance, given the unavailability of the applicant\u2019s medical file and the prosecutor\u2019s participation in the proceedings. Neither the Code of Civil Procedure nor the Code of Criminal Procedure contained any explicit provision which made it possible for detainees to participate in civil court proceedings. No such provision was present in the Code of Execution of Sentences. The applicant also submitted that he had no means to retain counsel. He was not entitled to free legal advice under the Advocates Act or any other statute."], "id": "50a91abc-ace2-47ee-9f71-38e12afd9588", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government argued that throughout the criminal proceedings the applicant had been in an equal position to the State Attorney: he had presented evidence, had examined witnesses, including the expert witness, and he had never made any objection in respect of the . As to D.D.\u2019s report of 13 July 2007, the Government pointed out that it had not contained any new relevant information and that the applicant had had an opportunity during the proceedings to comment on D.D.\u2019s findings. As to the additional documents submitted by the police, the Government argued that the Osijek Municipal Court had not relied on those documents in its judgment. Finally, the Government stressed that the State Attorney had also become aware of the expert witness\u2019s written observations and the documents submitted by the police at the final hearing and that the prosecutor had therefore been in the same position as the applicant, which excluded the possibility of any violation of the principle of adversarial proceedings and of the equality of arms."], "id": "3fcf0540-dc31-428d-94f6-8a09d6a8b1eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant\u2019s complaint about the breach of the principle of appears to be unsubstantiated. Indeed, the applicant failed to explain in what way the non-disclosure of his son\u2019s address negatively influenced or reduced his chances of success in the proceedings before the United Kingdom courts in circumstances in which the decisive factor in those proceedings was the interpretation of Romanian family law. Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must therefore be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "bbca84f3-85c8-42b0-81bf-a73a4a30a0e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government considered that the guarantees of a fair trial had been respected in the present case. They maintained that the specific issue of the non\u2011communication to him of the defendant\u2019s observations in reply to the applicant\u2019s appeal on points of law raised mainly a question of which had to be answered in the light of the proceedings as a whole. The Government further pointed out that the special character of the proceedings on appeals on points of law had to be taken into account. In particular, they submitted that such proceedings were based on the principle of cassation (Article 243b of the Code of Civil Procedure) and that the scope of the Supreme Court\u2019s examination of appeals on point of law was in principle limited to the grounds of appeal as submitted by an appellant and certain aspects which are examined ex officio (Article 242 \u00a7 1 in conjunction with Article 237 of that Code). Such grounds were restricted to points of law and conformity with procedural requirements (Article 241 \u00a7 1 of that Code). Appeals on points of law were determined on the basis of the contents of the case\u2011file and the Supreme Court normally did not take any evidence (Article 243a \u00a7 2 of that Code) or consider any newly introduced factual or legal assertions. The Government concluded that the applicant\u2019s lack of awareness of the defendant\u2019s observations had no detrimental effect on him and that knowing of them would not have been of any advantage to him. They further added that it had been open to the applicant and his lawyer whose obligation had been to exercise due professional diligence to learn of the observations by inspecting the respective Supreme Court case\u2011file."], "id": "6427cb48-5846-4827-8ce9-9e9f4373a3da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government averred that the proceedings had been fair. The Administrative Court had conducted the proceedings within a reasonable time and in accordance with the relevant procedural law. That court had rendered a reasoned judgment based on the legislation in force. In addition, the Government argued that the principle of had also been respected in the applicant\u2019s case. The applicant could at any time have sought access to the case file and had in fact subsequently submitted comments on the Municipal Office\u2019s response to her claim. Moreover, the Government argued that the Municipal Office had not raised any new material facts in its response, but had simply reiterated its arguments from the impugned decision."], "id": "2d47d294-22d9-483d-b3f5-7387492ec745", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["101. The applicants emphasised that the summons had mentioned their right to appear in person before the civil court. However, since they were deprived of their liberty, the exercise of that right had been conditional on the court\u2019s decision to have them transferred to the local investigative unit. They pointed out that Mrs Khuzhina had left the court, protesting against the court\u2019s decision to refuse them leave to appear. They maintained that the principle of had been breached because they had not been present or represented in the proceedings."], "id": "b4a9dcb1-707d-4246-bce2-cdfe0d7cb52c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government argued that the principles of fairness and , as secured by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, were not breached in the applicant\u2019s case. They pointed out that under relevant national legislation the applicant was under an obligation to submit evidence in support of her claims, and, in particular, to prove that she had sustained damage, that it had been caused by the defendant, and that there was a causal link between the defendant\u2019s actions and the infliction of damage. The Government also submitted that under relevant national law the court explained to the parties to the proceedings their procedural obligations and rights, including their right to seek the court\u2019s assistance in collecting and obtaining evidence. They further argued with reference to the transcript of the hearing of 3 December 2001 (see paragraph 65 above) that the applicant had received explanations concerning her procedural rights, and that neither she nor her legal counsel had filed any motions to request the court\u2019s assistance in obtaining evidence. The Government thus argued that the applicant could not be said to have been placed under an excessive burden of proof in the proceedings for compensation."], "id": "ac643acd-b0df-41ea-8631-2e4887a9ccdd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant alleged, in a general manner, that he was disadvantaged because he was not represented by counsel despite facing two parties, the public prosecutor and S., the latter being represented by a lawyer. However, it does not follow from either the principle of or the right to free legal assistance that free legal assistance has to be provided in each and every case to a party whose opponent is represented by counsel. The applicant did furthermore not argue that he had not been given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed by either the public prosecutor or S. in the proceedings before the District Court. In fact, it is not in dispute that he was given access to the file and that he made submissions on multiple occasions (see paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 above)."], "id": "0955a719-7560-4579-b4a5-17746d411205", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that, in accordance with Article 419 of the Code of Civil Procedure, obvious errors may be corrected if the decision to be corrected appears not to comply with the court's true intention. Under that provision the court may act, without involving the parties, ex-officio. Nevertheless the court may be notified about any mistake by a third person. Therefore the proceedings in the instant case cannot be compared to appeal proceedings on a cost order in domestic law pursuant to Article 521a \u00a7 4 of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case the Supreme Court in its decision merely clarified that not only the decisions themselves but also the cost orders of the first-instance decisions were reinstated and gave no decision on the amount of the costs. Since the decision did not affect the actual content of the judgment and alter its legal effect, but merely added part of a phrase which had inadvertently been omitted, there was no need to hear the parties. Therefore the principle had not been violated."], "id": "0c362fd1-0ff5-4c2e-8c0f-29a3e7cc92e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government further submitted that the applicant had been present and represented at all hearings before the first-instance court. He had been informed on 3 October 2001 of the court\u2019s refusal to bring him to the hearing scheduled for 28 November 2001, so he had had ample time to ask the court to reconsider its decision. He could also have asked his lawyer for advice. It had not been shown that he had done that. His lawyer had been present at the hearing before the appellate court and could have submitted the applicant\u2019s arguments. As the prosecution had not appealed against the judgment, the principle of had not been breached. The court had not obtained any supplementary evidence. Hence, the applicant\u2019s presence had not been necessary and his absence had not limited his defence rights."], "id": "4c81fddd-1fd4-4c1b-aa88-6a74c4a31da4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant maintained that the domestic courts\u2019 refusal of his request to examine several witnesses on his behalf had been in violation of the principle of and had breached his rights under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. As a result, he claimed, he had been prevented from proving his alibi. Hence, his case had been treated in a one\u2011sided and flawed manner. He noted that at the hearing of 30 April 2008 he had had a newly appointed lawyer who had not had time to prepare for that hearing (see the Government\u2019s argument in paragraph 21 below) and therefore could not have filed a request for the examination of the witnesses by that date. Subsequently, she had filed the request on the basis of Article 475 of the CCP (see paragraph 17 above) but it had been unlawfully rejected. As for the appeal proceedings, the applicant maintained that the procedural application had been duly filed as part of his appeal but the appeal court had erroneously dismissed it."], "id": "c959f265-c968-4b24-8bbb-fc65b66e80ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted that, as a matter of law, the applicant, who had been serving a prison sentence at the time, did not have the right to be personally present at the court hearing concerning determination of his civil rights and obligations or to be entitled to free legal assistance. Nor did the interests of justice require that he be provided with legal aid. Accordingly, the domestic courts' decision to hear the case in the applicant's absence had been in compliance with applicable domestic laws. The courts had duly advised the applicant of the date and time of the court hearings and of his procedural rights, including the rights to appoint a representative to plead the case on his behalf and to ask the court to procure evidence. The applicant, however, had chosen not to avail himself of them. The courts had thoroughly examined the applicant's claims and the submissions made by the respondent parties in accordance with the rules of civil procedure. In the Government's opinion, the fact that the applicant had not been present in court was not decisive for the outcome of the proceedings. Nor had the principle of the been infringed."], "id": "df322013-c805-4532-a318-8cff28e7d4fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant, who was ordered to pay Mr Sarkozy just one euro in damages, together with court costs, has not provided any concrete evidence to show that he could have had an objectively justified fear that the judges of the Nanterre Criminal Court and the Versailles Court of Appeal were under the President\u2019s influence. The Court observes in this connection that the case before the judges did not bear any relation to the political duties of Mr Sarkozy, who had neither brought the prosecution nor provided any evidence to establish the applicant\u2019s guilt. In addition, the Court notes that it was on 15 June 2012 that the Court of Cassation delivered its judgment, in which it examined the applicant\u2019s complaints about the and about the independence and impartiality of the tribunal, at a date when Mr Sarkozy no longer chaired the CSM. The Court points out that, after the judgment of the Versailles Court of Appeal of 8 January 2010, the reform of the French Constitution (brought about by the Law of 23 July 2008) came into force. The chairmanship of the CSM was thereby transferred from the President of the Republic to the President of the Court of Cassation, in order to secure the independence of the judicial system."], "id": "c984f068-5c4f-4b1a-8b13-35dfa470675d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant complained that the decision of the District Court not to appoint, of its own motion, defence counsel for him for the first-instance proceedings before it, breached his right to a fair trial, in particular the principle of and the right to free legal assistance. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention alone and taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Wetjen and Others v. Germany, nos. 68125/14 and 72204/14, \u00a7 44, 22 March 2018, with further references), finds it appropriate to examine this complaint solely under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "29dc5a2a-ba20-4504-97d2-e6a31e3c708b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant maintained that the refusal by the Supreme Court of his request to take part in the cassation hearing had breached his right to defence and violated the principle of . He submitted, in particular, that by rejecting the said request as lodged belatedly, the Supreme Court had interpreted the applicable law with excessive formalism and had in any event acted unfairly. In particular, it had not taken account of the fact that the request had been lodged within the one-month time-limit from the date on which the applicant had received the final rectified version of the trial court\u2019s judgment, or of the crucial importance of the hearing for him. Finally, the applicant pointed out that he had no longer been legally represented by the time of the cassation proceedings. However, the cassation hearing had been attended by the prosecutor, who had given oral submissions. Therefore, his own absence had seriously undermined the equality of arms between the parties."], "id": "65f50f09-52ee-407d-a08d-3ae37f1a98d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government referred to the Court\u2019s case-law which recognised that the need to protect the public interest may justify withholding certain evidence from the defence in criminal proceedings (amongst others, Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom, nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, \u00a7 53, 22 July 2003). In this respect, they underlined that in the instant case all evidence had been disclosed to the applicant. The only difficulty for the applicant had been related to the fact that part of the evidence had been classified. However, the rules applied by the domestic courts regarding arrangements on access to the case file had respected the principle of ."], "id": "403bd129-22e4-42d3-9bff-c0342e190cc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["114. The Government argued that the proceedings in the applicant\u2019s civil cases had been respectful of the principle of . First, the courts had duly considered all the applicant\u2019s arguments contained in his written submissions. Second, the court obtained the applicant\u2019s personal file from the colony and examined a witness, a colony official. Third, the applicant received all court documents, including the transcripts of the hearings and the documents submitted by the defendants. The applicant\u2019s absence had been objectively justified by the fact that he had been serving his prison sentence in a correctional colony and that it had been impossible to transport him to the hearings. He was informed of his procedural rights, including the right to be represented, of which he did not make use."], "id": "4ad398ac-68b2-4f30-9e62-647eb40c4212", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government submitted that the applicant had been duly notified of the hearing dates and had received copies of all procedural documents. He had had an opportunity to make written submissions or to appoint a representative. The Government also argued that the applicant had not expressed a wish to participate in the appeal hearings which had been held in the absence of both parties, so the principle of had not been breached."], "id": "d47266c8-7e21-4669-b9f1-0657ab52fe68", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant further complained under Article 6 that her right to was infringed, because the Supreme Land Reform Board denied her the right to consult specific parts of the court files. Under the same provision she complained that the Regional and Supreme Land Reform Board were not independent and impartial because of the participation of civil servants as expert members of these boards. Under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 and Article 1 Protocol No.1 she complained that the rules under which transfer of the grazing right to he had been refused, namely the residence clause, were discriminatory."], "id": "65a641b7-d003-47d8-b382-67d0ed24ad01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["188. The applicant also complained that the proceedings had not been decided speedily and that the principle of had been infringed. Having found that the scope and nature of the judicial review afforded to the applicant by the domestic courts did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, the Court does not need to examine whether other requirements of the same provision were also breached."], "id": "b26e0c05-12ca-4562-9e54-cec879c5aea2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government firstly, argued that the principle of should not extend to the present case because the punishment for contempt of court was, essentially by its nature, imposed by the court proprio motu, without there being any parties to the proceedings. The applicant\u2019s own disruptive behaviour forced the court to deliver the impugned decision in another courtroom and in his absence. The Government further submitted that on 19 January 2012 the applicant had been served with the impugned first-instance decision which indicated the penalty imposed on the applicant and the court\u2019s reasons, and that he had subsequently obtained from the appellate court a fresh examination of the merits of the charge. The Government referred to the Rule 80 (B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence common for the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda and to Rule 170 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court, which authorise the court to order the removal of a person for his or her disruptive conduct and to continue the proceedings in the person\u2019s absence."], "id": "40766e85-fe3d-4a42-a8d9-63de79625ea1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["101. The applicant submitted that there had been no prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings against her. The police officers who had drawn up the administrative-offence report had not been present at the hearings and, in any event, it was not their role to support charges against the accused. In the absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative\u2011offence proceedings, the trial and appellate courts had assumed the role of proving the accusation against her. That situation had breached the principles of impartiality, and adversarial proceedings. Referring to Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, \u00a7\u00a7 22-37, 20 September 2016), the applicant argued that the Court had already found that the absence of a prosecuting party, stemming from the domestic legislation and judicial practice, violated the impartiality requirement under Article 6 of the Convention. In the present case, the trial court had proprio motu reformulated the charges against the applicant and had corrected factual and legal mistakes contained in the administrative arrest report, thereby performing a task normally performed by a prosecuting party."], "id": "4b58032e-9fe8-4e92-9567-62d8af1c97ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant disagreed with the argument that by leaving the courtroom his counsel had deprived himself of the opportunity to put questions to NA. He observed in this respect that the principle of would not have been respected at the hearing owing to his defence counsel\u2019s lack of knowledge of the evidence against him. Lastly, the applicant submitted that after the hearing of NA on 11 April 2002, the witness had not appeared in response to the summons of the court. Thus, there was no possibility to challenge NA or his statements at the trial."], "id": "ef96df68-c4f9-4c64-8211-8346425da686", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government stated the Supreme Court of Cassation did not hold hearings in pre-trail detention cases as that would slow down the proceedings considerably. However, the Supreme Court of Cassation had before it the full case file and the applicant\u2019s appeal. He was free to offer additional submissions. On that basis the Government invited the Court to accept that the principle had not been breached. The Government also submitted that the courts had analysed all elements relevant under domestic law. "], "id": "a3ba5335-f5f1-43a6-9aa1-2f22287e9595", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicants, for their part, argued that the proceedings concerning the administrative offences had failed to comply with the guarantees of a fair and public hearing, alleging that the principle of had not been secured in that the witnesses for the defence had not been called, and that the public had been excluded from the trial of the first applicant."], "id": "19f5f1be-b297-4211-b3af-77e2b8c3bdf2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government referred to the Court's case-law which recognised that the need to protect the public interest may justify withholding certain evidence from the defence in criminal proceedings (amongst others, Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom, nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, \u00a7 53, 22 July 2003). In this respect, they underlined that in the instant case all evidence had been disclosed to the applicant. The only difficulty for the applicant had been related to the fact that part of the evidence had been confidential. However, the rules applied by the domestic courts regarding arrangements on access to the case file had respected the principle of ."], "id": "2c06d2d4-a8c6-4716-98ff-d16e37f7b0d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["651. The Government maintained that it was for the domestic authorities to assess the admissibility, reliability and relevance of evidence and to interpret it. The Russian courts at two instances had examined the objections of the defence as to the admissibility of a large number of items of evidence and dismissed them. The fact that the defence had not been satisfied with the decisions of the domestic courts in this respect did not mean that the principle of had been breached."], "id": "d8f84f12-c659-4ab9-92f5-6cee32748394", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government alleged that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as he had not raised before the domestic courts, even in substance, the particular allegations regarding the unfairness of the lustration proceedings. In particular, neither at the appellate nor at the cassation stage had the applicant questioned the restrictions imposed on him concerning access to the case files; nor had he complained that he had been unable to submit his arguments in accordance with the principles of an adversarial hearing and ."], "id": "28158751-6b7b-4bcb-bd47-fc2eeddfef4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["83. The applicant made the following complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention: (i) his case had not been considered by an \u201cindependent and impartial tribunal\u201d; (ii) the proceedings before the HCJ had been unfair, in that they had not been carried out pursuant to the procedure envisaged by Chapter 4 of the HCJ Act 1998, offering a set of important procedural guarantees, including limitation periods for disciplinary penalties; (iii) Parliament had adopted the decision on his dismissal at a plenary meeting by abusing the electronic voting system; (iv) his case had not been heard by a \u201ctribunal established by law\u201d; (v) the decisions in his case had been taken without a proper assessment of the evidence and important arguments raised by the defence had not been properly addressed; (vi) the absence of sufficient competence on the part of the HAC to review the acts adopted by the HCJ had run counter to his right to a court; (vii) the principle of had not been respected."], "id": "2ac8be7d-c164-4d50-a43e-104766edb3ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant stressed that he had not requested a reclassification of his offence. The reduction of his sentence had not negated the fact that he had not been afforded an opportunity to participate effectively in the supervisory review hearing. Thus, he had not had sufficient time to prepare his comments on the prosecutor's application; in any event, although he had submitted them both to the prosecutor's office and the Presidium court, they had disregarded them which had been evident from the decision of 3 October 2001, which had not referred to any of his arguments. In the same vein, all his requests to attend the hearing had been disregarded, which had deprived him of an opportunity to attend the hearing and to defend his position. In his opinion, the decision, delivered after a hearing where he had not been able to present his arguments in person or through some form of legal representation, had breached his right to a fair trial and the principle of ."], "id": "68539250-84f9-4891-aa1a-a2670ab5ea55", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant contested the Government's submissions. He stated that the President of the Regional Court lacked impartiality when lodging his protest against the ruling of 13 March 2001 and subsequently chairing its examination by the Presidium. The applicant also considered that the Presidium's decision of 27 June 2001 was incompatible with the principles of and rule of law guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention."], "id": "fc59f7e1-a120-410e-8009-e35cfa49d8e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant argued that the principle of had not been respected in his case. He had been hindered in his access to the case file and thus could not defend himself properly against the allegations raised by the Commissioner of the Public Interest. Furthermore, he had been entirely deprived of a possibility to participate in the proceedings before the Commissioner and to access the case file prepared by him. He could not question the Commissioner\u2019s decision to choose the documents to be considered as evidence against him. He also complained about his lustration trial, in particular, about the rules governing the consultation of the case file in the secret registry. He referred to the case of Matyjek v. Poland and complained that he could not freely consult confidential documents and had been prevented from removing any notes he had made in the secret registry. The applicant submitted that he had been placed at a significant disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis the Commissioner who had had access to all documents and archives."], "id": "3f6c9833-e86e-4cf3-8068-5a3dd50d272c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant argued that the principle of had not been respected in his case. He had been hindered in his access to the case file and thus could not defend himself properly against the allegations raised by the Commissioner of the Public Interest. Furthermore, he had been entirely deprived of a possibility to participate in the proceedings before the Commissioner who had failed to inform him about the institution of the proceedings against the applicant. He could not question witnesses heard by the Commissioner and had had no access to the case file at that stage. The applicant averred that the evidence obtained by the Commissioner, without any knowledge or possibility of mounting a challenge on his part, had been of crucial importance in the lustration proceedings. The applicant's situation had been more detrimental than that of a suspect in the pre-trial investigation. The applicant had been placed at a significant disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis the Commissioner who had had access to all documents and archives."], "id": "ab59ebd9-e0bd-4cff-a3d3-48ae1797a992", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["197. The applicant lastly submitted that all the evidence and submissions of the defence had been ignored by the courts. There had been no mention of them in the statement of facts in the courts\u2019 judgments, nor any reference to them whatsoever in those judicial acts. He alleged that his situation was not unique as far as the prosecutions related to the events of 1 March 2008 were concerned. The overall conduct of the judiciary in such trials and their failure to live up to international fair trial standards regarding, inter alia, such questions as , reliance on police evidence and refusal to call witnesses had been highlighted in the relevant PACE resolutions and the OSCE Trial Monitoring Report (see paragraphs 125-127 and 133 above)."], "id": "02852ea7-29b6-45cf-aac7-e08658107c23", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["5. The Government further relied on the fact that, in further contrast to the Stran Greek case, the State was not itself directly party to the dispute which gave rise to the present case. This fact, again, is not in our view of central importance, the principle which precludes intervention by the legislature in pending legal proceedings being founded not only the requirement of between the parties to the proceedings but also on more general requirements of Article 6 of the Convention relating to the rule of law and the separation of powers. In any event, while the State was not as such a party to the proceedings in question in the present case, we note that the participation of AP-HP, a public administrative establishment under the supervision of four Ministers, necessarily had major implications for the public finances and that the State was, accordingly, directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings to which the legislation expressly related."], "id": "de5bb5ca-d0b1-47cd-b1da-45ecb23b35ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant submitted that the principle of had been breached because he had not been present at the Supreme Court\u2019s hearing. He submitted that his representative had asked the Supreme Court to conduct a reopening hearing before its plenary formation (stage one of the procedure before that court) in the applicant\u2019s presence. The Supreme Court had therefore had no reason to assume that the applicant had not wished to participate in the second stage of proceedings before that court."], "id": "3c94819b-e3fb-4240-968a-b22fb95652ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicants further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the voice identification was ordered and carried out in breach of the relevant procedural rules. They also complained that the trial court refused to hear a further witness and to examine further material evidence. The applicants maintained that the proceedings before the Supreme Court to examine their appeals in cassation against their convictions had not respected the principle of . The second applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody."], "id": "e8031076-d47c-405a-84b2-a0edc034a0e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant further complained that he had not received a fair hearing in the determination of the charges against him. In particular, he claimed that the administrative proceedings had fallen short of : they had not been public, and the applicant had been unable to participate in them effectively or to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as the witnesses against him. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "16e746e6-f04f-48bb-88fb-7c7d27bef6a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["10. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the principle of had been infringed on account of his lack of access to the classified information submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court and the non-communication to him of the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor attached to this court. He further complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the secret security investigation conducted by the Ministry of Defence in relation to him and his family had breached his right to private life."], "id": "6629b477-086e-4619-bace-3d4a8bbc2c39", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government submitted that when suspects and accused people who faced detention on remand as a preventive measure were escorted to courthouses they were placed before the court on benches \u201cbehind a barrier (metal enclosure/cage)\u201d measuring 355 cm in length, 225 cm in height and 115 cm in width. The metal enclosure was primarily intended to enforce the restrictions associated with the custodial measure, that is, to exclude the risk of flight, influencing witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice. The applicant\u2019s confinement in the metal cage had not violated the principle of and the presumption of innocence. The applicant had been able to communicate freely with the court, his lawyers, the victim and other participants at the trial and exercise his procedural rights without restrictions. When the applicant had not wanted to communicate with his lawyer in the presence of the escort, the court adjourned. Under no circumstances had the applicant\u2019s confinement in the metal cage meant that the court had been predisposed to deliver a finding of guilt. The Government further submitted that the applicant\u2019s confinement in the metal cage in the courtroom had not amounted to a violation of the applicant\u2019s right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, because the measure in question had been a reasonable and indispensable restriction applied within the framework of the criminal procedure existing in Russia and had not reached the minimum level of severity to attain the threshold of Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "004ab1b8-2541-44e8-88a0-57e442e393eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["112. The applicant emphasised the importance of the principle of the in civil proceedings. He furthermore pointed to the undesirability of an excessively formal application of domestic procedural rules, which had been held to be in danger of being contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention when the excessive formality operated to the disadvantage of one party to the civil proceedings (Miholapa, cited above, \u00a7 24). The applicant had explicitly requested the appeal courts to ensure his presence at the hearings. Given that the applicant was in detention, it had been the obligation of the courts to ensure his appearance. The fact that the appeal courts had failed to ensure that the applicant was transported to the hearings had placed him in a substantially disadvantageous position vis\u2011\u00e0\u2011vis the respondents."], "id": "a85891fd-4265-4bb6-9f5d-a0e7913d22d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government submitted that the proceedings were fair. They maintained that the domestic courts had respected the and addressed the parties' arguments by providing adequate reasons. According to the Government, the applicant's complaint mainly concerned the interpretation of the domestic law, which is a task of the national courts. In this connection, the Court of Appeal had decided against the applicant in the light of the Supreme Court's decision of 18 November 2002, which had upheld the applicant's dismissal. Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to any salary arrears."], "id": "834859fc-99ef-4a97-b7ce-f8d030211dfd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["83. The applicants also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the District Court and the Appeal Court had not reasoned their judgments sufficiently, especially as far as the decision declaring the case file secret was concerned. They claimed that the name and photograph of a convicted person were not facts that fell within the scope of private life and that a case could not be declared secret on that basis alone. Moreover, the applicants complained that the Appeal Court had violated the principle of as the applicants, in contrast to the public prosecutor and B, had had no access to, nor any possibility to comment on, the Supreme Court's case file in an earlier, related case which had been declared secret and which was quoted in the Appeal Court judgment."], "id": "ff638b92-d117-49a9-9263-1d07fbbaf61b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government, referring to the Court\u2019s case-law, argued that protecting the public interest could justify withholding evidence from the defence when such evidence concerned sensitive information deserving special protection. It should not be the Court\u2019s task to examine the reasons for classifying certain documents as confidential. Certain limitations in respect of the were compatible with the requirements of a fair trial if they were justified by the need to protect the public interest or the fundamental rights of other participants in the proceedings."], "id": "97839761-4602-4019-be86-9557fa093481", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government observed that Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention required proceedings concerning the review of the lawfulness of detention to be adversarial and to respect the principle of . These requirements had been complied with in the present case. Adversarial hearings had been held in accordance with Article 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the Code of Criminal Procedure ensured equality of arms in that it required the detainee to be represented by counsel at such hearings. Furthermore, it provided that all relevant documents had to be served on the prosecution and the defence without delay."], "id": "3f924ff2-df10-4623-bb62-648b12121bc4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained that he was convicted of three counts of murder solely on the basis of hearsay evidence of a witness suffering from emotional instability and histrionic personality disorder and that the conviction was completely arbitrary and ran contrary to the guarantees of a fair trial, the right to the presumption of innocence and the principle of the ."], "id": "a4e325af-ea41-43d6-b73a-e4ab2303b705", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the refusal of the domestic courts to call several witnesses on the applicant\u2019s behalf did not violate the principle of . The District Court examining the applicant\u2019s request had regard to the particular circumstances of the case, namely the minor age of the witnesses and the grounds of the applicant\u2019s dismissal from her post."], "id": "bc883151-7ab7-4b75-91d5-16803066d6ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicants\u2019 main argument rested on what they saw as discrimination between private parties and the State with regard to the way the limitation period was applied by the Lithuanian courts in general, and in their case in particular. They noted that under Lithuanian law the right to bring an action could be enforced from the date on which a person became aware or should have become aware of a violation of his or her rights (Article 86 of the old Civil Code and Article 1.127 of the new Civil Code). Accordingly, the principle of required that the same interpretation of the above-mentioned provision be applied both in cases where the claimant was a private entity and when the claimant was the State, represented by its officials or institutions. However, the domestic courts\u2019 decisions showed two different results in civil cases: when examining claims submitted by private entities, the limitation period for challenging the validity of a contract was considered to begin on the date when the parties became aware that the contract had been concluded (see paragraph 36 above), and when deciding claims lodged by State authorities, the courts took as the starting-point the date when the claimant had been provided with sufficient data to prove that a particular legal act or transaction was against the law, as in the case in issue (see paragraph 34 above)."], "id": "2af8fcdc-9e0b-4df5-a97c-796399b5daeb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant company contended that an extraordinary appeal was not directly available to the parties and that its use fell within the exclusive discretion of the PG without any judicial supervision. The effects of such an appeal in the applicant company\u2019s case had been incompatible with the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty because the extraordinary appeal had been an ordinary appeal in disguise on behalf of the principal without any acceptable justification. It had not been admissible on any of the statutory admissibility grounds. No such grounds had even been invoked by the appellant and the appeal had had no motivation except the conflicting views on the substance of the dispute. By allowing that appeal and not even acknowledging the existence of the applicant company\u2019s observations in reply, let alone giving them any consideration, the Supreme Court had sealed the violation of the applicant company\u2019s right to a fair hearing, in particular its component of access to a court and , and the principles of adversarial proceedings and legal certainty as an element of the rule of law."], "id": "0eebc28f-3d3a-4819-9268-252ab4325043", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government submitted that two different lines of action had taken place prior to the court proceedings, namely the medical examination of E. and the pre-trial investigation of the applicant. E. had only been examined and interviewed by the medical authorities. The aim of those examinations, which had been recorded on videotape, had been to establish whether E. had been sexually abused or not. The doctors had concluded that such abuse had taken place. The guarantees of adversarial proceedings and had not come into play until the commencement of the pre-trial investigation, which had aimed to establish the suspect. By the time the pre-trial investigation was initiated, E.\u2019s therapy had already begun. Thus, she had not been interviewed anew by the police. Accordingly, neither the police nor the prosecutor had had a better opportunity than the applicant to put questions to E. Moreover, E. had only been 3-4 years old at the time which had justified, in terms of receiving evidence, lending more weight to the medical examinations than to the investigative measures in criminal proceedings. The Government further pointed out that, prior to the pre-trial investigation, Dr S. had given the applicant an opportunity to request additional examinations."], "id": "42ee297e-e9d4-4d49-b894-6c7b1b307bf1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the length of the administrative proceedings in question had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement, that the Supreme Administrative Court\u2019s interim decision of 30 October 2002 and the administration\u2019s responses thereto had not been communicated to him, in breach of the principle of , and that he had been denied a fair trial on account of the lack of an oral hearing before the Ankara Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court despite his explicit requests."], "id": "27958531-8b07-41db-aa06-e968740ec3db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings leading to the imposition of the custodial penalty on him. In particular, the applicant complained of a lack of impartiality on the part of judges in that the judges who had witnessed the impugned incident had later imposed the penalty for contempt of court. He also alleged in and a lack of objectivity on the part of the court in that he had had no time and facilities to prepare his defence, he had not been allowed to present arguments by the court or even, to be present when the penalty had been ordered. The applicant also complained that the decision on the imposition of the penalty for contempt of court had not been reasoned."], "id": "2f080c34-7881-4eb7-b6b4-a91050af52f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant alleged that there had been a violation of his right to a fair trial in the context of the proceedings to determine compensation before the expropriations judge and the Expropriations Division; he complained that the principle of had been breached as a result of the priviliged position enjoyed by the Government Commissioner, and that there had been a breach of the adversarial principle. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "9389645a-32bb-4b7d-89b6-afb4c8c821ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government argued that the applicant should have brought an official liability action under section 349 of Act no. IV of 1959 on the Civil Code (see paragraph 13 above), which was an effective remedy in the circumstances. Submitting examples of similar and successful claims yielding compensation awards, they explained that there was established case-law in this field, in accordance with which the courts\u2019 tort liability was considered well-founded whenever a procedural mistake had a bearing on the merits of a case, that is, when it was consequential. In the present application, the procedural mistake committed was clearly consequential, since the Supreme Court had found against the applicant without awaiting his pleadings although they had been submitted within the time-limit. This irregularity had amounted to a violation of the principle of and had been aggravated by the fact that it had occurred before the highest judicial instance without any further remedies available."], "id": "99af6065-5b8d-440d-9e83-f0074993f7ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant further submitted that the principle of and the rights of the defence had been infringed in that during the trial neither the courts nor the parties had had the opportunity to examine VS, one of the two undercover agents involved in the case. He alleged a violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d), the second of which provides:"], "id": "39880b14-328c-40c9-9eee-4598917bc73e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant contended that the reports on his background check had been based on unverified and incorrect insinuations made by the police. Although he had asked for disclosure of the information on which the reports had been based, it had never been provided to him. Instead, the Administrative Court had reviewed it ex parte and thus prevented him from effectively arguing his case. In the applicant\u2019s view, this had run counter to the requirements of and adversarial trial under Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant also considered that he had sufficiently demonstrated that he had no problem of alcohol abuse and there had therefore been no reason not to renew his firearms licence."], "id": "6fef9c0e-2ed7-4801-9146-e63ada732e7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant argued that she had not had a fair hearing of her case. She submitted that her relationship with her grandson J.B. had been very close, given the fact that his parents had avoided their parental responsibilities and that J.B. had lived with her. His death had caused her great mental suffering. Yet, when assessing the circumstances of her civil claim for damages, the Lithuanian courts had not ensured that the principles of adversarial proceedings and were adhered to. Both at the stage of the criminal proceedings and during the civil litigation M.B. had been represented by a lawyer and thus had been able to effectively exercise his rights by responding to the applicant\u2019s claim. In contrast, the applicant, being of old age, in poor health and a Russian speaker, having no understanding of legal matters, had been unable to use all the means theoretically available to her by law. She had pointed this out to the appellate and supreme courts, but with no success. For the applicant, such procedural inequality in a case entailing a great emotional toll had been in breach of the principle of adversarial proceedings."], "id": "db2c4a3f-ba21-4396-9571-1df92b00648c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government argued that the principle of had been respected in the instant case. They submitted that under section 52 (2) of the Protection of Classified Information Act and Article 156 \u00a7 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the evidence concerning the case was available to the parties only in the secret registry of the lustration court. They maintained that both parties to the proceedings, that is, the applicant and the Commissioner of the Public Interest, had been subject to the same strict rules governing access to the file deposited in the secret registry, in particular those regarding the taking of notes. The notes from the case file had to be made in a special notebook which was subsequently placed in an envelope, sealed and deposited in the secret registry. The same procedure applied to any notes made during hearings. The envelope with the notebooks inside could be opened only by the person who had made the notes in it."], "id": "cda60384-93d4-4428-88b9-469e1030d4af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that their lack of access to the documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court had infringed their right to adversarial proceedings, together with the principle of . The second applicant, Mr Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m (application no. 46287/07), also complained that his expulsion from the military school on the basis of a secret security investigation, the results of which had not been disclosed to him, had been unfair."], "id": "7d6fec77-d908-43f9-8555-5a4d5dc4d194", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["132. The Government submitted that Article 6 \u00a7 1 spoke about the possibility to participate effectively in a trial and not about the feelings that a person may experience. The applicant's placement in the cage did not in itself violate the principle of . The applicant failed to mention any circumstance showing that he was placed in an unequal position vis-\u00e0-vis his opponents. In reality he was able to participate effectively in the trial, to submit evidence, to call and examine witnesses, to examine the witnesses against him, to file motions and to communicate without any restrictions with his two lawyers, who were not placed in a cage. In support of their submissions, the Government referred to the case of Auguste v. France (no. 11837/85, Commission Report of 7 June 1990, Decisions and Reports 69, p. 104)."], "id": "50bbc0bc-d5d7-4be5-87cc-16cfbe4b7cfa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "equality of arms", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained in the first place that he had not received a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court. The applicant further maintained that the principle of had been violated since he had not been notified of the public prosecutor\u2019s observations at the appeal stage. In this connection, he invoked Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "61bdd2cd-f68c-42be-baf2-513c5d4cfb16", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government contended that the applicant\u2019s telephone conversations had been tapped in the framework of the MIT\u2019s counter\u2011intelligence activities as permitted by Article 4 of Law no. 2937. Article 6 of the said law permitted MIT members to carry out counter\u2011intelligence activities and granted them the rights and powers enjoyed by the regular police. The MIT officers had decided to intercept and record the applicant\u2019s conversations with a view to protecting . The measure in question had complied with the requirements of proportionality. Furthermore, the recorded telephone conversations of the applicant were not the sole evidence against him. The photographs of military bases, two maps, one of which was designated \u201ctop secret\u201d, telephone and credit cards found in the applicant\u2019s possessions had constituted the basis of his conviction. Given that the applicant\u2019s defence rights protected by Article 6 of the Convention had been respected, his complaints under this heading should be declared inadmissible."], "id": "61a9705c-2deb-497c-a872-92e9957ef7b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government further argued that the dispersal of the assembly had been necessary in the interests of , for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the prevention of disorder or crime, and had been proportionate to the aims pursued. They submitted in particular that the police had not intervened in the assembly until the moment when participants had started to disturb public order. Besides, the first applicant herself had admitted in the court proceedings that she had insulted public authorities during the protest."], "id": "08f7dc73-adde-4a09-97c9-5d95a3865729", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government contested that the telephone tapping constituted interference with the applicant\u2019s rights. Even assuming that such interference occurred, they argued that it was done in accordance with the law, the Act. Relying on Klass and Others v. Germany (6 September 1978, \u00a7 49, Series A no. 28), they stated that the Court had accepted that national security concerns could justify, in exceptional circumstances, measures of secret surveillance. Furthermore, the measure was authorised by the prosecutor and the applicant had the possibility to have the tapes thus obtained examined by an expert."], "id": "55efb26d-9984-4b6d-95a0-bf33faf3c2b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants complained in particular that the charges against them had been altered at the last hearing of their trial. They had initially been accused of separatism and undermining the integrity of the State but on the day of the judgment, 8 December 1994, the Court had asked them on the spot to prepare their defence against a new charge, namely belonging to an illegal armed organisation. It had then dismissed their application for additional time to prepare their defence against the new charge. The applicants submitted that they had not been able to defend themselves properly and present their evidence against the new charge."], "id": "e2410367-2c03-421b-8b6a-afe3274b023b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government responded that the applicants had not specified the particular ideas or matters of conscience which they wished to express. Accordingly, this aspect of the case was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. They had been convicted under Articles 68 and 70 of the Criminal Code for their anti-state activities not because of any manifestation of their beliefs. If there had been an interference under these Convention provisions, it was justified for the protection of , public order and the rights and freedoms of others, as well as for the prevention and punishment of crime. The applicants were not prosecuted for their political beliefs or communist party affiliations, but for their anti-state activities, in contravention of Article 17 of the Convention, against which the young democracy of Lithuania had been entitled to defend itself (cf. the aforementioned \u017ddanoka case, \u00a7 100)."], "id": "97554424-d00b-404d-be4a-6a50d40d05ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["147. The Government also insisted that any interference pursued a legitimate aim. The Government emphatically denied, in this regard, the applicant's allegation that interception was being used to intimidate him and undermine his business activities. The three relevant objectives set out in section 5(3) RIPA, namely safeguarding , preventing or detecting serious crime and safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, were all legitimate aims for the purposes of Article 8(2)."], "id": "d0166fa6-300d-4fe8-b9d7-d0c0b40381b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["143. The Government's argument that a more detailed examination by the applicant of the material relating to the acts of the other members of the PKK would not have permitted him to find evidence to assist him in his defence as he had already acknowledged responsibility for the acts of the PKK also warrants examination by the Court. It should be noted that while the applicant admitted before the Court that he was the leader of the PKK, an armed separatist organisation, and responsible for the general policy of that organisation, he did not specifically comment on each act of violence committed by PKK members. He did say in his defence, however, that certain acts of violence had been committed against his will or beyond his control."], "id": "7c4040bc-6018-4015-8774-2cc0268c24e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["188. The Government produced photographs which in their submission showed that the applicant's cell was suitably furnished. They pointed out that the applicant had been tried and convicted of being the head of a major armed separatist organisation that continued to regard him as its leader. All the restrictions imposed on his telephone communications were intended to prevent the applicant from continuing to run the organisation from his prison cell, and that was a issue. However, he was able to read books and daily newspapers of his choice and to listen to the radio. No restrictions had been placed on his written communications with the outside world. As to the applicant's health, he was examined frequently by doctors and psychologists, whose daily medical reports were sent to the Court on a regular basis."], "id": "86ac36dd-d87a-48f4-a5c0-2fedf6cca1b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government noted that, according to Article 138 of the Military Court Organisation and Proceedings Law, hearings before military courts were public. However, the military court could hold hearings in camera if public morality and safety so required. In the instant case, since the applicant had been tried on charges of military espionage, exclusion of public was necessary for the purposes of ."], "id": "739b5306-840e-4d85-b99b-5dd86886fab2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant further argued that the interference did not pursue a legitimate aim. The authorities did not seek to protect , public safety or the economic well-being of the country, or to prevent disorder or crime. As to the protection of the health and morals of others, there was no indication that the applicant represented a threat to the rights of third parties. Finally, with regard to the applicant himself, the Government did not suggest that the incapacitation had had a therapeutic effect on the applicant. Nor was there any evidence that the authorities had sought to deprive the applicant of his capacity because he would otherwise have carried out actions which would result in a deterioration of his health. With regard to his own pecuniary interests, the protection of a person\u2019s own rights is not a ground listed in Article 8 \u00a7 2, and it cannot therefore serve as a justification for interfering with a person\u2019s rights as protected under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In sum, the interference with his private life did not pursue any of the legitimate aims listed in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "3293c094-97b3-408c-896b-cfe3dbc0936c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested his argument. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining and territorial integrity and prevention of disorder. The Government further contended that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society. They noted that in the article in question Abdullah \u00d6calan was referred to as \u201cthe ideological and political leader of the Kurdish movement\u201d and the HPG, the PJA and the KONGRA-GEL were described as \u201cfacilitators of the military, political and ideological development formed under the leadership of Abdullah \u00d6calan\u201d. According to the Government, the publication of a photograph of Abdullah \u00d6calan holding a weapon demonstrated that the purpose of the publication of the article was to advocate and propagate terrorism. The Government lastly noted that the PKK was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of states and international organisations, such as the United Nations, NATO and the United States of America, and thus represented a serious threat not only to the internal security of Turkey but also to the international public order."], "id": "35ac9ea3-6c38-4ed3-ac2d-56aa2c424ea8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["133. The applicant argued that the Court's decisions in Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, 30 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011V; Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176\u2011B; Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176\u2011A; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, ECHR 2000\u2011II; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, 20 June 2002; and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000\u2011V had expanded on the issue of \u201cforeseeability\u201d and indicated a departure from the narrower scope of earlier decisions which tolerated the restrictive extent to which had imposed blanket secrecy on the publication of surveillance procedures. This broader approach had been confirmed by the Court's recent ruling in Liberty and Others, cited above. The applicant argued that the RIPA scheme remained \u201cunnecessarily opaque\u201d and that further details about the operation, beyond those currently included in the Code, should be made available in order to comply with the Convention requirements regarding clarity and precision."], "id": "08dbd1e7-ecae-4847-ac93-8433b60657ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government maintained that the issuance of the clearance had had a clear legal basis in the Lustration Act and had been necessary in the interests of . The Lustration Act afforded comprehensive substantial and procedural guarantees, in the light of which the issuance of the applicant\u2019s clearance was to be considered proportionate. Moreover, as from 1 January 1997, the Lustration Act had lost any legal force in Slovakia. It thus no longer prevented the applicant from living his life as he saw fit."], "id": "e7de25df-a2b8-4657-a08f-bb637a916cc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["111. The Government further maintained that the applicant himself had had no doubts about the independence and impartiality of the Court. He had in fact expressed his confidence in that court at a hearing at which the military judge had been present. It mattered little that the applicant's lawyers had subsequently contradicted Mr \u00d6calan's remark in their submissions. The most important point was that that remark \u2013 which had been made of the applicant's own free will and expressed his confidence in the court \u2013 had been sincere."], "id": "539f0f61-5bb4-4c8b-9a38-0ca30729a2ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant accepted that matters of could encroach on the rights of the defence, but considered that such interference had to be compensated for by other procedural means, which had not been the case in the criminal proceedings under review. He further alleged that he had not relied on his capacity as SRI informant as a mere defence argument, but rather to provide an explanation of why he had been present at the crime scene: namely that he had been there solely to collect information for the SRI."], "id": "32c4b5b6-8584-4680-b6f9-8a099edcc126", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the interference in question had been prescribed by law and had pursued a number of legitimate aims, namely the protection of , territorial integrity, public safety, public order and prevention of crime. They also claimed that the restriction had been necessary in a democratic society because it had been carried out as a result of a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. They concluded that, in the exercise of their discretion, the prison authorities had decided not to allow the impugned letter to be sent outside."], "id": "3bc2f4a5-d1f0-49a8-9cc4-e65f49133388", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government contended that Article 6 does not guarantee the right for a civilian to be tried by a civilian criminal court, but simply the right to trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. The applicant\u2019s case should be distinguished from Incal v. Turkey, (judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998\u2011IV), where the applicant had been charged with an offence directly concerning a threat to the security of the country, and was tried by a court specifically set up to deal with cases affecting Turkey\u2019s territorial integrity. In the present applicant\u2019s case the charge was an ordinary offence of murder, not an offence specially created to combat a threat to the Government, nor one which affected the military any more than the civilian population. The offence did not contain any special characteristics which might encourage the military members of the court-martial to take into account irrelevant considerations."], "id": "372d85cd-5698-4e7e-84d6-51e8aacfc675", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["137. The Government submitted that any interference which may have arisen in the present case satisfied the requirements of Article 8 \u00a7 2. The Government emphasised the duty of democratic governments to uphold the criminal law and protect citizens from terrorist threats and organised crime. In order to discharge this duty, the power to intercept the communications of specific targets was necessary. They pointed to the Commissioner's consistent conclusions that the interception powers under RIPA were an invaluable weapon for the protection of and the fight against organised crime (see paragraphs 64 and 72 above). Further, in order for interception to yield useful intelligence, the fact of the interception, as well as the methods by which it could be effected, had to be kept secret. If possible targets were able to gain insight into sensitive interception techniques and capabilities, then they would be able to take steps to undermine the usefulness of any intelligence gathered against them. The Government explained that they had had experience of information about surveillance techniques being put in the public domain, which had led directly to the loss of important sources of intelligence. They insisted that their policy of \u201cneither confirm nor deny\u201d was important to ensure the overall effectiveness of surveillance operations."], "id": "8b219763-d958-470f-89b3-e5e744cb2490", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["136. The Government's argument before the Grand Chamber that the applicant's lawyers had not asked to see him at more frequent intervals must also be rejected. The Court reiterates that waiver of the exercise of a right guaranteed by the Convention must be established in an unequivocal manner (see, mutatis mutandis, Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, pp. 16-17, \u00a7 37). It notes that there was in fact a complaint by the applicant's lawyers to the Court about the difficulties they had encountered in communicating with their client."], "id": "30e5ab76-9909-447d-bc37-01c378a4a870", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government considered that, while it was for the national courts to determine the necessity of non-disclosure, certain interests were regarded as sufficiently important to justify a limitation on disclosure such as , witness protection, keeping police investigations confidential and prosecuting serious subversive crime. It had to be determined whether the evidence of the Chief Superintendent was sole or decisive (Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011): the nature of the evidence in question as well as the significance of evidence other than the belief evidence, would be important factors. There had to be commensurate countervailing procedural safeguards and factors."], "id": "6cf08885-9582-460b-b53d-c659652f2763", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant also submitted that subjecting a programme, which posed no threat to , did not undermine the protection of the personal rights of others, did not entail a criminal offence and did not breach the legislation on unfair competition, to particular scrutiny in order to ensure its \u201cobjectivity\u201d was tantamount to rendering Article 10 \u00a7 2 devoid of purpose and imposing a legal requirement to toe the government line on a television broadcaster which necessarily had a monopoly on the provision of information at national level."], "id": "be97c11f-b082-4d48-8462-6d6c43830e84", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant accepted that considerations might justify withholding information from the defence. Praying in aid Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, ECHR 2004\u2011X, and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, ECHR 2009, he submitted that strict necessity for so doing should be shown; that the restrictions on access to the information should be the least intrusive possible; and that counterbalancing procedures should be in place."], "id": "e4b89510-3304-4ff2-ba63-866b592bfde2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["145. The Government emphasised that information concerning the arrangements put in place under section 15 RIPA had been published in the Code. However, in order to maintain the operational effectiveness of interception techniques, it was not possible to publish full details of the arrangements. In the view of the Government, the publication of any more detail than had already been published would be contrary to and prejudicial to the prevention and detection of serious crime. They argued that the decision as to how much information on safeguards could safely be put in the public domain without undermining the interests of national security or prejudicing the prevention and detection of serious crime fell within their margin of appreciation. It was also significant that the full details of the arrangements in place were made available to the Commissioner, who was required to keep them under review. The Government emphasised that the Commissioner's approval was sought and given in respect of the safeguard documents either before or shortly after the entry into force of RIPA (see paragraph 63 above). They further emphasised that the Commissioner had expressed his satisfaction with the section 15 safeguards in every report prepared since 2000. They referred in particular to the Commissioner's 2002 and 2004 reports (see paragraphs 68 to 69 above)."], "id": "37497120-9679-4d34-98ce-68a9664b98d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted in the alternative that any interference with the applicant\u2019s right under Article 8 had been carried out on the basis of section 48(A)(5) of Law no. 657 on Civil Servants. They provided the Court with extracts of this provision containing the amendments of 2008 (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above). The Government also relied on section 39(1) of the Regulation on Private Tutoring Centres. They further contended that the applicant\u2019s dismissal had pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining , territorial integrity, public safety, public order and preventing crime, and that it had been necessary in a democratic society in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "1ddba66c-af2c-408e-97f6-56e72506466b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government submitted that the sentences imposed on the applicant had had a legal basis, specifically section 7 (2) of Law no. 3713. The interference had pursued legitimate aims within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, namely the protection of , territorial integrity or public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime. According to the Government, the domestic courts referred to \u201cthe list of confiscated books and periodicals which were in the possession of the accused \u00d6mer G\u00fcner\u201d. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, they left the final assessment in respect of the necessity of the interference to the discretion of the Court."], "id": "cf293c2a-1d37-4ff5-9f27-24f24a7d23d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["135. The applicant argued that no justification had been advanced by the authorities for holding the trial in a remote and barely accessible high security prison. He maintained that the holding of the trial in a distant location was an attempt to prevent, as much as possible, the attendance of the public and to keep the proceedings \u201caway from public scrutiny\u201d. There was no indication that the applicant was dangerous or could abscond or that, in the course of the trial, there could be any threat to public order or . As the case concerned the applicant's \u201cre-trial\u201d following his recognition as a political prisoner by the Council of Europe, the authorities had a particular responsibility in respect of the trial's openness and should have made a particular effort to make it accessible and open to the public."], "id": "858ac39e-fc24-4ef0-9d77-317925bbbd0b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["211. The applicant observed that, after Chahal, cited above, SIAC and the system of special advocates had been designed to allow the Secretary of State to present her case as to why a particular returnee was a risk to , not to allow secret evidence on safety on return. A ministerial assurance to that effect had been given to Parliament when it passed the 1997 Act (Hansard, HC Deb 26 November 1997 vol 301, at 1040)."], "id": "4d14497b-d1f1-4936-bff9-e1b7ec01a717", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government did not contest that the telephone tapping had constituted interference with the applicant\u2019s rights. However, it had been carried out in accordance with the law, the Act. Relying on Klass and Others (cited above, \u00a7 49), they stated that the Court had accepted that national security concerns could justify, in exceptional circumstances, measures of secret surveillance. Furthermore, the measure had been authorised by the prosecutor and the applicant had had the opportunity \u2013 of which she had availed herself \u2013 to obtain an expert examination of the evidence thus obtained."], "id": "a0a46167-4a2c-4e44-a0d2-c732836537b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant complained that she had been unable to challenge the refusal to grant her security clearance for access to State secrets on the basis of which her employment contract with the Service had been terminated. She further complained that the validity of this refusal had not been subject to scrutiny in the court proceedings on her dismissal. Relying on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention, she alleged that, as a result, she had been denied access to a court."], "id": "b38b4aa4-9e1d-475b-895b-6da5b9d03f3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government argued for their part that the Court could not be criticised for making use of its right to reclassify the offences with which the applicants had been charged to arrive at a characterisation that was less serious for the applicants than the charge initially preferred by the prosecution. They pointed out that the offences covered by Article 125 of the Criminal Code carried the death penalty whereas those covered by Article 168 carried prison sentences. In their view, it was wrong in the instant case to talk of a recharacterisation of the offence in so far as Articles 125 and 168 appeared in the same section of the Criminal Code entitled \u201cCrimes against the State\u201d. Article 168 was a \u201ccommon provision\u201d relating to all the other provisions in that section and covered anyone who \u201cform[ed] an armed gang or organisation \u2026 with the intention of committing any of the offences defined in Article 125 ...\u201d. Article 125 defined a crime in terms of the ends pursued, requiring a serious prejudice, whereas Article 168 defined a crime in terms of the means deployed to achieve those ends. The truth was that the applicants\u2019 conviction on the basis of Article 168 of the Criminal Code rather than that of Article 125 had been the result of the criminal courts\u2019 assessment of the evidence and their consideration of the defence\u2019s arguments."], "id": "dec4fda4-64cb-4438-8e3c-c836b4989ffc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government did not contest the fact that the present case concerned a \u201cdispute\u201d between the applicant as a former holder of security clearance and the Authority, a central authority responsible for decisions regarding security clearance. They agreed with the Chamber that the main subject of the dispute had been the reliability of the applicant from a security point of view (see paragraph 50 in fine of the Chamber judgment)."], "id": "8144218b-5b34-4e85-a8bb-f3c00da57439", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants argued that by refusing to register Ilinden the authorities had infringed their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The refusal of the courts had been based on deliberately erroneous findings in respect of the relevant facts and a misconstruction of the applicable law. It was clear that freedom of association could not be subjected to restrictions other than those which were provided for by law for the protection of and public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "1e4957b0-ab78-4d0c-9327-a4f46209cc41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["203. The Government submitted that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carried with it duties and responsibilities and could be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties in the interests of , territorial integrity or public safety. According to the Court\u2019s case\u2011law, the disclosure of the State\u2019s interest in a given weapon and that of the corresponding technical knowledge, which may give some indication of the state of progress in its manufacture, were capable of causing considerable damage to national security (they referred to Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, \u00a7 45, Series A no. 252). The conviction of an individual for such a disclosure could not be seen as a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The State had not violated Article 10 by holding the applicant criminally liable for disclosure of State secrets of a military nature to a foreign intelligence service. The circumstances of the case, as established by the domestic courts, showed that the applicant had used his research skills to damage Russia\u2019s external security for the purpose of obtaining financial compensation. The fact that he had not had access to State secrets did not relieve him of criminal liability for divulging classified data to a foreign state. The classified information could have been received by any means. Through his education and the post he occupied at the Institute of the USA and Canada, the applicant had professional contacts with a number of officials in the Ministry of Defence, who had had access to State secrets. He had been purposefully eliciting classified information from them. In his videoed statements to FSB officials, which were used as evidence at the trial, the applicant had repeatedly affirmed that he had realised that his interlocutors were agents of foreign intelligence services; however, he had continued to transmit information to them because of his difficult financial situation. As an educated person and a scientist, the applicant could and should have known of the restrictions on his right to impart information. His argument that the relevant information had been publicly available was untenable. It had been established at the trial that the information could not have been received from open sources and its divulgence had damaged Russia\u2019s security and defence."], "id": "a54519a0-d93e-494a-a667-7d555654b06a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["180. The applicant recalled that restrictions on court proceedings could only be compatible with Article 6 \u00a7 1 where they pursued a legitimate aim and there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be pursued. Further, limitations could not impair the very essence of fair trial rights and any restrictions had to be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities (citing Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, \u00a7 61, ECHR 2000\u2011II). Although the applicant appeared to accept that the restrictions on the procedure before the IPT pursued the legitimate aim of securing that information was not disclosed contrary to the public interest, or the detection and prevention of serious crime, he argued that they were not proportionate and impaired the very essence of his right to a fair hearing. In particular, the applicant contended that Rule 6(2) to (5) (restrictions on disclosure and evidence), Rule 9 (secrecy of proceedings) and section 68 RIPA together with Rule 13 (the refusal to provide any reasons to unsuccessful complainants) were contrary to the principle of equality of arms."], "id": "634eb428-b9ad-4da3-9120-46f0f58bb8ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants submitted that the courts were special courts. They asserted that the military judges who sat on those courts were dependent on the executive, being appointed by a joint decree of the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister, subject to the approval of the President. The assessment, promotion and security of tenure of those judges were within the control of the executive branch and, in turn, the army. The ties binding them with the executive and the army made it impossible for them to discharge their functions on the bench in an independent and impartial manner."], "id": "b154b94d-a1a4-4191-b21a-e7eb43b3b897", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained that the criminal proceedings before the Ankara Court were unfair, that that court was not independent and impartial, and of infringements of their freedom of expression and freedom of association; they also asserted that in the enjoyment of the rights thus breached they had been the victims of discrimination on the ground of their political opinions."], "id": "58dbed89-157b-4637-9015-d3b4f144d200", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["131. The Government submitted that the overwhelming majority of domestic laws allowed the parties access to classified documents, irrespective of their security level and without the need to declassify them, where they were to be used as evidence. A different approach had been adopted for certain very specific proceedings whose salient feature was a close link to the vital interests of . That approach applied to judicial review proceedings in such fields as cross-border trade with military equipment, entrance to aerodrome premises subject to increased protection and to proceedings issuing and revoking security clearance. For those proceedings the principles concerning a party\u2019s access to confidential documents applied mutatis mutandis. Only exceptionally, as a last resort, where intelligence services\u2019 or the police\u2019s activities could otherwise be jeopardised or seriously disrupted, did the law permit the application of more restrictive rules providing that, in extreme cases, a party could be completely denied access to such evidence. Moreover, in those exceptional cases the judicial authorities were required to be particularly vigilant and compensate effectively any disadvantage caused to the opposing party by their own course of action so as to forestall any arbitrariness or abuse of process in the authorities\u2019 decision-making."], "id": "1cc9d359-fff2-48f8-a968-12bc476e9e4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government argued that the measure satisfied the criteria of paragraph 2 of Article 8. In their submission, it had been in accordance with the law, namely, Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002 published in the Official Gazette, and therefore fulfilled the condition of accessibility. The Government considered that the criterion of foreseeability had also been satisfied in that section 83 of the above-mentioned ordinance provided that aliens could be banned from the country only in strictly defined circumstances, that is, if they had engaged, were engaged or had the intention of engaging in activities capable of endangering or public order."], "id": "e8ed3fd3-c322-409d-a531-12ae6518fc2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government submitted that the domestic legislation regulating freedom of assembly had been precise and foreseeable. They also submitted that the demonstration had been organised in breach of the provisions of national law. The Government argued that the dispersal of the demonstration had pursued the aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others and preventing disorder, and had been in the interests of ."], "id": "bee6e8bc-b0e6-4df3-9acc-16e2d54909d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant submitted that the decision of the Director of the Service to revoke his right to hold a security clearance permit had resulted in his automatic dismissal. Given that this decision was not amenable to any judicial review in itself, he was placed in a situation that was in breach of Article 6 offering him a right to a fair trial."], "id": "97aac52d-fd07-4158-892d-889eb32cffdd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government conceded that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression. They submitted that the retroactive classification of the documents in question pursued the legitimate aim of , in which field States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation. Moreover, it was the applicant\u2019s own fault that the study in question had not been accomplished since, intransigently, he had insisted on having completely unrestricted access. The applicant contested these views."], "id": "41c86ae3-8a8b-4499-9669-7ea3d7485e70", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government contested the Chamber's finding of a violation in respect of this complaint. They pointed out that at the material time the Turkish rules of criminal procedure permitted police custody to be extended to seven days when the person detained was suspected of terrorist-related offences. In the instant case, the applicant had been arrested on 16 February 1999 and taken into police custody for an initial period of four days ending on 20 February 1999. On the latter date, a court order had been made extending the period to be spent in police custody by three days, that is to say until 23 February 1999. Owing to adverse weather conditions (there was a storm in the region), the representatives of the public prosecutor's office and judge of the Court did not reach the island of \u0130mral\u0131 until 22 February 1999. The public prosecutor had questioned the applicant that same day. The applicant had appeared before the judge the following day (23 February 1999) and the judge had ordered his detention pending trial after hearing his representations."], "id": "a58802d6-0c05-4200-90a4-3388b032dcfa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim, as the proceedings against him had become time-barred. They therefore argued that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and thus the interference, if any, had been prescribed by law. They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public order and . The Government lastly submitted that the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, given that the content of the book in question had promoted hatred, hostility, the use of arms, militancy and revenge."], "id": "13cc96c4-1a84-4c6b-8458-771b0296f110", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government submitted that the classification of the case file as confidential and the restriction of public access to the hearings had been decided on by the Supreme Administrative Court in the exercise of its unfettered discretion to assess whether reasons existed justifying the restriction of public access to the proceedings under Article 105 \u00a7 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant case the restriction had been justified by the fact that the file had included documents containing classified information. In the Government\u2019s view it had therefore been imposed in the interests of public order and and had not rendered the proceedings unfair."], "id": "52449e0a-877f-4545-8cf0-87dbe3c864eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["114. The applicant complained of the unfairness of the proceedings before the administrative courts which he had brought following the revocation, by the Authority, of the security clearance issued to him to enable him to carry out his duties at the Ministry of Defence (see paragraphs 11-14 above). In his submission, he had lost his function and subsequently his employment as a result of the decision revoking his security clearance (see paragraphs 93-95 above)."], "id": "bff3bea9-c331-43ad-8f83-8bb7cb0e7ed7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government asserted that the witnesses concerned had not been listed among those that the applicants had asked to be examined during the hearing in the Court. They added that the court had also taken account of other evidence when establishing that the applicants belonged to the PKK. Its refusal to examine some of the witnesses for the prosecution had been justified by the threats that had been made against them, not excluding their physical elimination by the PKK, as had happened to a witness against one of the applicants\u2019 co-defendants, killed in prison by other inmates who were members of the PKK."], "id": "9a337ea6-88e5-4c48-bdcd-f62c1927ee78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that partial exclusion of the public in the present case had been justified on grounds. The Government argued that the course of the proceedings had been determined by the fact that a part of the evidence examined by the court had been considered \u201ctop secret\u201d under the applicable legislation. Consequently, some of the hearings, at which the court had examined classified documents or heard witnesses whose statements had to be kept confidential, had been held without the public. On the other hand, other hearings had been public. Furthermore, W.C., the main witnesses in the case, had been discharged from the obligation of confidentiality in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings, so he could be heard during a public hearing. The applicant disagreed with the Government's submissions."], "id": "afa2419a-71f2-4dd0-9c22-c40a9cbbfa0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant asked the Grand Chamber to uphold the Chamber's finding of a violation on this issue. He said that a judge holding the rank of colonel in the army had sat on the bench of the Court during most of the proceedings. The military judge had been replaced by a civilian judge just one week before the applicant's conviction and two months after the hearings before the National Security Court had started. In the meantime, in a case that concerned a conflict between the organisation led by the applicant and the army in which the military judge was an officer, the military judge had taken part in important interlocutory rulings and discussed the case with the other judges, thereby potentially influencing the conduct and outcome of the proceedings."], "id": "31132f03-a8ae-4977-b2f1-f1531c3ea2c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained that he had been unable to challenge the decision to revoke his right to hold a security clearance for access to State secrets on the basis of which his employment contract with the Service had been terminated. He further complained that the validity of this revocation had not been subject to scrutiny in the court proceedings on his dismissal. Relying on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention, he alleged that, as a result, he had been denied access to a court."], "id": "0ff800e9-07e7-4db8-9814-41c3a196a725", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["181. The applicant submitted that even where was at stake, a domestic court could not infringe the fair hearing principle in a blanket and uncritical manner. He argued that less restrictive measures were available to achieve the aim pursued, including arrangements to protect witnesses' identities, disclosure of documents with redactions approved by the IPT, provision of a summary of particularly sensitive material under the supervision of the IPT and appointment of special advocates to whom disclosure of sensitive material could be made. He referred to a recent report on secret evidence published in June 2009 by the non-governmental organisation, JUSTICE, which called for the strengthening of disclosure procedures and increased transparency in court proceedings."], "id": "afbbbcc6-6be7-466e-ac35-093c719898da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government emphasised the need to have particular regard to the context in Turkey when the decision was taken to establish national security courts, pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution. In view of the experience of the armed forces in the anti-terrorism campaign, the authorities had considered it necessary to strengthen those courts by including a military judge who was supposed to provide them with the necessary expertise and knowledge to deal with threats to the security and integrity of the State. The Government asserted that the impartiality and independence of military judges sitting on national security courts had been guaranteed by the Constitution."], "id": "cfaa8005-4fb9-46af-b958-87d66a3e95cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that only in exceptional circumstances was a civilian tried in a military court in Turkey. On that point, they maintained that the applicant was tried by a military court because he was charged with an offence concerning . The Government further maintained that the domestic law provided necessary safeguards to guarantee the independence and impartiality of military courts. Finally, they pointed out that, with the adoption of Law no. 4963, Turkish legislation had been amended to bring it into line with the Convention."], "id": "48ec565e-977d-413d-9283-c565fc24fb21", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["202. The applicant complained, invoking Article 7 of the Convention, that he had been convicted in the absence of criminal intent, as one of the constituent elements of the offence of espionage, and that he should instead have been acquitted. Thus, he had not realised that he was dealing with information containing State secrets, since he had received that information from open publications. Questions had not been put to the jury as to whether he transmitted information containing State secrets and whether he collected it from closed or open sources; the jury therefore found that he had transferred non-classified information to foreign intelligence \u2013 acts which were not embraced by the corpus delicti of espionage. Furthermore, it had not been established by the jury verdict that he had had criminal intent to damage the of the Russian Federation by abetting foreign intelligence services. Hence, the presiding judge should have acquitted him on the basis of such a verdict by the jury. The applicant concluded that the presiding judge had manipulated the questions to the jury, having disregarded the request by the defence to change their formulation, and had changed the constituent elements of the offence of espionage to his detriment. The applicant further disagreed with the application of domestic law in his case. He argued that the Official Secrets Act defining the list of classified information, which had in any event been rather vague, had not been applicable to him since he had never had admission or access to State secrets by virtue of his office; that the list of classified information had also been defined by presidential decree no. 1203 of 30 November 1995, although under Article 29 of the Constitution such a list was to be defined in a federal law; and that the expert assessment of the secrecy of the transmitted information of 18 July 2002 had been carried out on the basis of unpublished Ministry of Defence decrees nos. 055 and 015 of 10 August 1996 and 25 March 2002 respectively, to which he had not had access. The applicant considered that this situation had contributed to his arbitrary conviction by the presiding judge. The applicant further complained that all of the above had also led to a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Articles 7 and 10 of the Convention provide:"], "id": "2c09acd9-c6d5-4a08-b567-5c8f8d454b13", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["176. The Government finally noted that the IPT's ruling was issued before the Court's judgment in Association for European Integration and Human Rights, cited above, \u00a7 106, in which the Court reached the conclusion that Article 6 \u00a7 1 did not apply to such proceedings. It was clear that secret powers of interception which were used solely in the interests of or in order to prevent and detect serious crime formed part of the \u201chard core of public authority prerogatives\u201d, such that it was inappropriate to classify any related rights and obligations as \u201ccivil\u201d in nature (citing Ferrazzini, \u00a7 29; and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, \u00a7 61, ECHR 2007\u2011IV)."], "id": "78ebb4a8-7e6c-4da3-9308-894ac9428ba8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government maintained that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression was compatible with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 10. The interference was based on Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the applicant\u2019s conviction was necessary in order to maintain and public safety. The Government also stressed that the applicant\u2019s speech contained provocative views."], "id": "c94f7ba9-f4eb-4728-a320-26f793c1acbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant asked the Grand Chamber to uphold the Chamber's finding that he had not had an effective remedy by which to have the lawfulness of his detention in police custody decided. He said that during the first ten days of his detention he had been held incommunicado and had been unable to contact his lawyers. He did not have the legal training that would have enabled him to lodge an appeal without the assistance of his lawyers. Nor had he been given access to the documents concerning his arrest that he needed to enable him to prepare such an appeal. The applicant maintained that in his case an application to a district judge or a judge of the Court would have been an inadequate and illusory remedy that was bound to fail."], "id": "77751209-a023-4c83-8464-00e32a95eb74", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["121. The applicants submitted that the refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was not necessary in a democratic society. They asserted that all the arguments put forward by the Government were without foundation and unsubstantiated and that they did not correspond to a \u201cpressing social need\u201d. There was nothing in the file to show that the applicants had intended or carried on or sought to carry on activities capable of undermining Moldovan territorial integrity, or public order. "], "id": "290b1689-f301-4b1b-b265-40b1f2068057", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government contended that there was another characteristic which distinguished the present case from the previous judgments of Sidabras and D\u017eiautas and Rainys and Gasparavi\u010dius, in which the Court had found a violation of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 8. In the latter cases the statutory restrictions on holding certain jobs, functions or tasks were automatically applied to the applicants merely on the ground that at a certain time they had worked for the Committee of State Security of the Lithuanian SSR. However the Law applied to the applicant in the present case did not impose unconditional restrictions on a person\u2019s employment. First, the person had to have intentionally collaborated in secret with the special services of the former USSR. Secondly, by the statutory deadline, the individual concerned had to have failed to confess to the State authorities about his or her secret collaboration. Thirdly, after the failure to confess, the fact of that person\u2019s secret collaboration had to have been published in the \u201cOfficial Gazette\u201d. The Government maintained that 1,500 people had appeared before the Commission to admit their collaboration within the six-month period prescribed by the Law. The applicant had been free to take this step \u2013 if he had confessed, he would have avoided the unfavourable legal consequences. However, as the applicant had intentionally chosen not to confess about his past collaboration within the above-mentioned period, the State had had the right and duty to apply to him the employment-related restrictions. Moreover, under Article 8 of the Law, information concerning persons who had confessed about their collaboration in the past was to be classified as a State secret and the State assumed the obligation to protect them against possible blackmail and the declassification of information. Taking this into consideration, the Government argued that the State had not overstepped its margin of appreciation and that the Law constituted a proportionate measure to safeguard and to protect the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "c40e3b5c-91ed-49bf-80f8-b10040fc50ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government stressed that the second applicant had been free to choose whether or not to supply the information requested, and had decided not to complete the questionnaire. In their view, a fair balance had been struck in the instant case between respect for the individual\u2019s private life and the requirements of the protection of and public order."], "id": "038f20b5-085b-4507-83df-de5e1cba1ff6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government submitted that on 17 September 2001, by virtue of Article 18 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, the Moscow City Court had decided to exclude members of the public from the trial in the interests of because the case file contained information classified as State secrets. On 25 December 2001 the City Court confirmed its decision to hold the trial in camera, citing the need to guarantee the safety of victims and witnesses in view of the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his co-defendants. The Government pointed out that although the City Court had not directly relied on the grounds laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the proceedings had not been public because publicity could have prejudiced the interests of justice."], "id": "cf42352d-fa19-43d8-96dc-1422bfc72ce4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["132. The applicant relied on the Court's judgment in Liberty and Others, cited above, as to the lack of clarity of the relevant provisions of RIPA's predecessor, the Interception of Communications Act 1985, and argued that the changes introduced to the surveillance regime by RIPA were inadequate to address the flaws identified in that case. He concluded that any interference therefore automatically failed to meet the requirement that it must be in accordance with the law and relied in this regard on the conclusions of a report by a surveillance law expert instructed by him, Dr Goold, appended to his submissions. He further highlighted the conclusion of the Court in Liberty and Others, cited above, \u00a7 68, that the fact that extracts of the code of practice adopted under section 71 RIPA were in the public domain suggested that it was possible for a State to make public certain details about the operation of a scheme for external surveillance without compromising ."], "id": "9286932a-56fc-4bf2-aff8-afe4856a4c26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant claimed 104,938 Turkish liras (TRY[1] \u2013 approximately 25,000 euros (EUR)), reflecting the market value of her land, for pecuniary damage in respect of her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. She did not submit any claim relating to her complaint in respect of her under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Neither did she submit any claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage."], "id": "adc3f568-93b1-4732-a6bb-596546fbc275", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["79. The applicant alleges two violations of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. First, he alleges that his was breached in that the Latvian authorities did not properly obtain a consent from the United States authorities to put him on trial for murder. Second, he complains about the length of proceedings that, according to him, were unreasonably long. Insofar as it is pertinent in the present case, Article 6 \u00a7 1 reads as follows:"], "id": "d7201af4-13bc-4cc7-8fac-f29a6b048bcd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained that the quashing under supervisory review procedure of the judgment of 29 August 2000 and the consequent quashing of the judgment of 5 December 2002 violated his guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "8b2da53c-4899-40b4-99b7-a50477f37db8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant complained that he had been deprived of his and of the resulting restrictions on the rights of the defence, in that he had been deprived of the opportunity to clear his name. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "id": "c93cb9cf-6895-49f1-91b7-9a1dce759a5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government maintained that there was no violation of the applicant's in that his claims were considered in a public hearing by a competent tribunal established by law. The reversal of the May 2001 judgment gave the City Court a power to review the case in its totality, including the assessment of evidence and determination of the amount of the award. The domestic court considered the case properly and gave a reasoned judgment."], "id": "20e3b183-d855-4d3a-a111-c1c52efb00f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicant submitted that the Constitutional Court changed its interpretation of the Salduz judgment in 2012 and 2013 (see relevant domestic law) and different conclusions were then arrived at. He noted that these conflicting judgments ran counter to the principle of legal certainty. It was the Constitutional Court\u2019s role to create certainty; however, concerning the subject matter it had done just the opposite. The applicant relied on the case of Beian, cited above. He noted that in The Police vs Alvin Privitera of 11 April 2011, The Police vs Esron Pullicino of 12 April 2011, and The Police v Mark Lombardi, also of 12 April 2011, the Constitutional Court held that the claimants had suffered a breach of their under Article 6 of the Convention in so far as they had not been legally assisted. This interpretation was reversed in the judgment in the names of Joseph Bugeja vs The Attorney General, 14 January 2013; The Police vs Tyron Fenech, 22 February 2013; and The Police vs Amanda Agius, also of 22 February 2013, as well as in his own case. The interpretation was again reversed in The Republic of Malta vs Alfred Camilleri of 12 November 2012, albeit that decision was once again overturned."], "id": "b67576f1-9cbc-4afc-a33e-0fa3b9473c8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant complained that the failure on the part of domestic authorities to enforce the final judgment taken by the Astrakhan Regional Court on 14 December 1999 violated his guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to a peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:"], "id": "1c717889-ff3c-42bf-b7b8-a2beeb0c0ff2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government alleged that the applicant\u2019s had not been breached. They noted that the right to take part in proceedings was not absolute. Article 6 of the Convention did not guarantee a right to appear in person before a civil court but rather a more general right to present one\u2019s case effectively before the court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side. States had a free choice of means to be used in guaranteeing those rights to parties in a case (see, among other authorities, Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, \u00a7 45, 12 June 2012)."], "id": "981d6ad6-313a-4876-9d97-525d18b9521e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicant further argued that by forcing him against his will to produce evidence of an offence the authorities had violated his right not to incriminate himself and therefore his . The principle against self-incrimination was not limited to statements obtained by coercion, but extended to objects so obtained. Moreover, the facts of his case were distinguishable from those in Saunders v. the United Kingdom (17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI). Unlike the cases of blood or DNA testing referred to by the Court in its judgment in that case, the administration of emetics entailed the use of chemical substances that provoked an unnatural and involuntary activity of the body in order to obtain the evidence. His refusal to swallow the emetics was overcome by the use of considerable force. Therefore, the evidence that had been obtained had not existed independently of his will and he had been forced to contribute actively to his own conviction. The administration of emetics was comparable to the administration of a truth serum to obtain a confession, a practice which was expressly forbidden by Article 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He referred to the judgment of the Frankfurt (Main) Court of Appeal of 11 October 1996 in support of his contention."], "id": "447abf61-bf4b-4c55-8306-bae9f95523c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that the discontinuation of disciplinary proceedings infringed his , because no decisions on the merits of the cases were rendered. Under the same provision he also complained that the disciplinary panel was not impartial, because it refused to open proceedings against Dr K., President of the Vienna Bar Chamber, whose law firm had lodged a disciplinary complaint against the applicant in the proceedings."], "id": "1c211c32-50d5-42ba-ad51-ce21bcbc8a26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant argued that at the time of the facts, police practice was not to admit solicitors to attend with an accused person during police interviews. To vindicate his Constitutional right to a trial in due process of law and his under Article 6 of the Convention, the State ought to have ensured that he was entitled to have a solicitor present during his interrogation. The applicant submitted that he was vulnerable as he was inexperienced in the interrogation process. The absence of his solicitor from the interrogations meant that the police were able to pressure him to give his confession which was ultimately relied upon at trial. The applicant recognised that he had been cautioned and advised of his right to remain silent at the beginning of each interview. He argued, however, that the interviewers sought to undermine his caution in a manner calculated to instil fear and anxiety and erode his will not to self-incriminate. In view of the above, he was deprived of a fair trial."], "id": "bd35812b-759c-4087-9e17-5bbdf07a253b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant complained that the proceedings before the Family Court and Family Court of Appeal were unfair and thus in violation of her as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. She also complained that the failure of the Court of Appeal to properly consider her appeal meant she was deprived of her right of access to Court, in further breach of Article 6. Where relevant, that article provides:"], "id": "4a48cf59-fb5e-473d-935f-8e3d94ee0e77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant alleged that he had been denied the by the involvement of an agent provocateur in the commission of the offence. He further alleged violations of the principle of equality of arms and of his defence rights since the Court of Appeal had refused to call Mr O. to give evidence and had ignored the statements of other witnesses relevant to his case. He also complained that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions had not been sufficiently reasoned. In this connection, he alleged a violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:"], "id": "364b5a71-47d0-4a60-a14e-cdfc4c79809e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant finally alleged that his had been impaired as a whole since the statements he had given on 23 August 2001 in the absence of legal assistance were used by the trial court to secure his conviction. He also noted that one of the grounds on which the trial courts based his conviction for the murder was the alleged inconsistency between the statements he had given during pre-trial investigation and those at his trial. Stressing the courts\u2019 failure to specify the alleged inconsistencies, the applicant maintained that if he had been legally represented from the very outset of the investigation, his lawyer would have made sure that he focussed on the issues important to the case, as with the passage of time he had naturally forgotten some of the details of the events."], "id": "0779fd23-6050-44ab-9855-d0bdcbc040ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["128. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that Judge A.K. had been assigned to examine their case in the trial court in breach of Articles 350 \u00a7 1 and 351 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They argued that this entailed a violation of their right to have their case examined by an independent and impartial tribunal and/or their ."], "id": "75fc21bf-e60e-4654-8299-ebf8c17b1422", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that their had been violated. They alleged that they had been convicted on the basis of unlawfully obtained evidence, notwithstanding its exclusion by the trial court. They also alleged that the rights of the defence had been significantly impaired because they had had only restricted access to the case file and the written reasons for the judgments and could not take any notes of the contents of the case file. Article 6, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "id": "68ce6602-3851-4b52-9147-ab9ca08e147c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been denied the since the defendant\u2019s observations in reply to his appeals had not been communicated to him, and since the courts had not considered his arguments and had decided solely on the basis of evidence submitted by the defendant. He further complained that they had not provided sufficient reasons for their decisions, that they had been biased and that the proceedings had not complied with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "8e74aa12-e153-44bf-a31a-9e76e2757d81", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that her had been violated stating, inter alia, that she was unable to lodge an appeal on points of law against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 15 October 2007 since she could not afford the services of an advocate licensed to act before the Court of Cassation. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaint essentially raises an issue of access to court and should therefore be examined from the standpoint of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "32b885d3-f7e3-4dc6-abae-9b7e9890254d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government further argued that the delays caused by the changes in the composition of the District Court should be attributed to the applicant, because he had successfully petitioned for them. Bearing in mind the prominent place which the by an independent and impartial tribunal holds in a democratic society (see, inter alia, De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 16, \u00a7 30), the Court considers that the State should bear the responsibility for a delay incurred through a successful challenge of the trial bench by a party to the proceedings. If a court accepts a party's request for a change in the composition of the bench, it inevitably means that the fears of that party as to the impartiality and independence of the tribunal are justified (see Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 4459/03, \u00a7 32, 8 March 2007). The Court further reiterates that Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet the obligation to decide the cases within a reasonable time (see, among other authorities, L\u00f6ffler v. Austria (No. 2), no. 72159/01 \u00a7 57, 4 March 2004). Therefore, the responsibility for an aggregated delay of approximately ten months caused by changes in the composition of the Ivolginskiy District Court and the transfer of the case to Sovetskiy District Court rests ultimately with the State (see Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, \u00a7 39, 5 October 2006)."], "id": "cdbc0d1b-a46a-4e1d-9108-6be290cd259f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant submitted that, in accordance with the domestic law, the reopening of the proceedings and referral of the case to the Plenum was within the exclusive competence of the Supreme Court\u2019s President. Any additional cassation appeal was to be submitted to the Supreme Court\u2019s President and not directly to the Plenum. The Plenum had no competence to examine the case of its own motion in the absence of a referral by the President of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that the examination of the case by the Plenum after the Supreme Court\u2019s President\u2019s refusal to reopen the proceedings had been unlawful under the domestic law and in breach of her under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention."], "id": "f7bc5e48-0529-4cb7-84b1-5390948f29eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant complained that in breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 none of the arguments that militated against holding her liable to pay compensation had been rendered in the judgment. This had also made it impossible to verify whether these arguments had been considered. A reduced duty to provide reasons for making a compensation award in the event of an acquittal was unsustainable and was inconsistent with the . The principle of presumption of innocence could not justify an exemption being made to the requirement to state reasons. On the contrary, the High Court ought to have rendered and discussed the arguments in question. These were clearly objective arguments, namely that it had been her uncle and aunt who had injured the children. Her aunt was known to have lied in five police interviews and a witness had stated that the uncle had confided that he had attempted to kill the daughter. In this respect she also referred to certain requirements to state reasons set out in Article 19-6 (4) and (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure 2005 (tvisteloven)."], "id": "f60d04ec-8c7f-4006-a9fb-3d67994dd613", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant submitted that neither he nor his counsel had been informed of the supervisory review proceeding and of their outcome. The telegram of 4 May 2006 which he received on 23 May 2006 stated that a hearing of his case would take place on 29 June 2006, but it did not say what kind of hearing it would be. Furthermore, the Government did not submit any proof that his counsel had received that notice. Therefore, it cannot be said that his counsel was duly informed of the appeal hearing. Furthermore, four years had elapsed since the date of the first appeal hearing and the contract concluded between the applicant and his counsel had expired. The authorities were under an obligation to verify whether the applicant was still represented, and provide him with another representative if necessary. The applicant concluded that the authorities\u2019 failure to inform him about the developments in his case and failure to notify his counsel of the appeal hearing of 29 June 2006 violated his and had not provided appropriate redress for their failure to notify him and his counsel of the appeal hearing of 15 August 2002."], "id": "6f388c47-8f7b-4a06-be79-6ba1103968fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s arguments. They argued that the applicant had no victim status to complain about the length of the proceedings, given that any delay had been taken into account as a mitigating factor in the imposition of his sentence. They further endorsed the Supreme Court\u2019s finding of no violation of the applicant\u2019s within a reasonable time, for the reasons stated in that court\u2019s decision of 1 June 2004."], "id": "0306c106-8f96-40d9-b3ed-706100854fed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant complained that neither he nor a lawyer appointed for him had been granted an opportunity to examine R.K., the victim of and only direct witness to the offences of which the Arnsberg Regional Court had found him guilty. He alleged a breach of his , including the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him, as provided in Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "2a71343a-5c73-47a0-bc12-c972af77b3b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicants complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against them had contravened the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. They further complained that they had been deprived of their by the domestic courts\u2019 failure to abide by the statutory time-limit for the imposition of confiscation orders. They invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "0f1ac23f-a8fb-4d1c-84b8-4de21e843c13", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant submitted that Judge M.G., who had been the president of the trial panel of the Zagreb County Court which had convicted him and sentenced him to six years\u2019 imprisonment, had also been part of a three-judge panel of the same court which had on 2 September 2004 extended his pre-trial detention in a decision worded in a manner that had expressed the judge\u2019s prejudice as to the applicant\u2019s personality and propensity to commit criminal offences. Therefore, in the applicant\u2019s view, the fact that Judge M.G. had been the president of the trial panel which had convicted him had violated his before an impartial tribunal. The applicant also stressed that he had never asked for Judge M.G. to be disqualified because he had considered that that would not have been an effective avenue to pursue in his case."], "id": "4ac818ff-1ae1-468f-abb4-67c2a8c448cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant submitted that she had been deprived of her right of access to court, as she had not received the plaintiff\u2019s claim or summonses to the hearings. Hence, she had been unaware of the divorce proceedings. As a result, she had been deprived of other procedural rights emanating from the right to fair trial, such as the right to take part in the proceedings, present her arguments and evidence, consult the case file, contest the arguments and evidence of the other party, appeal against the judgment, and so forth. Also her right to an oral hearing and right to equality of arms had been violated. Besides, the conclusion of the Senate of the Supreme Court that Article 6 of the Convention had not been applicable to the instant case, merely because it had viewed the case as having no prospects of success, had constituted a serious violation of her ."], "id": "9eea6810-7a19-43a1-9b10-a04bc64b9040", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicants complained under article 6 \u00a7 3 (c) of the Convention that their defence rights had been violated as they had been denied access to a lawyer during the preliminary investigation stage. The first two applicants further complained that there had been no interpreter to assist while they were in police custody, violating their . The applicants lastly complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against them had been excessive. The Court will examine their complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 (c) and 3 (e) of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:"], "id": "0f22bfc5-bce3-476c-85e5-379c1ad906b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant alleged that his had not been respected in the present case, in view of the fact that his conviction by the Assize Court had not included a statement of reasons and could not be appealed against to a body competent to hear all aspects of the case. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:"], "id": "4914f3be-f231-419a-afb6-0adc34141d56", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing in that the domestic court had taken into account unlawful evidence, gathered through other persons\u2019 conversations, without there being a decision to intercept his telephone conversations. He also argued that his police statements had been taken under duress and that their use by the trial court in his conviction violated his ."], "id": "a1843204-a656-41f4-96a2-56ec6f4473c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant company complained that its was violated as a result of the quashing by means of an application to set aside the judgment of 12 August 2009 (by which the fiscal authority was ordered to pay all the legal costs it had incurred in the enforcement proceedings). It invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads in its relevant parts as follows:"], "id": "61a84d59-baf1-4272-98ca-7f0451b541e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicant alleged that the fact of being deprived of access to a lawyer while he was in police custody, without being given sufficient information on his right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, together with the fact that no lawyer was present during the subsequent police interviews, examinations by an investigating judge and other investigative acts in the course of the pre-trial investigation, had breached his as secured by Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. Those provisions read as follows:"], "id": "581df082-85f4-4d53-8d8c-712a6cdc767e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s and the principle of quality of arms had been fully respected. The applicant had had full access to all documents constituting evidence in her case, could take notes from them and use these notes at the hearings. Under the provisions of the Lustration Act procedural guarantees provided for by the Code of Criminal Proceedings were applicable to the lustration proceedings. The Constitutional Court had examined these guarantees on several occasions and found that they were compatible with the requirements of the fair hearing. Likewise, in her appeals the applicant complained about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings, but her appeals were dismissed by the domestic courts."], "id": "cd1a2c40-b3b7-46ec-a2a6-1f55e050decb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["96. The applicant argued that the Court\u2019s case-law guaranteed strong protection to the freedom of expression of lawyers, who played a key role in the administration of justice and the upholding of the rule of law, with any restriction having to remain exceptional. Such protection could be explained by two reasons: firstly, no special circumstances could justify affording a wide margin of appreciation to States, bearing in mind that European and international texts, on the contrary, protected lawyers in the activity of defending their clients; secondly, their freedom of expression was linked to their clients\u2019 under Article 6 of the Convention. He further observed that the right of lawyers to make press statements as part of their clients\u2019 defence was expressly acknowledged and that, in principle, there was, at European level, significant tolerance of lawyers\u2019 criticism of judges, even when made in a public and media setting. He submitted, however, that the Chamber judgment highlighted some major uncertainties and vagaries in the case-law that affected the exercise of such freedom, especially outside the courtroom. He hoped that his case would enable the Grand Chamber to clarify the interpretation of the Convention on that point and to secure the protection of lawyers\u2019 speech."], "id": "1cbdcef6-ee37-4f69-9c25-c51dd9499d2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant submitted that his had been breached. In his view, the domestic courts had violated his defence rights because they had disregarded the evidence of the following witnesses: D.I., M.A., J.G., M.F., A.K.-N., M.\u0141., H.D., D.T., D.C. and R.M. The Court of Appeal referred to this point in its judgment of 9 December 2003 and stated that the trial court in its judgment of 27 May 2003 had failed to address the evidence of those witnesses. In addition, when examining the case for the second time the trial court had failed to take into account the instructions of the first judgment of the Court of Appeal to admit supplementary evidence. This amounted to a violation of certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 5 \u00a7 2, 7 and 442 \u00a7 3). Furthermore, the same trial court had failed to address the evidence concerning the lack of the applicant\u2019s fingerprints on the gun."], "id": "41555258-bac9-47ed-a580-10d35c8d0a7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant complained of a violation of his . He argued that the domestic authorities and, in particular, the K\u00faria had not taken due account of the EU law provision which should have governed his case and which placed certain obligations on the national courts in respect of references for preliminary rulings, including an obligation incumbent on national courts of last instance to provide reasons for not making a reference."], "id": "3cc9479a-b13d-46bc-a4da-bf6b25c3c0fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government claimed that the applicants had not exhausted all remedies provided for by Polish law with reference to the complaint concerning restrictions on their access to the case file, as they had failed to lodge a constitutional complaint. Had they considered that the regulation on access to classified material was contrary to their , they should have challenged the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Protection of Classified Information Act and of the relevant Ordinance of the Minister of Justice of 18 June 2003."], "id": "bf5c326e-6977-4522-a6b2-dea8801589c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["137. The applicant company complained in application no. 33571/06 that the Constitutional Court had violated its by failing to communicate to it the submissions of the High Prosecutor of 20 January 2006, which the court itself requested and which were crucial for its decision. It opined that the information submitted by the High Prosecutor had been untrue and that it had been obvious to all authorities that the investigation could not have finished in mid-2006."], "id": "394bd4a2-e046-4bd0-b6a7-6bdd08993c1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government observed that the applicant had benefited from an examination of his case at two instances by ordinary courts with full jurisdiction to assess the relevant facts and law. He further availed himself of an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. For the Government there had been no appearance of a violation of the applicant's in the impugned proceedings."], "id": "e38c9790-f423-47b7-8d87-3d09d1aa68ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government again contended that the failure to hear evidence from the applicant's wife did not concern the applicant's . It could not be assumed that the funds deposited by his wife as bail were jointly owned by the couple, because the applicant had not submitted any evidence of this either to the domestic courts or in his application to the Court. On the contrary, he had claimed that his wife had personally borrowed the money."], "id": "b90f1075-b48e-423a-9c5c-2de6164f02e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant was of the opinion that the admission of the evidence conflicted with his because the violation of his right to respect for his home was of a severe nature. In this regard, he alleged that the search warrant was arbitrary and a lawful search of his flat had not been possible because the initial suspicion that he might have committed the offence of copyright piracy had been too vague. The applicant stressed that the hashish found during the unlawful flat search was the only evidence. His statement regarding his exclusive use of the room in the flat where the hashish had been found could not be regarded as evidence as it was not related to the hashish found. Lastly, he maintained that the public interest in prosecution could not outweigh his right to respect for his home as the offence had been of minor consequence for the public, and the breach of his basic rights severe. His case could therefore be compared to the case of Jalloh v. Germany ([GC], no. 54810/00, \u00a7\u00a7 94-96, ECHR 2006\u2011IX)."], "id": "f82a8ede-24f2-4e5f-9f7b-c138145f5249", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government also considered it necessary to establish that a \u201ccontestation\u201d does not begin until a \u201cclaim for compensation\u201d has been lodged. In this respect the Court notes that the holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that there can be no justification for interpreting Article 6 \u00a7 1 restrictively: conformity with the spirit of the Convention requires that the word \u201ccontestation\u201d should not be construed too technically and that it should be given a substantive rather than a formal meaning. Besides, it has no counterpart in the English text of Article 6 \u00a7 1 (see Moreira de Azevedo, cited above, pp. 16-17, \u00a7 66). Moreover, if the making of a civil-party complaint amounts to the same thing as making a civil claim for indemnification, it is immaterial that the victim may have failed to lodge a formal claim for compensation: by acquiring the status of civil parties, victims demonstrate the importance they attach not only to the criminal conviction of the offender but also to securing financial reparation for the damage sustained (ibid., p. 17, \u00a7 67)."], "id": "9ae369d5-e9fb-4a82-82f9-e84579175b77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicants complained that their under Article 6 of the Convention had been violated as the Appeal Court had convicted the first applicant and ordered the forfeiture of the profit gained by the applicant company without holding an oral hearing and the Supreme Court had upheld this judgment. Due to the lack of an oral hearing, the applicants had not been able to present all evidence in the case."], "id": "6fa5b63c-77c8-4814-8403-8f1c46c05a00", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant maintained that he had been deprived of his and effective access to a court on the grounds that the Supreme Military Administrative Court had dismissed his additional claim for compensation for being out of time. He alleged that the procedural rule which prevented a claimant from amending his or her initial claim in military administrative proceedings had operated so as to restrict his right to bring an action before he was aware of the true extent of the pecuniary damage he had suffered."], "id": "3865fd04-9380-4320-82f5-6203d1cf1998", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant disputed that objection. He argued that the claim referred to by the Government could only be lodged in respect of acts and actions, and only when no other judicial proceedings were possible. There was an established practice whereby breaches of procedural rules had to be claimed in the proceedings in which they had allegedly been committed. He referred to the case-law of the Supreme Court, in particular its decision of 13 December 2007 (Up 726/2007). In that decision, the Supreme Court had upheld the Administrative Court\u2019s rejection of a claim of violation of human rights lodged under section 4 of the Administrative Disputes Act in which the claimant had complained that the judge in her civil case had not been appointed in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court had found that the claimant had had judicial protection at her disposal within the main proceedings before the ordinary courts. It pointed to the established case-law of the higher courts and the Supreme Court. The case-law indicated that the courts of general jurisdiction should decide on matters of violation of the right to an impartial tribunal within their system of ordinary remedies. A reference was also made to the practice of the Constitutional Court which required the remedies available in the proceedings under general jurisdiction to be exhausted before a constitutional appeal concerning the allegedly violated therein could be lodged."], "id": "005bf105-654d-4bff-b3fd-ef35777f7b0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant further claimed that the labour court not only disregarded the final acquittal and found that the applicant had committed the offence of incitement, but that in doing so it also relied on the self-incriminating statements given by the applicant to the police in the absence of her lawyer. The Court notes in this context that it has already found that the use as evidence for a criminal conviction of statements given by the accused to the police without the assistance of a lawyer may amount to a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, \u00a7\u00a7 56-62, ECHR 2008). The Government have not commented on the applicant\u2019s claim that her statements to the police were used as evidence in the civil case. The Court further notes that the labour court in its judgment referred to the fact that the applicant\u2019s employer had relied on the fact that the applicant had confessed to inciting M.G. into committing the crime, and that the labour court explicitly stated that it had examined the entire criminal investigation file (see paragraph 14 above). Thus, the facts of the case seem to indicate that the statements given by the applicant to the police without the assistance of a lawyer were relied on by the labour court, and the Court does not rule out that reliance by a court on such statements in civil proceedings may raise an issue under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. However, having regard to the fact that the labour court\u2019s reasoning and the wording used violated the applicant\u2019s right to presumption of innocence, the Court does not find it necessary to also assess if the labour court in reaching its conclusion relied on evidence in violation of the ."], "id": "83863d58-c42d-4f11-9778-3099fd0dccb5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant complained that on 23 January 2002 the Riga Regional Court had examined his appeal in his absence, thereby depriving him of his . He further complained that the Latvian procedure for disputing a refusal of security clearance did not correspond to the requirements of the Convention, since persons to whom such clearance had been denied were unable to find out the reasons for the refusal or to dispute the refusal before a \u201ctribunal\u201d. He relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The applicant\u2019s complaints were communicated to the respondent Government under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "847a98ff-abf6-4379-b285-07bdb74b359d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant complained that the quashing under supervisory review procedure of the judgments of 10 July 2000 and 14 March 2001 as well as the decision of 27 September 2000 violated his guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:"], "id": "4a9b8232-cafe-4d74-a341-3376a762d316", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant complained that the quashing on 29 February 2000 of the final judgment of 10 March 1999 by way of supervisory review violated his guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "033c516f-d6fe-45b8-ac0d-54ee42ebfb8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicants disagreed with the Government: the case-law on which the Government relied was incomplete, as, in an attempt to have the application declared inadmissible, they had only cited the judgments of the Constitutional Court that supported their case. The applicants said that the various divisions of the Constitutional Court had expressed relatively divergent opinions as to which decision started the sixty-day period running, a state of affairs which they considered was contrary to the principle of equality before the law and, consequently, infringed the ."], "id": "fdbca063-222e-47b3-a767-8ec21340403f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant sought (1) ISK 28,522,474 (approximately 340,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for pecuniary damage, which corresponded to the award made by the District Court under this head. She asked for this amount to be increased by amounts of interest which she specified. The applicant further claimed (2) ISK 10,000,000 (approximately 116,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of suffering and distress occasioned by the violation the Convention. She maintained that after the District Court had ruled in her favour and ordered the State to pay her compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the Supreme Court had deprived her of her award by quashing that ruling in a procedure that had violated her before an independent and impartial tribunal. Had it not been for the fact that the Supreme Court had obtained and attached decisive weight to the SMLB's opinion, in breach of the Convention, it would most probably have reached the same conclusion as the District Court. There was thus a causal connection between the violation of the Convention and her damage."], "id": "23161269-2742-41a4-b34c-09e488feeb94", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) of the Convention that he had not had a fair trial. In particular, he complained that at no stage of the criminal proceedings against him had he been afforded an opportunity to examine Mr Sh., the key prosecution witness. As the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1, the Court will examine the applicants' complaints under those two provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, Samoshenkov and Strokov v. Russia, nos. 21731/03 and 1886/04, \u00a7 72, 22 July 2010). Article 6 in the relevant part reads as follows:"], "id": "ff5218fd-9df1-4b9b-88b2-e56c09479f8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant also complained that the quashing of the final judgment in his favour by the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court on 27 December 2000 violated his guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "a28ee552-59c4-4cc4-b7a4-17fa7199797d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant alleged that there had been a violation of his in the context of the proceedings to determine compensation before the expropriations judge and the Expropriations Division; he complained that the principle of equality of arms had been breached as a result of the priviliged position enjoyed by the Government Commissioner, and that there had been a breach of the adversarial principle. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "d936b151-9c04-40f7-b2e5-cdde302a33f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant submits that the in which a lawyer can defend the accused in his or her absence \u2013 and therefore without fear of arrest \u2013 is an integral part of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. Referring to the Court\u2019s findings in Lala and Pelladoah v. the Netherlands (judgments of 22 September 1994, Series A nos. 297-A and 297-B), the applicant argues that, in weighing the State\u2019s interest in securing the appearance of accused at their trial against that of defendants in exercising their right to be defended by counsel, the latter interest should prevail."], "id": "5b56a221-54ff-45db-bea3-bbeff9d2f22a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant claimed that the domestic courts and, in particular, the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court had misdirected themselves in law. She submitted that the judgment of the Federal Commercial Court had clearly stated that it was not amenable to further appeal and she could not have reasonably foreseen the institution of supervisory-review proceedings. In any event, her observations on the supervisory-review application had not been examined and she had not been informed of the hearing date before the Presidium. She considered that her was breached."], "id": "a7dc215d-a0d8-424a-8323-452434b16001", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant submitted in reply, with reference to Article 131 (f) of the Constitution and the practice of the Constitutional Court, that in order to exhaust all domestic remedies individual complaints had to be lodged with the Constitutional Court if and when they alleged a breach of the . Moreover, he relied on the admissibility decision of the Court adopted in Balliu v. Albania (dec.), no. 74727/01."], "id": "14c74804-b257-4550-9800-60e74aea938b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant complained that the use at his trial of the evidence obtained in the execution of an invalid search warrant had been in breach of his rights under the Convention. He relied on the (Article 6 \u00a7 1) and the right to respect for his private life (Article 8). The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention alone which, as far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "b25c2a41-4e60-4944-926c-d1e783caa629", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant stated that the restriction on his right to legal assistance while in police custody had breached his . He maintained that he was illiterate and therefore he did not know what was written in his statement taken by the gendarmes. He also stated that this statement was not read out to him and that he was forced to put his thumbprint on the statement to authenticate it."], "id": "bee5201c-f9a7-4c87-a397-f44d98702109", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicant company disagreed and argued that the quashing of the judgment of 27 October 1999 had violated its as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. The letter of the Prosecutor General's Office of 8 June 2004 had not disclosed any \u201cnew and essential facts or circumstances which were unknown and could not have been known earlier\u201d in the sense of Article 449(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The submissions made by the Prosecutor General's Office in that letter, namely that Oferta Plus had not presented enough evidence concerning the electricity supplied, had already been made by the Ministry of Finance and by the Prosecutor General's Office and had been dismissed by the Supreme Court of Justice in its judgments of 7 February 2001 and 7 May 2001."], "id": "d3d5f7b0-b39a-4c71-8200-9dd9e3466be8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained that his and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing had been violated as his appeal in the Appeal Court had been discontinued due to the fact that he had not attended the hearing on 28 February 2005 but was represented by his counsel. He claimed, referring to the Court\u2019s case-law, that the provision on the basis of which his appeal was discontinued, namely Chapter 26, section 20, subsection 1, of the Code of Judicial Procedure, was contrary to the requirements of the Convention."], "id": "05bda4a9-ea67-41dc-bfe6-979a0691a79b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that the use of unlawfully obtained evidence by the Ankara State Security Court in convicting him had violated his . He further complained, under the same head, that the refusal by the same court to provide him with a copy of the audiotapes of his alleged telephone conversations had been in breach of the principle of equality of arms."], "id": "524e85ad-ed6e-4727-b993-66e391abafec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["151. The applicants complained that the temporary suspension of and amendments to the Denationalisation Act and the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions, the State Bonds Act and the Constitutional Court's decisions of 16 July 1998 and 22 February 2001 violated their guaranteed under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, since they constituted an unfair interference by the State in the pending proceedings to which the State was a party. They also invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, alleging that the challenged Acts discriminated against those claimants for the restitution of forfeited property, whose restitution proceedings were still pending before the courts when the challenged legislation entered into force and introduced a less favourable restitution regime. The applicants further complained that the challenged Acts and the unreasonably long restitution proceedings breached their right to property as guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, arguing that from the moment the criminal judgments were quashed, they had a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d of obtaining the full restitution of property forfeited by the judgments, which, until the present day, had not occurred. In addition, they claimed that the challenged Acts violated their right to full compensation for wrongful conviction as guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7. Finally, the applicants invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, alleging that the challenged Acts deprived them of their property on a discriminatory basis, since before the challenged legislation entered into force, the successful claimants were entitled to full restitution."], "id": "87e8c51e-5900-41ca-9cbb-74b18cbadc4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government argued that there was no causal link between the alleged pecuniary damage and the alleged breach of the Convention. With regard to the claim for non-pecuniary damage, they asked the Court to rule that the acknowledgment of the violation of the applicant\u2019s represented in itself just satisfaction. In any event, they argued that the amount claimed by the applicant was speculative, excessive and not proven."], "id": "270edacb-6956-490c-a674-98b21fde29dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicant alleged that he did not have a fair trial and complained of a violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c). The Court first notes that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the in criminal proceedings as set forth in paragraph 1 of the same Article. Accordingly, the applicant\u2019s complaint will be examined under these provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, \u00a7 29, Series A no. 277\u2011A; Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, \u00a7 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011III; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, \u00a7 82, ECHR 2001\u2011II; Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, \u00a7 55, 19 May 2009; Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, \u00a7 94, 2 November 2010; Zagorodniy v. Ukraine, no. 27004/06, \u00a7 52, 24 November 2011; and Neziraj v. Germany, no. 30804/07, \u00a7 45, 8 November 2012)."], "id": "27f975c8-3ac9-4403-b827-36b11f060248", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicants contended that the judgments of the lower courts which they had challenged before the Constitutional Court undoubtedly concerned their civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the Convention. They pointed out that no provision of the relevant domestic law excluded their right to lodge a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court concerning breaches of their by the appellate courts. Thus, it could not be said that the judgment of the Zagreb County Court was not liable to a review before the Constitutional Court. In the applicants\u2019 view, this had been so given that the practice of the courts had been evolving and it had always been possible for the Constitutional Court to take their complaint into examination. The applicants considered that by refusing to do so the Constitutional Court had acted contrary to the Constitution and the Convention and had allowed a manifest breach of the right to a fair trial to persist. The applicants also pointed out that, given these circumstances, they would have risked their complaint being declared inadmissible by the Court if they had not first allowed the Constitutional Court to deal with the alleged breaches of their rights."], "id": "9694d90d-7edc-4568-8be9-c27c65b4206d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant complained that his , guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, had been infringed by the use of the confession extracted from him as a result of coercion in police custody, during which he had been denied access to a lawyer. He further contended that his conviction had been based on statements that had been taken unlawfully from him and the other co-accused H.K. despite the fact that they had later been retracted. Furthermore, the applicant complained that the Adana Assize Court had not taken any steps to test the veracity of these statements. Lastly, he argued that the length of the criminal proceedings had been excessive. The Court will examine his complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c), which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "id": "16f228be-b432-4b3e-82af-fdad07530ef2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant raised numerous complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about the criminal proceedings against him. He complained that there had been a violation of his defence rights regarding the examination of the undercover witness, that the judges had been biased, had not given reasons for their decisions and had rejected his requests for the admission of evidence. He further alleged that his conviction had been based on inadmissible evidence obtained by using special investigative techniques and that the witness whose statement had served as the main evidence against him had been involved in the operation as an agent provocateur. He complained also that the documents in the case file had not been translated into a language that he understood. The Court considers that these complaints should be analysed under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention, the latter concerning particular aspects of the guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1, which, in so far, as relevant, read as follows:"], "id": "c80353c2-e520-4135-8524-1fd61d15f50f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant complained that his , as guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, had been violated by the failure to enforce the final judgment in his favour. He also complained of a violation of his right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the same failure to enforce."], "id": "bc17ba62-012f-489c-b9b2-b250d7c5ac06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government submitted that, in any event, the applicant\u2019s under Article 6 of the Convention had not been violated. The Court of Appeal had taken evidence in compliance with the requirements of that provision. Pursuant to Article 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in particular, the same rules for the taking of evidence applied both to the prosecution and the defence. Under the German Code of Criminal Procedure, it was for the criminal courts themselves to investigate the truth of their own motion. Even though the investigation into offences committed abroad raised considerable procedural problems, the defendants were protected by the rules on criminal procedure and by having the benefit of the doubt."], "id": "513c623d-9bf2-4812-9f4c-1a79e9a40a53", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In the Government\u2019s view, the applicant had not invoked his rights under the Convention before the domestic courts or argued, even in vague or general terms, that a refusal to suspend or adjourn the proceedings in question would violate his ; his submissions before the domestic courts had been based exclusively on domestic legislation. His application to suspend or adjourn the trial could not be said to equate with an allegation of a violation of the right to a fair trial. Even if the domestic courts had been able to examine the case proprio motu in the context of the Convention, the applicant could not be relieved of his obligation to invoke the Convention before those courts, or at least to draw their attention to matters he intended to raise subsequently before the Court."], "id": "73cf85ac-5dc9-481f-905d-d0864768b7ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant argued that his and in particular his right to be represented by a legal representative of his own choosing in the criminal proceedings against him had been violated in so far as the trial court conducting the proceedings had denied his request that the concluding hearing be adjourned on account of the sudden illness of his counsel. He explained that his counsel had fallen ill a day before the hearing and that he had duly informed the trial court about it on the morning of the hearing by telephone. He argued that according to the relevant provisions of the Croatian Code of Criminal Procedure the trial court was under duty to adjourn a hearing when the defence counsel informed that court about his inability to attend for a good reason. The applicant further emphasised the importance of the concluding hearing in the criminal proceedings as it was the only opportunity for the defence to orally present their view of the results of the proceedings before a trial court and to present their own conclusions and arguments as regards the evidence of the case. He also stressed that the case had concerned complex issues of law, in particular whether his acts could be seen as illegal, and that such arguments could only have been adequately presented by a qualified lawyer."], "id": "3e9c0181-d213-43c9-a515-e5b959fafd6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government considered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant, taken as a whole, had been fair. In particular, the Government pointed out that the applicant had participated effectively in the proceedings, that he had been legally represented, and that he had had every opportunity to present all his evidence and arguments before the trial court and object to the evidence of the prosecution. He had also had access to all relevant materials from the case file and an opportunity to question all the witnesses against him. In the Government\u2019s view, all the decisions of the domestic authorities had been sufficiently reasoned and had not disclosed any arbitrariness. As regards the applicant\u2019s complaints that the trial court had not heard his witnesses, the Government pointed out that the trial court had carefully examined whether the questioning of witnesses was necessary and after it had found that all relevant facts had been sufficiently established it had dismissed the request for those witnesses to be questioned. The domestic courts had provided sufficient reasons for their decisions, and there had been no breach of the applicant\u2019s in this respect."], "id": "b4c4ca79-5665-4977-81eb-f6019d42614a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant contended that the judgment of the Administrative Court she had challenged before the Constitutional Court had undoubtedly concerned her civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the Convention; it thus could not be said that the judgment of the Administrative Court had not been amenable to review before the Constitutional Court. She considered that by refusing to examine her complaint, the Constitutional Court had acted contrary to the Constitution and the Convention and had allowed a manifest breach of the to persist."], "id": "255bf12f-a38e-427f-8a36-723410a75a3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant contested the Government's arguments. He claimed that he had expressly stated in his application to the Supreme Court that the Appeal Court had violated his under Article 6 when it had convicted him without even mentioning his name in the judgment. It had not been advisable for the applicant to request leave to appeal on the basis of a lack of a possibility to submit additional comments in the Appeal Court."], "id": "d8a34c14-8a00-44ee-912e-2cad82462667", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant argued that all the applications lodged by him had been done in good faith and that half of them had related to guaranteeing his . In contrast, the prosecutor had failed to appear in court on a number of occasions without any good reason and the presiding judge had also adjourned the case many times for reasons unconnected to this case. Almost a half of the 136 adjournments had been due to the repeated non-appearance of victims and witnesses, most of which had been called by the prosecutor. Securing their appearance had clearly been the responsibility of the State. Moreover, the trial had to be restarted from the beginning after one year and three months since the powers of the first presiding judge had been suspended. Also the modifications of the charges had had the same delaying effect."], "id": "b0c911e2-17c8-48d6-ae92-0fa2e85ba5dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant submitted that there had been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in that he had been deprived of the by an impartial tribunal. He submitted that the judges sitting in the Regional and Supreme Medical Courts had not been independent, as those bodies had been composed of doctors, members of the Regional Medical Council, and thus represented the interests of the doctors\u2019 lobby. Only one of the five members of the Supreme Medical Court was a professional judge, delegated from the Supreme Court. However, such a judge would often follow the conclusions of the majority. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s case had not been heard at the later stage by an impartial tribunal as the domestic law did not provide for a right to appeal to a court against the decision of the Medical Court when it had imposed a penalty taking the form of a reprimand."], "id": "110cc78c-b96e-45a8-9587-d3fc9c9efc8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant complained that the quashing of the judgment of 2 October 2003, as upheld on 26 February 2004, by means of the legality review procedure had violated his under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read:"], "id": "9f680471-da84-48cf-85a1-7b5d1c1e2e56", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicants submitted that Law no. 296/2006 had the explicit aim of avoiding the disbursement of millions of euros in order to enforce a multitude of judgments resulting from the cases pending before the domestic courts. The outcome of those cases, namely that they would be favourable to the claimants, had been foreseeable given the constant jurisprudence. Indeed, the legislature had approved a law defined as interpretative (di interpretazione autentica), but which was in reality innovative, with the scope of influencing the relevant judicial determinations, thereby reversing the consolidated interpretation given to the laws at issue by the domestic courts. By so doing the State had acted contrary to the rule of law and in breach of the , which provided that disputes over civil rights and obligations were to be determined by a tribunal and not the legislature"], "id": "daf1146a-f3de-4a9d-8642-a9f356163eb5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant also argued that his had been violated as he had not had the prior opportunity to prove the truthfulness of his allegations against C.T., which had constituted the basis of his conviction. However, the Court observes that the domestic courts\u2019 task in those proceedings was to examine whether the applicant had committed the offences of false accusation, perjury and slander and eventually to reject the accusations made against C.T. by the applicant. In order to do so, they had to examine if the allegations made by the applicant against C.T. were true, a matter closely linked with the charges against him, as the applicant himself admitted. The applicant was given the opportunity to examine witnesses, adduce documents, be represented by a lawyer and be heard by the domestic courts which examined his case. At the various stages of the proceedings he was able to submit the arguments he considered relevant to his case and an oral hearing was held both before the first-instance court and the Court of Appeal, which had full competence to assess all the relevant facts and evidence. The applicant was therefore afforded all the guarantees of a fair trial in the proceedings against him and had had a real opportunity to defend himself and be acquitted."], "id": "d7b012a1-a738-42cc-b114-a80c54a04d72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government submitted that in the retrial phase of the instant case, the competence of the B\u00e9k\u00e9s County Regional Court had been rather limited. It had not been called on to examine anew all facts of the case or make a full assessment of the applicants' guilt. Instead, its task had been to verify the Gyula District Court's order denying retrial, an order which itself had concerned only the probative value of new evidence. The applicants did not face the risk of a new sentence or the aggravation of the sanction. Indeed, the case was orally heard at public hearings before three court instances in the principal proceedings as well as before the first-instance court in the retrial. The latter hearings had essentially concerned a question of law, namely whether objects with cultural and historical, rather than commercial, value could be the object of the offence of embezzlement. In the Government's view, if an appeal court decides only on questions of law, the court's failure to hear the applicant in person or to hold a public hearing does not amount to a violation of the . In the present case, no special circumstances had existed requiring the applicants to be heard in person by the appeal court, since their credibility, intentions or motive had not been decisive for the matter at hand. It could not therefore be argued that the proceedings before the appeal court in the retrial had constituted a full review governed by the same rules as a principal trial on the merits."], "id": "ac172733-dd53-4493-9d6e-ed3b2f5e59ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant submitted that the decision of the Director of the National Security Service to revoke his right to hold a security clearance permit had resulted in his automatic dismissal. Given that this decision was not amenable to any judicial review in itself, he was placed in a situation that was in breach of Article 6 offering him a ."], "id": "afcc726c-843a-4bed-a833-4e7d6c298907", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant stressed that he had not requested a reclassification of his offence. The reduction of his sentence had not negated the fact that he had not been afforded an opportunity to participate effectively in the supervisory review hearing. Thus, he had not had sufficient time to prepare his comments on the prosecutor's application; in any event, although he had submitted them both to the prosecutor's office and the Presidium court, they had disregarded them which had been evident from the decision of 3 October 2001, which had not referred to any of his arguments. In the same vein, all his requests to attend the hearing had been disregarded, which had deprived him of an opportunity to attend the hearing and to defend his position. In his opinion, the decision, delivered after a hearing where he had not been able to present his arguments in person or through some form of legal representation, had breached his and the principle of equality of arms."], "id": "365f953a-0dfe-45cf-bc26-2332a286ef56", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["139. The applicant averred that the proceedings, which had lasted three years and eight months, had not progressed steadily. There had been lengthy periods when the domestic authorities were either completely passive or were correcting their procedural mistakes. In particular, on four occasions the trial court had remitted the case file to the investigation authorities to eliminate serious flaws which precluded examination of the case. The applicant further noted that the complexity of the case could not serve as justification for the length of the proceedings, particularly as the investigation had been completed within a few months and the proceedings had subsequently been pending for more than three years before the courts at two instances. Having addressed his own behaviour during the criminal proceedings, the applicant stressed that he had been detained throughout the proceedings and therefore had been within the State's full control. He had never failed to participate in investigative actions or attend hearings. As to the alleged abuse on his part of the right to defence, the applicant argued that the majority of his requests had been dismissed by the trial court. However, those which had been accepted, such as his request for a change of legal-aid counsel, were valid and well-founded. By accepting those requests the trial court had demonstrated that the applicant's could have been violated if it had refused to rule in his favour."], "id": "dc18267a-97d7-4a75-aed8-847f7a181596", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicants reiterated their position that the procedure followed by the domestic courts constituted a denial of their . They stated that the refusal of the courts to produce the evidence, on the basis of which they were convicted (balaclavas), was in breach of the domestic provisions. They also contested the regularity of the identification procedure that was used by the domestic authorities."], "id": "de9b8138-53ac-4464-81fe-382b70833d30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["104. The applicant complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, of the unfairness of the Hague Convention proceedings, in particular that the interlocutory judgment of 13 April 2009 had been missing from the domestic case file and that the domestic authorities had failed to send him a copy of the final judgment of 25 March 2010. In respect of the divorce\u2011and\u2011custody proceedings instituted against him by his wife, after the case had been communicated to the Romanian Government he complained under the same Article that the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to hear foreign witnesses on his behalf through the international rogatory commission proceedings or to expedite the said proceedings, and the fact that he had had to incur high financial costs in order to submit the relevant testimonial and documentary evidence, had amounted to a breach of his and prevented him from defending his rights."], "id": "75dfed2f-6f1a-4d21-9752-f04c9cc2c80a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government observed that the applicant had benefited from an examination of his case at two instances by ordinary courts with full jurisdiction to assess the relevant facts and law. He further availed himself of an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. For the Government there had been no appearance of a violation of the applicant\u2019s in the impugned proceedings. They stressed that, when challenging the judgments in the case, the applicant had not referred to the issue of restrictions on access to the case file. Neither had he alleged that the rights of the defence had been infringed on account of the procedure applied by the courts. The Government concluded that there had been no breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 in the present case."], "id": "d65d29c0-f065-4c5c-8c30-b3f72e0ce114", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant company complained of a violation of its , contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. In particular, it complained that the courts had failed to apply the statute of limitations and that it had not been summoned to the hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice. The relevant part of Article 6 reads as follows:"], "id": "4ce4c5a1-42c8-4d9d-a0b8-aa09015a6a5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant submitted that the Supreme Court on 19 April 2006, by deciding his appeal on points of law on the merits, had accepted that it had been admissible but then, on 21 September 2011, had declared it inadmissible, without giving any reasons for departing from its previous decision. Thus, it had violated his ."], "id": "8f76665d-4762-4121-8c3c-e5ff45b77f92", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant complained that he had been deprived of his and effective access to a court on the ground that the Supreme Military Administrative Court had rejected his case as being out of time. In his application form, he relied on Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "47acec07-dfbf-44d2-ab55-570a9964bf41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicant alleged that he did not have a fair trial and complained of a violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c). The Court first notes that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the in criminal proceedings as set forth in paragraph 1 of the same Article. Accordingly, the applicant\u2019s complaint will be examined under these provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, \u00a7 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011III; and Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, \u00a7 55, 19 May 2009)."], "id": "dc6b7bfb-6f2b-4a40-b12f-bc2de5263583", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicants contended that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself are absolute rights and that to apply any form of direct compulsion to require an accused person to make incriminatory statements against his will of itself destroys the very essence of that right. The Court is unable to accept this. It is true, as pointed out by the applicants, that in all the cases to date in which \u201cdirect compulsion\u201d was applied to require an actual or potential suspect to provide information which contributed, or might have contributed, to his conviction, the Court has found a violation of the applicant\u2019s privilege against self-incrimination. It does not, however, follow that any direct compulsion will automatically result in a violation. While the under Article 6 is an unqualified right, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. This was confirmed in the specific context of the right to remain silent in Heaney and McGuinness and, more recently, in the Court\u2019s judgment in Jalloh, in which the Court identified the factors to which it would have regard in determining whether the applicant\u2019s privilege against self-incrimination had been violated."], "id": "577498bf-22b7-42e8-9710-1f206bdc03c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They argued that the applicant could have challenged the K\u00faria\u2019s judgment before the Constitutional Court under Article XXVIII of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, which guaranteed the . They referred to decision no. 7/2013 (see paragraph 33 above) in which the Constitutional Court examined, in the light of both Article XXVIII of the Fundamental Law and Article 6 of the Convention, the fairness of a high court\u2019s final judgment, with particular regard to the question of whether the high court had observed its obligation to give appropriate reasons for its decision. In the Government\u2019s view, the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision demonstrated that the applicant could have brought his complaint relating to the unfairness of the proceedings and, in particular, the lack of appropriate reasoning, before the Constitutional Court \u2013 a legal avenue of which he had not availed himself."], "id": "92f2139c-e884-4dba-8b9a-937a0d94f5e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that under Article 336 of the CCP the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had given notice of the date of an appeal hearing only to those participants in proceedings who had made a request to that effect when lodging their appeal. Since the applicant had made no such request, the Supreme Court, in examining the applicant\u2019s appeal in his absence and in the absence of his lawyer, had acted in full compliance with the legislation on criminal procedure. The Constitutional Court\u2019s decision of 17 October 2001 had been adopted after the applicant\u2019s appeal proceedings. Therefore, the applicant\u2019s guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 had not been violated."], "id": "9958dfd2-b691-4704-8f89-47f628a7397b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["130. The applicants complained with regard to the civil proceedings which ended by the final judgments of 5 February 2004 and 1 June 2005 that their had been infringed as a result of the dismissal by the domestic courts, mainly on account of Ms M.\u2019s religious affiliation and the prosecutor\u2019s decision not to indict D.C., of the actions brought by Ms M. against D.C. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "ae21fcab-7b3e-473b-9bc0-b6454a6a3d0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government further argued that the applicant had failed to lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court. Had the applicant been of the opinion that the legal provisions on which the courts had based their decisions or their interpretation \u2013 namely Articles 100 \u00a7 5 and 156 \u00a7 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in conjunction with section 52 \u00a7 2 of the Lustration Act \u2013 had breached his rights, in particular his right to a fair hearing enshrined in Article 45 of the Constitution, he should have lodged a constitutional complaint. In particular, the applicant should have requested the Constitutional Court to examine whether the rules imposed by those provisions had violated his . The Government also maintained that the applicant could have requested the Constitutional Court to give a so-called \u201cinterpretative judgment\u201d (orzeczenie interpretacyjne) which would indicate the correct way of construing the relevant provisions which, in turn, would have to be taken into consideration by the courts applying them."], "id": "7ec43a45-24e2-4819-a4f7-ad43f8690a0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicant pointed out that, while the Belgian Court of Cassation\u2019s case-law had evolved favourably, taking account of the Salduz judgment, that court had never reached the conclusion that the legislation in itself entailed a violation of the . Moreover, it was only after the judgment of 15 December 2010 (see paragraph 70 above), and thus subsequent to the applicant\u2019s case, that the Court of Cassation had struck down judgments of the trial courts based on self-incriminating statements made during the initial interviews without a lawyer being present."], "id": "42f81073-15a9-438a-a3a9-c0e33c7fd3ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["104. The Government submitted that during the proceedings the applicant had never complained about the composition of the trial bench nor had he ever requested that Judge Z.\u010c. be disqualified from sitting in the case. Moreover, he had not alleged a lack of impartiality of the trial bench in his appeal but only in the constitutional complaint. Thus, in the Government\u2019s view, it could not be said that the alleged lack of impartiality of Judge Z.\u010c. had affected the applicant\u2019s ."], "id": "0777c905-8a06-496b-bbf5-5361c63fc810", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicants further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) that the trial court, in the proceedings concerning the charge of robbery, had not secured the attendance and examination of the witnesses Ms E., Mr B. and Mr U., garage employees, the investigators Ms K. and Ms P., or the forensic expert Mr Ku. As the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1, the Court will examine the applicants' complaints under those two provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, \u00a7 49, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III). Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) reads as follows:"], "id": "5efb9664-555d-4a2e-b741-5630f3053cbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to a fair trial", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant further maintained that he had been tortured by the police officers who had forced him to confess, and even when he had ceased to be subjected to the torture, the psychological and physiological effects of that torture had lasted beyond its actual application, particularly given that he had been under the constant threat of being subjected to torture again if he acted contrary to the police\u2019s interests. He considered that the after-effects of the torture and the threats of further ill-treatment had to be taken into account in assessing the nature and degree of compulsion used to obtain the confessions. He also noted that he had not had a proper opportunity to challenge the admissibility of the evidence obtained through coercion, and his complaints of torture and forced confession had never been properly examined. He went on to note that, in assessing his allegations of coercion, the domestic court had shifted the burden of proof of the alleged ill-treatment to him, having required that he prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had been ill-treated. In these circumstances, he had not been able to effectively challenge the authenticity of the evidence and oppose its use. He also averred that the police records drawn up between 13 and 19 January 2000 had not been signed with his real signature, and even assuming that he had signed it but in a different way than normal, this would also speak to his unwillingness to sign the records. He concluded that in the circumstances of the case, the use of his confessions for his conviction had breached his ."], "id": "4a91005d-e658-41bd-8a40-c711adaf9de2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that even if Article 6 would apply to the proceedings at issue, there was no breach of Article 6 because, in the particular circumstances of the case, an before the Administrative Court was not necessary. In his complaint to the Administrative Court the applicant had not raised any question of fact or law which could not have been dealt with adequately on the basis of the file."], "id": "6e89d881-b167-4e5e-bebc-c3b20f90e287", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government argued that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded since the case concerned a civil matter amenable to out-of-court settlement where the District Court had held an . They further claimed that an oral hearing was clearly unnecessary since there were no new circumstances or new evidence that had to be examined before the Court of Appeal and that the outcome before the appellate court was not dependent on the credibility of the oral evidence invoked. Moreover, the Government observed that the applicant had had ample opportunity to put forward his case and conclude his actions in writing."], "id": "b58729d0-85ad-4133-9777-48bbf90e3820", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government disputed that the refusal violated Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In this regard, they argued that, as it appeared from its decision of 17 March 1998, the Supreme Administrative Court, in accordance with the applicable national law, found that it could examine the application without holding an , having regard to the nature of the matter to be determined and the extensive written information that was available in the case. Under the 1988 Act, its examination had primarily been aimed at establishing whether the challenged decision had been contrary to any legal rule, which was what the applicant had argued."], "id": "2e245e49-3e0d-4859-aebd-22ca6d13a164", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government pointed out that, in finding that the law relied upon by the applicants had been incompatible with the Constitution, the Court of Appeal had provided an answer to their allegations of discrimination. The Government further reiterated that, at the relevant time, the CCP had not made it an obligation for the courts to hold a separate hearing on the merits when allowing an extraordinary appeal. Consequently, it was open to the Court of Appeal to decide at the same time on both the extraordinary appeal and the ordinary appeal against the initial action. In any case, the parties had the possibility to get acquainted with the submissions in the file (see paragraph 16 above) and chose not to participate in the (see paragraph 17 above)."], "id": "4b8332ee-68a2-4dcf-ab07-9f12e7f00911", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["11. The Government stated that Law no. 466 did not foresee hearings in compensation cases, in order to provide a speedy means of dealing with applications. As a result, in their view, the applicant, who had a legal representative in the domestic proceedings, should have known by 23 January 2003 at the latest that there would be no . Since the application was lodged on 2 July 2004, in the Government's view the application should be rejected for non-compliance with the six months rule under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "a81b2cbc-b73b-4389-9e69-f961de47f034", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["96. The applicant further stressed that, as had been confirmed by the Government, hearings with the parties had taken place in several comparable cases before the Administrative Court. As the Court had confirmed in its judgment in the case of Kugler (cited above), it was necessary to hold an and to take evidence in an adversarial manner in urban planning cases before the only genuine court instance capable of assessing the case in its entirety, which, in the present case, had been the Administrative Court. The applicant further argued that the witnesses which she had named should have been heard by the Administrative Court."], "id": "9e0fe4a4-a0b8-4b4e-b904-1fb6424aedef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention inter alia that the Court of Appeal was biased, in that the Chairman of the Court of Appeal made a comment which displayed actual or apparent bias in favour of the prosecution; that it failed to conduct a full , re-hearing only eight of the witnesses heard in the District Court, that its judgment misinterpreted the evidence, failed to address critical elements of the offences charged and contained serious misapplications of Finnish law; as well as convictions for offences inappropriate to the facts. These factors he relied upon as violations of Article 6 as well as supporting his allegations concerning lack of impartiality and lack of a full oral hearing. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7 3(a), alleging that he was convicted of offences the details of which were never supplied to him and in respect of which he had no opportunity to defend himself, Article 7 (prohibition of retrospective penalties) alleging that he was convicted of offences that were not offences at the time of the events in question and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, alleging that he was convicted of more than one offence based on the same conduct."], "id": "5a5fee38-7742-40f0-b16b-511a910ae52d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant maintained that his right to a fair and public hearing was breached on three counts: firstly, he was never afforded an in the determination of his compensation claim; secondly, he was never given an opportunity to reply to the Public Prosecutor's written opinion submitted to the Bergama Assize Court and to the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court of Cassation on the merits of his appeal and, thirdly, on account of the low amount of compensation awarded to him in respect of non-pecuniary damage."], "id": "4357a50c-50d5-4650-97d0-1add81a99502", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government pointed out that all district court judgments could be appealed against to the appeal courts but the latter could decide, under Chapter 26, section 2, of the Code of Judicial Procedure, that the consideration of an appeal was not to be continued on the grounds expressly laid down in the said provision. The appeal courts were required to apply the provisions concerning the filtering procedure in a way that met the requirements of basic and human rights (see the Constitutional Law Committee\u2019s opinion 35/2002 concerning the government bill HE 91/2002). The Supreme Court had also, in some difficult cases, decided not to apply the filtering procedure as it had not been clear that the district court judgment had been free from errors. The domestic legislation thus guaranteed the right to an as well as the legal protection of an individual, by taking into account at the same time the right to a trial within a reasonable time."], "id": "cdfc2e78-feb5-4da8-820a-ebfe54fe5f99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant also argued that his right to a fair trial had been violated as he had not had the prior opportunity to prove the truthfulness of his allegations against C.T., which had constituted the basis of his conviction. However, the Court observes that the domestic courts\u2019 task in those proceedings was to examine whether the applicant had committed the offences of false accusation, perjury and slander and eventually to reject the accusations made against C.T. by the applicant. In order to do so, they had to examine if the allegations made by the applicant against C.T. were true, a matter closely linked with the charges against him, as the applicant himself admitted. The applicant was given the opportunity to examine witnesses, adduce documents, be represented by a lawyer and be heard by the domestic courts which examined his case. At the various stages of the proceedings he was able to submit the arguments he considered relevant to his case and an was held both before the first-instance court and the Court of Appeal, which had full competence to assess all the relevant facts and evidence. The applicant was therefore afforded all the guarantees of a fair trial in the proceedings against him and had had a real opportunity to defend himself and be acquitted."], "id": "68972c39-b84f-4227-afee-04d170a002fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government maintained that the Administrative Court of Appeal\u2019s assessment of written medical evidence had to be considered as rather technical in nature and it could be adequately resolved on the basis of the parties\u2019 written submissions. An would not have provided any new information. The judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal had been unanimous. Moreover, the proof required in the present case had been very high, which meant that the burden of proof could not be met if there were profound differences in the experts\u2019 opinions. Even though the applicant had not been represented by counsel, his interest had been properly presented and protected and he had been given ample opportunity to put forward his case in writing."], "id": "ac6140f0-b425-4e99-858d-3da5c9150b93", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government submit that the present case must be distinguished from previous cases by the Court concerning the same issue, in particular the case of Cooke v. Austria (no. 25878/94, 8.2.2000). Unlike Mr Cooke the applicant had been represented by the same defence counsel throughout the proceedings and, again unlike Mr Cooke, he had at no time expressed his wish to participate in the Court of Appeal\u2019s hearing. Thus, the Court of Appeal was not obliged to display particular diligence either but could assume that the applicant had waived his right to attend in person the ."], "id": "ad6e8a89-68fc-4946-b257-df958bfd3c82", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government maintained that, while the issue of fairness under Article 6 \u00a7 1 ought to be considered in the light of the entirety of the proceedings, there was nothing to indicate that those before the District Court were in any way unfair. Furthermore, the Supreme Court proceedings included a public and at which both parties, the prosecutor and counsel for the defence, were allowed to speak twice. In accordance with its consistent practice, the Supreme Court relied on the District Court's transcripts, which included the full testimony of both defendants and all the witnesses, and had been prepared on the basis of the tape recordings of the hearing. In this respect the present case differed clearly from that of the above-mentioned Botten v. Norway invoked by the applicant. In addition, the Supreme Court's case-file included all the other evidence submitted in the District Court proceedings."], "id": "3464864f-efa2-48fe-a333-a962d1e5b72c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government did not object to the hourly rate but considered the number of hours claimed excessive. In the domestic proceedings, only costs referable to the issue should be reimbursed and should not be reimbursed beyond SEK 4,000. In so far as costs before the Court were concerned, the Government considered 3 hours' work by Mr Antal and 17 hours work by Mr Jacobson to be reasonable. Thus, an award of SEK 28,500, V.A.T. included, would be reasonable in their view."], "id": "73a49413-d4c5-4922-8fd7-f9d70ba9719d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government considered that the applicant had waived his right to an before the County Administrative Court since he had not requested one before that instant. Moreover, they noted that the Supreme Administrative Court only determined whether or not to grant leave to appeal and, as a consequence of its refusal to do so, did not make a full examination of the applicant\u2019s case. The applicant did, however, have an opportunity to finalise his submissions. Therefore, the Government contended that the matter could be adequately resolved on the basis of the case-file and the written submissions and that, accordingly, the absence of an oral hearing before the Supreme Administrative Court had been justified."], "id": "0ffe28e5-608d-42c0-a195-73650b7b9612", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government noted that at the material time the Civil Procedure Law provided for an before the appellate court. However, the parties\u2019 attendance at appeal hearings was not compulsory, and courts were free to proceed with the examination of cases in the absence of one or both of the parties, unless the parties had not been adequately informed of the time and the place of the hearing or had given valid reasons for their absence (sections 156 and 209 of the Civil Procedure Law cited at paragraph 42 above). The Government argued that the Court had previously found that similar provisions in Russian law were not, in themselves, incompatible with the fair trial guarantees of Article 6 \u00a7 1 (citing Yakovlev v. Russia, no. 72701/01, \u00a7 20, 15 March 2005)."], "id": "603bd925-a043-4385-913d-15dafb5d0d99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant submitted that an could be dispensed with only if the person concerned had explicitly waived the right thereto and there were exceptional circumstances which justified not holding a hearing. He stated that the case had not concerned purely medical issues but had rather concerned the amount of the applicant\u2019s extra costs. This amount could not be derived from the opinions given in the medical certificates. Rather, the applicant had been the only one to give that kind of information and an account of his personal situation. It had therefore been indispensable to hold a hearing in order to complete the case file in these respects. Moreover, the County Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal disagreed on the issue whether the applicant\u2019s costs were such that he was entitled to the disability benefits requested. Thus, his case had been of a borderline nature which had further emphasised the need for an oral hearing."], "id": "10964e6a-4686-494e-a111-9b7eaa568256", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant claimed MTL 723.33 (approximately EUR 1,736) for the costs incurred at the domestic level. He produced a tax-inclusive bill in this respect, issued by the Registrar of the Courts. He further claimed a total sum of MTL 2,353.04 (approximately EUR 5,648), to which EUR 368 should be added, for the proceedings before the Court, these sums covering both his lawyers\u2019 fees and the costs of their attendance at the of 24 May 2005. The total sum claimed for costs and expenses was thus EUR 7,752."], "id": "38de4189-b8bc-40b7-8e6b-3acb0e6fb9f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government maintained that the application was inadmissible as the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies in respect of the lack of an . They referred to the Swedish Supreme Court\u2019s decisions of 9 June 2005, 4 May 2007 and 21 September 2007 in which the court had awarded individual compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage concerning the violation of different Articles of the Convention. In the Government\u2019s opinion, Swedish law provided a remedy in the form of compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in respect of any violation of the Convention, including violations consisting of the lack of an oral hearing within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The first of these Supreme Court judgments had been delivered more than a year before the present application was lodged with the Court. Accordingly, the legal position under domestic law had to be considered to have been sufficiently clear at the time when the present application was introduced before the Court. In this connection, the Government pointed out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy, which was not obviously futile, was not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies. The compensatory remedy which existed at the time of the introduction of the application to the Court had been available to the applicant at that point in time as the limitation period in respect of such a claim was ten years from the point in time when the damage occurred. Thus it had been open to the applicant to take full advantage of that remedy when she had filed her application with the Court. In any event, the said remedy was currently available to the applicant."], "id": "7b114647-e9d6-403e-872d-3ab5ec91c656", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant claimed that it would have been possible, without any difficulty, to arrange for the applicant and his counsel to put questions to R. during the proceedings. It had been the duty of the authorities, under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) of the Convention, to provide him with that opportunity, if not in the before the court, then by some other means. As to the Government\u2019s submission that he had not requested an opportunity to put questions to R. in the District Court, the applicant found it irrelevant, as he had made a request to that end in the appellate proceedings."], "id": "dcf71bdf-192e-49a5-96b8-ea42bb183976", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant maintained that the Court of Appeal should have held an since there were no exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with a main hearing in the present case. He had insisted that an oral hearing be held in order to rehear the witnesses from the District Court and thereby clarify certain obvious contradictions and misunderstandings between the testimonies. Moreover, he had wanted to be heard under oath. Thus, it was clear that the oral evidence was of great importance for the settlement of the case and that a main hearing before the Court of Appeal had been necessary to comply with Article 6 of the Convention."], "id": "1c0828ff-f16c-4794-ab72-3b489693b519", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government stated that the Tarsus Magistrates\u2019 Court had used its discretionary power under section 28 \u00a7 4 of the Misdemeanours Act and examined the applicant\u2019s objection without holding a hearing. They argued that the assessment of the applicant\u2019s objection had not required an and could adequately be done by the domestic court on the basis of the case file, as the mining operations conducted by the applicant outside of its licenced area had been a purely technical matter, established by an expert report and supported by sketch maps. They further noted that in his statements to the police, the president of the applicant company had also accepted that his company had acted in violation of the mining permit, although for a smaller area than that indicated in the inspection report. Consequently, the Government considered that, in the absence of additional information which could be obtained by means of hearing the applicant\u2019s legal representative or witnesses, and taking account of the concerns for efficiency in the handling of such cases, the lack of a hearing had not caused prejudice to the applicant\u2019s right to a fair hearing."], "id": "4ddeed8d-6d7d-41f7-832f-9b496dae3156", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s view. He maintained that the special features of the case at issue required that an be conducted by the Administrative Court, even more so because jurisdiction over his appeal against the District Administrative Authority\u2019s decision had passed on to the latter court. In particular, all questions of law had already been determined by that court\u2019s decision of 6 May 1996. In the subsequent proceedings it only had to establish the relevant facts for the assessment whether or not the applicant\u2019s project met the preconditions for granting the requested permission under the Landscape Protection Act. In the applicant\u2019s view, theses were rather simple questions of fact."], "id": "ae7b7a46-15df-4249-bf6b-c5b5f7f60ae2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant maintained that the lack of an before the Administrative Court of Appeal had violated her rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. It was true that she had not requested an oral hearing before the County Administrative Court but that was simply because she had expected the court to examine fully whether her need for assistance amounted to one hour per day as she had maintained. However, the court had not made such an examination."], "id": "73248e2f-acad-49b0-9870-c6b1c0527bec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government pointed out that Article 55 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court did not specify the cases in which the court was required to hold a public and (see paragraph 24 above). Accordingly, it was within its discretion to decide whether an oral hearing was necessary for the establishment of disputed facts. Since 2001 the Constitutional Court had held only four oral hearings in proceedings in respect of individual constitutional complaints."], "id": "cda2a374-334a-4bf4-b435-6830a32db7d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant emphasised that it was not the lack of an per se that was being criticised before the Court. What was being questioned was whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken and used, were fair. In the light of the Court of Appeal judgment the essence of the application as regards fairness was the lack of an oral hearing or any hearing at all of the parties before the Court of Appeal. Both the applicant and the prosecutor were equally surprised at the grounds and justifications given by the Court of Appeal in the first set of proceedings. In such circumstances, the reservation made by Finland was not the key element as the reservation could not be interpreted, as suggested by the Government, as a general reservation regarding the fairness of the Court of Appeal proceedings. Since it decided not to hold an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal was under an obligation to secure the fairness of the proceedings by other means. The applicant was convicted on the basis of evidence that had not been relied upon by the prosecutor in the District Court nor by the Court of Appeal. Fairness required the Court of Appeal at least to invite the parties' observations on R.'s and K.'s statements in the pre-trial investigation."], "id": "86abe507-9356-49b6-9a8e-3d7179dd7e7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government disagreed, arguing that the proceedings in their entirety had been fair. They referred to Fejde v. Sweden (judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212\u2011C), submitting that, as in that case, the Court of Appeal had considered that the appeal did not raise any question of fact or law which could not be adequately resolved on the basis of the case file. The actions of the applicant outside the building were undisputed: all that was disputed was the applicant\u2019s intention in raising the hammer, and the Court of Appeal had been able to determine the facts on the basis of the case file. The Government also pointed out that other considerations, including the right to a trial within a reasonable time and the related need for the expeditious handling of the courts\u2019 case-load, had to be taken into account in determining the need for an at second instance. Finally they argued that it followed from the domestic legislation that persons, who had no information material to the case, need not be called as witnesses. Considering S.H.\u2019s evidence at the pre-trial stage, it was highly improbable that hearing S.H. would have changed the appellate court\u2019s assessment of the case or that it would have been beneficial to the outcome of the applicant\u2019s appeal."], "id": "aea4ad83-40af-46dd-9321-24b82fcea220", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant argued that he had requested an on the following grounds. The tax inspector had misinterpreted testimonies given in a pre-trial investigation and the applicant\u2019s view regarding the contents of those testimonies differed from that of the inspector and the tax authority. In the applicant\u2019s view, it was clear from the pre-trial statements of Mr J.J., Mr H.S, Mr R.K and Mr M.V., the managing director who had ordered the sub-contracting work, that Mr J.J. and Mr H.S were liable to pay tax. The applicant had also asked the Administrative Court not to examine the case until the conclusion of the criminal case or at least until the consideration of charges had been completed. Furthermore, an oral hearing had been necessary to clarify the case and the applicant\u2019s right to due process required that the case should not be decided solely on the basis of pre-trial testimonies since the reliability of those had to be ascertained by further questioning before the court."], "id": "e18494b8-fa84-4960-9450-1e78e6058d8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant further submitted that, as certain technical issues were involved, an where she could plead in person was indispensable for the correct and fair examination of her case. Moreover, had she been allowed to address orally the Supreme Court, she could have shown better that the participation of the respondent company's representative without proper authority was a grave procedural violation and justified the quashing of the appellate judgment. Finally, agreeing with the Government that the CCP did not oblige the cassation court to forward the respondent's reply to the appellant in cassation, she claimed that this \u201cprocedural shortcoming\u201d, coupled with the absence of a hearing, had undermined her rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "3955d983-5af7-4792-9afb-adee61b23fcb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government maintained that the lack of an before the administrative courts did not violate the applicant\u2019s right to a fair and public hearing within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The right to an oral hearing was not absolute. Social security disputes were generally rather technical, their outcome usually being dependent on written opinions given by medical doctors, and many such disputes were better dealt with in writing than in oral argument. The administrative courts had to have regard also to the demands of efficiency and economy: systematic holding of oral hearings could be an obstacle to the particular diligence required in social security cases."], "id": "c4400622-7085-4a97-9c11-314a79e49bb9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government maintained that the lack of an before the administrative courts did not violate the applicant\u2019s right to a fair and public hearing within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The right to an oral hearing was not absolute. Social security disputes were generally rather technical, their outcome usually being dependent on written opinions given by medical doctors, and many such disputes were better dealt with in writing than in oral argument. The administrative courts had to have regard also to the demands of efficiency and economy: systematic holding of oral hearings could be an obstacle to the particular diligence required in social security cases."], "id": "cf812043-aa60-4f34-9d6f-83a8d850f37e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that the Supreme Court of Georgia had dispensed with an in her case. She further challenged the outcome of the proceedings, claiming that the appellate and cassation courts should have endorsed the judgment of the first instance court. The invoked provision, in its relevant part, reads as follows:"], "id": "6336dacc-d8b5-4c2a-b35e-c15ff4ac887e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant stated that he had explicitly requested an before the Appeals Commission and before the Constitutional Court. He defined the question to be answered in the appeal proceedings as being how much the applicant\u2019s actual work had changed in the new post, which needed to be considered as a question regarding the facts and the law."], "id": "6697dbea-6869-46ed-b621-f38a6c90c2d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant was thus in principle entitled to a public before the first and only tribunal examining his case, unless there were exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with such a hearing. The Court has accepted such exceptional circumstances in cases where proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, \u00a7 58, Series A no. 263; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; and Speil v. Austria (dec.) no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002)."], "id": "907dfe8a-1e22-4f42-bd57-c6d218dc4d82", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government argued that there had been no breach of the applicant's right to an before a tribunal as the special features of the proceedings constituted \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d which justified the absence of a hearing. They noted in this regard that in her submissions to the Administrative Court the applicant had not substantiated her complaint relating to the fulfilment of the conditions required for a key worker or made out a valid case in support of her request for an oral hearing. Furthermore the other questions at issue had exclusively been questions of law, so that the Administrative Court had been able adequately to decide the case on the basis of the case file."], "id": "65393647-3797-48a0-96f5-cd73062ab261", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant submitted that an could be dispensed with only if the person concerned had explicitly waived the right thereto and there were exceptional circumstances which justified not holding a hearing. She claimed that an oral hearing had been indispensable in her cases, as the investigation made by the Office had been inadequate and had led to erroneous assessments and the information available to the courts thus had been insufficient. It is true that she did not propose that any witnesses or experts be heard. However, an oral hearing would have given her the opportunity to describe her medical problems and resulting difficulties in resuming her work. Also, she would have been able to show, for example, how much her income had decreased due to her industrial injury."], "id": "05301523-d1b1-47ae-81b9-1ae7fa152dbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["116. The Government considered the number of hours of work stated by the applicant to be excessive. They pointed out that much of the work performed related to both the present case and V\u00e4stberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden (no. 36985/97, 23 July 2002). The held by the Court, however, justified a larger award for costs in the present case. The Government accepted the hourly rate claimed for the assistant lawyer but found that an hourly rate of SEK 1,500 would suffice for the applicant's counsel, bearing in mind that the rate currently applied within the Swedish legal-aid system is SEK 1,221 inclusive of VAT."], "id": "fce0653a-2106-42c3-82b2-aa2945177409", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained that the Local Court had automatically confirmed the personal observations of the police officers which were the sole basis for his conviction for the minor offence. According to him, the domestic court could not have properly assessed the facts of the case without conducting an . In particular, the proposed hearing of Y, who was the only witness present on the scene, was not in any way an attempt to delay the proceedings."], "id": "6ca5c973-de71-4c05-bf78-cf0118f52c6c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government argued that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded as the Court of Appeal had expressly stated that it upheld the District Court's judgment in full, and had appended the lower court's judgment to its own. They stressed that this technique of drafting and presenting the judgment was in accordance with Swedish legislation and legal tradition. Moreover, they claimed that it had not hindered the applicant company from appealing in an effective way against the judgment, as was evident from its submissions to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the fact that the Court of Appeal did not mention the new evidence invoked by the applicant company was clearly because it had no bearing on the outcome of the case. Thus, the Government considered that the proceedings had been fair, noting that the applicant company had had the benefit of adversarial proceedings, including an , and had been able to present all the arguments and evidence which it considered relevant to the case."], "id": "95c70e5e-4a11-4ff7-8267-03ffa0f770b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant also complained, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, about the lack of an before the Administrative Court and about the outcome and length of the proceedings. She further complained under Article 13 of the Convention of a lack of effective remedies against the Administrative Court\u2019s judgment. She additionally complained under Article 14 of the Convention that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her Serbian origins. Finally, she complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she had been deprived of her severance pay."], "id": "8d8cdf3b-0766-46ed-b3a8-afd9a965cd22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about the lack of a fair hearing as they were not allowed to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf as the identity of the police officers who had been at the place of the events at issue was not revealed to them by N. during the District Court proceedings, and as the Court of Appeal refused to hold an or to refer the case back to the District Court."], "id": "b691e605-a2ac-4b0b-8e4c-abd8404ce2aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him as he had not invoked in his application for leave to appeal or in the appeal to the Supreme Court the fact that no possibility to submit additional comments was given to him when the Appeal Court had decided not to hold an . Accordingly, this complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 \u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "5bb7bec7-0543-4d72-a97f-620af592a150", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant argued that the reservation made by Liechtenstein in respect of the publicity of proceedings did not extend to holding an with the parties alone, including the questioning of witnesses. Article 6 \u00a7 1 guaranteed three distinct rights, namely the right to a controversial oral hearing, the right to a public hearing and the right to a public pronouncing of the judgment. Under the Court\u2019s case-law, reservations had to be interpreted in a restrictive manner (the applicant referred, inter alia, to Schmautzer, cited above). Liechtenstein\u2019s reservation only concerned the publicity of the hearing and the public pronouncing of judgments. It did not cover oral hearings, be it in camera, with the parties alone being present."], "id": "bc4cca3e-4b13-42b8-9ef5-e127e915699b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant complained that the Supreme Court had dispensed with an of his cassation claim. He called into question the outcome of the domestic proceedings, claiming that the domestic courts had incorrectly assessed certain evidence and the circumstances of the case. The applicant invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, in its relevant part, reads as follows:"], "id": "de04ec12-b148-4af2-93d8-6d630479469d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government maintained that if the offence had been committed after 1 June 2005, that is to say, after the entry into force of the Misdemeanours Act and the recent Code of Criminal Procedure, the fine would have been imposed directly by the relevant official authority, without any court proceedings. They stated that the domestic court had taken the new provisions into account in the applicant\u2019s favour and had sentenced him to an administrative fine, which could not be converted into imprisonment and had not been registered in the criminal records. They argued that the outcome of the proceedings could therefore hardly be considered important for the applicant. They further argued that in the present case the relevant law had been clear and the facts undisputed, leaving little room for judicial discretion. The case file included many witness statements and an official report proving that the applicant\u2019s hotel was being used for prostitution purposes. Moreover, the applicant had been heard by the authorities during the preliminary investigation stage and had been able to submit his written arguments to the court during the course of the proceedings. The Government concluded that the imposition of an administrative fine without the holding of an did not contravene Article 6 of the Convention, in particular taking into account the requirement for efficiency and expediency in the administration of justice."], "id": "d0a89c65-0cc6-4f8d-b01b-ae508a1345ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant stressed that no provision is made in Law no. 466 for an to be held either before the assize court or, on appeal, before the Court of Cassation. However, a hearing was warranted in his case. He was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and had had to spend three days in police custody, during which time he was ill-treated. He was never given the opportunity to explain orally to a court in the context of an adversarial procedure the injustice which had been done to him and to his family. According to the applicant, had he been given the opportunity to state his case to the domestic courts, they would have been persuaded of the reality of the suffering which he and his family endured and of the harm caused to his reputation. In the event, he was awarded a derisory amount of compensation."], "id": "1294a408-5d66-43f0-ba9f-0d2e21360c8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant submitted that the Administrative Court had unlawfully dismissed his request to hold an , thereby depriving him of the opportunity to discuss the expert opinions in the context of a public hearing. Since an oral hearing could have elucidated the facts of the case, the Court's refusal to hold one was in breach of Article 6 of the Convention."], "id": "21ea73f7-9686-47cb-819e-af1bbbdbe1b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government pointed out that the assessment made by the Supreme Court of the applicant\u2019s possibilities to influence IT purchases did not differ from that made by the Court of Appeal. Instead, the Supreme Court had made a different legal assessment of the case, which had not been dependent on the extent to which the applicant had de facto influenced the business relationship in question. The Supreme Court\u2019s assessment was thus a pure legal assessment. Moreover, it appeared that the applicant had only wanted to have an if the assessment of evidence by the Supreme Court were to differ from that made by the Court of Appeal. However, according to Finnish law, such a conditional request for an oral hearing was not possible. There had been no dispute over facts as the Supreme Court had not reassessed the evidence presented in the Court of Appeal. The different outcomes had been due to a different legal interpretation by the Supreme Court of the essential elements of the offence and their application to the facts already established by the Court of Appeal."], "id": "af22b474-b163-4d77-b5a4-ff005d3d8caf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant replied that Article 408 \u00a7 3 of the CCP lacked clarity and foreseeability, as it did not specify the circumstances under which the cassation court could dispense with an . She further complained that the above provision did not oblige the cassation court to give reasons for such a decision or provide for an appeal. Moreover, none of the provisions of the CCP obliged the cassation court to give notice of its decision to dispense with an oral hearing prior to the delivery of a final decision in the case. The alleged shortcomings of Article 408 \u00a7 3 resulted in the Supreme Court's practice to dispense with oral hearings in an arbitrary manner, as in her case."], "id": "731640de-0d10-430c-b3fa-770ab1f7394a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant particularly contested the Government\u2019s argument that the documentary evidence submitted by the parties had been sufficient for the domestic court to fully establish the facts of the case (see paragraph 51 below). In his view, the mere fact that the proceedings before ordinary courts had lasted three years suggested that those courts had been unable to establish all the relevant facts with the required degree of certainty. In the same vein, he criticised the Government\u2019s argument (see paragraph 54 below) that, while asking that an be held (see Ad\u017ei\u0107, cited above, \u00a7 29), he had not specified what evidence should be taken at that hearing. For the applicant, requesting a hearing had implied that he wanted to be heard before the court. What is more, he had explicitly suggested that the recordings of his conversations via Skype with his son (see Ad\u017ei\u0107, \u00a7 27) be played and examined at a hearing."], "id": "f84f1008-2b95-4afd-aeb3-cd5fdeb92d25", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant company was thus in principle entitled to a public before the first and only tribunal to examine its case, unless there were exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with such a hearing. The Court has accepted such exceptional circumstances in cases where proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19-20, \u00a7 58; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; Speil v. Austria (dec.) no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002)."], "id": "b3718912-5a1a-4e46-9048-cef92448a6f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that, although in exceptional circumstances domestic law afforded convicted persons appealing to the Court of Cassation a partial right to conduct their own defence, that right did not entail any possibility of their taking part in the oral stage of the proceedings unrepresented. The very specific nature of appeals to the Court of Cassation served to explain the special features of the procedure followed by that court, the desirability of using specialist lawyers and, conversely, the limited importance given to oral hearings. The ordinary procedure in both civil and criminal appeals to the Court of Cassation entailed in principle compulsory representation by a member of the Conseil d'Etat and Court of Cassation Bar, a rule that did not in any respect contravene the provisions of the Convention. However, as an exception to that rule, French law did not make representation compulsory for the written stage of appeals to the Court of Cassation by persons appealing against conviction. Such persons were entitled to sign the notice of appeal and to lodge a signed pleading in person in accordance with the statutory rules. Regard being had to the essentially written nature of the procedure, all appellants therefore had the same rights to put forward their arguments, whether they were acting in person, or were assisted, either by a member of the ordinary bar or by a member of the Conseil d'Etat and Court of Cassation Bar. In addition, whether drafted by an appellant in person or signed by a member of the Conseil d'Etat and Court of Cassation Bar, the written submissions crystallised once and for all the arguments that could be made against the impugned decision, such that no further points could be added orally. It was neither necessary nor usual for members of the Conseil d'Etat and Court of Cassation Bar to make oral submissions: since oral submissions were optional under Article 602 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, members of the Conseil d'Etat and Court of Cassation Bar did not even attend hearings, save in the very rare instances when they wished to address the court at hearings in which the argument was always highly technical and largely incomprehensible to the layperson. Although appellants to the Court of Cassation could nevertheless make an application under an ordinance of 15 January 1826 for permission to appear in person, without being represented by a member of the Conseil d'Etat and Court of Cassation Bar, such applications were very rarely granted, as they were of no real benefit to an appellant lacking the requisite knowledge of the law governing appeals to the Court of Cassation or of the techniques used in such appeals. Offering appellants the right to make oral representations at the hearing would therefore only create an appearance that the adversarial principle was being observed, whereas that principle constituted a right that was intended to be concrete and effective, not purely formal. Moreover, in Voisine, cited above, the Court had acknowledged that the special nature of the procedure before the Court of Cassation could justify the monopoly of the right to make oral representations being reserved to specialist lawyers, notwithstanding its finding of a violation of Article 6 for the failure to communicate the advocate-general's submissions. Indeed, in Reinhardt and Slimane-Ka\u00efd (judgment of 31 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 666, \u00a7 106) the Court had said that the practice currently used, whereby advocates-general informed the parties' lawyers prior to the hearing of the tenor of their submissions and the parties' lawyers were entitled in cases where there was an to reply to them, afforded the parties an opportunity of apprising themselves of the advocate-general's submissions and of commenting on them in a satisfactory manner. In the Government's submission, only a practice of that type could guarantee an effective debate. Incidentally, statistical data for the year 2000 clearly showed that unassisted appellants were four times less likely to be successful in an appeal to the Court of Cassation than parties assisted by a member of the Conseil d'Etat and Court of Cassation Bar. That was a reflection of the difficulty experienced by unrepresented appellants in formulating valid points of law."], "id": "891b4ad5-595a-4987-b686-eb0c10f07926", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the evaluation of charges had been carried out by a disqualified prosecutor. He claimed that the new prosecutor had not evaluated the charges anew, begun a new trial or preferred a new charge. He further complained, under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 7 of the Convention, that the provision concerning the charge of a bribery violation in the Penal Code was so unclear that an official could not know beforehand whether his activities to collect money for an association would be assessed as criminal. Lastly, he complained that he had been discriminated against on grounds of his official rank because, if the charge had been dealt with by the District Court, an would have been held before the appellate court, namely, the Court of Appeal. Because of his capacity as a high-ranking government official, the case had first been heard by the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court had been the first appellate court. In addition, the way in which the applicant had been treated during the national procedure violated the principle of equality."], "id": "cf0dd2e0-4de5-4b87-80ff-51bd633fc850", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicants claim costs and expenses incurred, domestically and before the Court, in respect of themselves, their solicitors and counsel. These include a sum of GBP 2,616 for the applicants' own costs of postage and travel together with estimated costs of GBP 1,500 for attendance at any hearing and GBP 1,000 for expenses incurred in pursuing domestic remedies; the sum of GBP 14,702.30 for solicitors' costs and expenses, including estimated costs of attendance at an ; and the sums of GBP 17,654.38 for junior counsel and GBP 1,175 for leading counsel. This amounts to a total of GBP 33,531.68, inclusive of value-added tax (VAT)."], "id": "bb442693-d643-4f72-8b0e-e2a2036b66b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government maintained that the applicant had waived her right to an before the County Administrative Court as she had not requested an oral hearing to be held before that court. As to the proceedings in the Supreme Administrative Court, in the Government\u2019s view the applicant had not made a request for an oral hearing before that court either. The applicant had only requested that the Administrative Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment be annulled and that the case be remitted to that court for further proceedings as her request for an oral hearing had been rejected and an oral hearing was considered necessary to clarify the matter to be decided upon. Therefore, the Government considered that the applicant had waived her right to an oral hearing also before that court. In any event, the Supreme Administrative Court had only determined whether or not leave to appeal should be granted and, as a consequence of its refusal to grant leave to appeal, had not made a full examination of the applicant\u2019s case. The Government contended that the case could be adequately resolved on the basis of the case file and written submissions and, accordingly, that the absence of an oral hearing before the Supreme Administrative Court had been justified."], "id": "a627eef1-d9f5-42de-b676-9f165a67dbe7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant further argued that the Supreme Administrative Court should have granted him a hearing since the Administrative Court of Appeal had refused him one and it was in the interest of the fairness of the proceedings that he be granted one. In his view, an would not have been unnecessary and there had been no particular reasons against holding a hearing in his case. Furthermore, the appellate courts had in several other cases granted a hearing to determine whether or not to grant leave to appeal and so, by rejecting his request for a hearing, they had deprived him of his right to a fair procedure, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention."], "id": "9a4afe36-828f-4b04-b839-1147530dd719", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant submitted that the domestic courts had not adduced or assessed any of the evidence that he had proposed nor had they provided any reasons for failing to do so. The Government\u2019s own conclusions in that respect had been wrong (see paragraph 32 below). The examination of P.K. and V.P. had been requested in order that they could provide oral evidence about the reliability of the documentary evidence on the basis of which the Commission had established that he had collaborated with the security bodies. Owing to the absence of an during the proceedings, the applicant had been prevented from presenting his defence and challenging the authenticity and veracity of the evidence against him. Whether there had been collaboration with the former security bodies was a fact to be determined in each case separately on the basis of concrete evidence and facts. Accordingly, no general approach, as the Government seemed to have suggested (see paragraph 32 below), could have been applied. He further reiterated his arguments that the impugned decisions had lacked sufficient reasoning. The additional evidence (see paragraph 16 above) confirmed that his lustration had been politically motivated and had violated his rights."], "id": "92443f9f-ab75-4210-b42c-c6e0f45422bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant was thus in principle entitled to a public before the first and only tribunal examining her case, unless there were exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with such a hearing. The Court has accepted such exceptional circumstances in cases where proceedings concerned exclusively legal or highly technical questions (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, \u00a7 58, Series A no. 263; Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002; and Speil v. Austria (dec.) no. 42057/98, 5 September 2002)."], "id": "3a89d70e-3714-4d1d-9585-f18678e6b953", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government accepted that the late fixing of the applicant\u2019s tariff was a violation of Article 6. They emphasised however that the delay had not affected the applicant\u2019s eventual release date as he was unlikely to be released for some time because of the risk which he presented to the public. In any event, the tariff had been fixed by the Secretary of State in accordance with the judicial view. They submitted that as the applicant\u2019s tariff had expired it was no longer relevant to have an in regard to the tariff. "], "id": "b773db2f-0b58-4454-a55e-5cc6e51ebcd2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government submitted that the Administrative Court had found an manifestly unnecessary having regard to the tax inspection report, the other documents on the file and the fact that the applicant, Mr M.V., Mr H.S. and Mr E.N. had made statements on these issues during the pre-trial investigation. The reasons for the decision referred, inter alia, to the pre-trial statements of the applicant, Mr H.S, Mr M.V., Mr E.N. The applicant held Mr H.S. and Mr J.J., who were heard as suspects in the pre-trial investigation, fiscally and criminally responsible. The applicant further considered that, due to the lack of an oral hearing, the reliability of the pre-trial statements could not be checked. The Government observed that in his application the applicant submitted that, in the pre-trial investigation, he as an active partner as well as H.S. had been heard as suspects and M.V. and E.N. as witnesses."], "id": "ad240da3-af51-4456-acc8-5adbea7546f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant maintained that he had challenged in particular the District Court\u2019s evaluation of the testimonies and had requested that the Appeal Court reassess them. It was clear that the outcome of the case could only be based on the credibility of oral evidence. The applicant claimed that the girls\u2019 testimonies had not been credible. Also the fact that one of the judges had found the applicant\u2019s account of the facts to be more reliable and had given a dissenting opinion showed that the court had not been unanimous in evaluating the evidence. An in the Appeal Court could have revealed more facts of the case. Also the pre-trial investigation had been conducted in a very light manner as the applicant had not been questioned immediately after the events and the taxi driver had not been questioned at all."], "id": "fb3a6001-8381-4bf8-85ca-9192887594f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government, on the other hand, asserted that the principle of equality of arms had been respected in the criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant. They referred to the detailed opinion submitted by the court-appointed psychiatric expert and the fact that the applicant and his counsel had been afforded the possibility to question the expert at length during the . Moreover, the court-appointed expert had supplemented his opinion during the oral hearing and had responded in substance to the criticism voiced by the private expert. The domestic court had further thoroughly reasoned its dismissal of the request for a second expert opinion on the grounds of the conclusiveness of the opinion of the court-appointed expert. To allow an applicant in domestic proceedings to call a private expert as a witness would only lead to an unnecessary repetition of evidence with the goal of obtaining a more beneficial outcome for the defendant. Furthermore, the private expert could in any event assist the defendant and his counsel during the proceedings and guide them through the questioning of the court-appointed expert. While it was true that this possibility had only been introduced into the law with the criminal procedural reform in 2008, that particular provision had been the codification of what had already been the practice of the Supreme Court. The Government further stated that any decisions dismissing witness requests had been thoroughly and convincingly reasoned by the domestic courts."], "id": "91eaa15c-2333-467f-bbff-ac6eaf93b26d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["112. The applicant claimed EUR 1,177 for the proceedings before the Chamber, including EUR 850 for written pleadings, EUR 250 for translation of documents and EUR 77 for administrative costs, and EUR 2,193 for the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, including EUR 850 for written submissions, EUR 350 in connection with the preparation of the legal aid request, EUR 300 for preparation of the address to the Grand Chamber, EUR 250 for translation of written pleadings, EUR 300 for the appearance at the and EUR 143 for administrative costs."], "id": "4dfac55e-92da-4113-a8ee-32c8c8383a30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government argued that the applicant had had a fair trial with the possibility of an oral and public hearing at which the witnesses could have been cross-examined. The fact that he did not have such a hearing is not a result of a structural problem or deficiency in domestic legislation. A hearing had not been held because there had been no need for an oral presentation of the applicant\u2019s arguments. The applicant did not request an or ask for any particular evidence to be examined by the court, nor did he submit arguments which would call for a hearing. In his request for judicial review, the applicant admitted in substance that he had grabbed P.\u2019s neck. This was sufficient for the court to find that he had committed the respective regulatory offence. It would appear that the applicant\u2019s defence was based on the fact that he had been acting in defence of P.\u2019s child. The court dismissed this argument. The remaining arguments concerned merely legal questions. The applicant therefore could not be said to have challenged the facts as established by the officers, neither did he challenge the legal qualification of his conduct or the sanction."], "id": "f93d479f-571b-4240-ab78-f73775f847f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government submitted that the lustration proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case had been in line with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant had used all available means in the administrative proceedings to contest the initial findings of the Commission. That the courts had not given weight to his evidence did not mean that the proceedings had not been adversarial or had violated the principle of equality of arms. Any concerns as to the authenticity of the information in his file should have been decided, as stated by the Administrative Court, in separate proceedings before a competent court and \u201cbefore the impugned decision had been delivered\u201d. The Government also argued that the applicant had not requested an . Furthermore, it had been possible to decide all the issues of fact and law on the basis of documentary evidence and so holding an oral hearing would have been in conflict with the principles of economy and efficiency. Lastly, they maintained that the courts had provided sufficient reasons for their decisions. The courts had accepted the documentary evidence on which the Commission had based its decision as authentic and had regarded it as \u201cfacts\u201d."], "id": "31f1488f-c0f3-4c76-9a29-dd794fba1698", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government stressed that the first applicant never requested the domestic courts to hear him in person. He did not attend even the District Court hearing in person. It could be considered that the first applicant had unequivocally waived his right to be present in person at the . The punishment imposed on the first applicant had not been severe. As concerned the applicant company, the public prosecutor had already in his letter of appeal to the Appeal Court requested that the profit gained by the applicant company be forfeited to the State. This request could therefore not have come as a surprise to the applicants."], "id": "655006e8-9824-47ed-bdbf-63c32bf53b40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted that the applicant, who was represented by counsel, had failed to request a hearing in his complaints with the Constitutional Court and Administrative Court and must therefore be deemed to have waived his right thereto. In any event a hearing before these courts had not been necessary. Moreover, since matters subject to official secrecy are as a rule discussed in disciplinary proceedings and as the civil servant charged with a disciplinary offence is not restricted in his defence by the duty of official secrecy, the exclusion of the general public from an was therefore justified."], "id": "0446f697-4a3e-4c84-873d-c6e5a7e7ae12", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government concede that the authorities and courts dealing with the applicant\u2019s case had to determine a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and that no was held. However, in the Government\u2019s view, the applicant should have requested an oral hearing before the Administrative Court as that court was competent to determine the matter by way of a review satisfying the requirements of both Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7. Since the applicant made no such request, he implicitly waived his right to a hearing. "], "id": "2be170c4-6113-4d9f-a7a7-99d3c9501ea0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained that the lack of an in his case, including the fact that he was denied an opportunity to have witnesses called to give evidence on his behalf, constituted a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Moreover, he complained under this provision that the competent courts had failed to carry out an examination of the merits of his Article 6 \u00a7 1 complaint. In so far as is relevant this provision reads:"], "id": "fb978f33-f7f9-4d67-a3cf-90f3a76a662a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government argued that a hearing held in the absence of the defendant did not violate Article 6 of the Convention if the defendant was not punished for his absence in the proceedings and if his right to legal assistance was not restricted, on account of the fact that the defendant was represented in the proceedings by legal counsel. Moreover, the presence of the defendant at an was not necessary when the only questions addressed were those which merely required an assessment of evidence and did not relate to the personality of the defendant. According to the applicant's written submission, which was completely identical to the counsel's oral pleadings, he merely claimed that he had left the motor vehicle with a third person and that therefore the applicant's presence was not necessary. Moreover the IAP took full account of the applicant's submissions. Lastly, the Government argued that the applicant had waived his right to attend the hearing on 22 February 2005, since he had not presented any medical certificate as evidence of his sudden illness."], "id": "552d86c2-680e-4f9e-b0fb-d7b1c3a55d9b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant submitted that the legal conclusion of the courts in the second and third set of proceedings regarding the ownership of the property in question on the critical date, that is 25 February 1948, had been based on the 1947 decision. However, that piece of evidence had not been brought to the attention of the parties during the before the Regional Court and they had not able to comment on whether it even existed or was authentic."], "id": "c80575bf-13c4-44b3-91e6-92bc2d6c2b8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government submitted that, in the national proceedings, the costs and expenses which related to the present complaint, namely those concerning the request for an , may amount to a maximum of EUR 2,000 (including VAT). As to costs and expenses before the Court, they considered the claim somewhat high taking into consideration that there was only one complaint to deal with. Accordingly, in the Government\u2019s view, EUR 7,000 (including VAT) was reasonable for these costs and expenses."], "id": "b1e04ccb-dc08-4608-8729-808440099640", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government observed that, when examining the applicant company\u2019s case, the Supreme Administrative Court had considered that the matter was comparable in principle to criminal charges to which Article 6 of the Convention applied. Both the Market Court and the Supreme Administrative Court had held an in the matter to hear witnesses, and the applicant company had actively used its right to cross-examine those witnesses. The applicant company had not asked the Supreme Administrative Court to hear any witnesses other than those it had heard."], "id": "f1705be9-40ba-4772-8a7a-3b0a9502b5f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant submitted that in its decisions refusing to hear G., the Court of Appeal had stated that it would provide reasons in the final judgment, implying that the court had known the reasons when it had made its decision not to hear G. Had the applicant been provided with the reasons sooner, he would have been able to express his opinions on those reasons during the hearings. It appeared to the applicant that the court either had not known what G. could have testified about or that it had decided that his testimony was irrelevant. What struck the applicant was the fact that the appellate court had arrived at the conclusion that G. need not be heard as a witness before it had received any oral evidence or before any evidence had been discussed at the . The applicant considered that the court's behaviour suggested that it was pre-disposed to find him guilty."], "id": "399c836d-6629-4d1e-9d89-7fc6a90d3476", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government considered the number of hours of work stated by the applicant to be excessive. Noting that the invoices submitted were not specified and that the translation costs were not supported by any documentation, they submitted that the legal fees incurred in the domestic proceedings seemed to relate to the case as a whole and not only to work pertaining to the requests for an . As regards the work undertaken in the proceedings before the Convention organs, the Government pointed out that part of the application had been declared inadmissible by the Court on 4 May 2000 and contended that the change of counsel had entailed additional costs. If the Court were to find a violation in regard to the question of an oral hearing, they regarded as appropriate the award of a sum not exceeding SEK 31,500 in respect of costs and expenses."], "id": "20f073cf-860e-41b3-b0af-ca10375013e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government also adduced that nothing in the case indicated that H. had not fulfilled his obligations as defence counsel by providing the applicant with effective legal assistance. In seeking to have H. replaced by S., the applicant had given the District Court no reasons for his request and had not referred to any co-operation difficulties or lack of confidence in H. before the Court of Appeal. Moreover, he had not brought to the attention of the courts any particular shortcomings in the defence conducted by H. Although told by the District Court to state the reasons for his replacement request in writing, the applicant did not do so. A formal request for H. to be replaced by S. was not made until the case was pending before the Court of Appeal, at which stage of the proceedings a change of public defence counsel would have entailed substantial additional costs. The Government were further of the opinion that the assessment made by the courts of the need to replace defence counsel must clearly be considered as falling within the margin of appreciation afforded to a Contracting State when examining a question of this character. They also submitted that the minutes of the before the Court of Appeal did not indicate that the applicant had objected to H.\u2019s attendance as public defence counsel or that the applicant had been prevented from conducting his own defence."], "id": "6efadab8-2547-4a1e-b308-071fe6ef7fbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government submitted that there was no breach of Article 6 because, in the particular circumstances of the case, an before the domestic courts had not been necessary. Referring to the Court\u2019s case\u2011law in P\u00e1kozdi v. Hungary (no. 51269/07, \u00a7 27, 25 November 2014) they found an oral hearing dispensable where the court was able to clear up the matter fairly and reasonably on the basis of the parties\u2019 submissions and other written materials. The possibility of refraining from hearing the concerned party in person was not limited to rare, exceptional cases (with reference to Fexler v. Sweden, no. 36801/06, \u00a7 57, 13 October 2011). Referring to the Court\u2019s case-law in Suhadolc v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 November 2011) the Government argued that instances in which the domestic law places the question of whether or not to hold a hearing at the discretion of the courts having jurisdiction, complied with the Convention. In his application to the Regional Court the applicant had not raised any question of fact or law which could not be dealt with adequately on the basis of the file. The documents handed in were not sufficient proof to alter the case-law of the Regional Court as to the general assessment of the case, particularly as regards the character of the expropriation proceedings and the issue of whether the applicant\u2019s father had been subject to an arrest warrant."], "id": "09c15126-37ce-4047-b537-929050550d8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the proceedings for return of the child had been unfair. In particular, he complained that (a) the adversarial principle had been breached, in that the first-instance court had not informed him of the decision to obtain an opinion from a forensic expert, and he had not been involved in the expert\u2019s assessment; and (b) there had been a breach of his right to an , in that the courts had not held a single hearing in the case. The relevant part of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "0423ab7f-f913-4cfb-a41a-896a0df23b3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government, referring to the Court's case-law, argued that under exceptional circumstances the domestic courts, for reasons of efficiency, could refrain from holding a public and where only questions of law or highly-technical questions were to be determined or where questions of fact or law raised by the applicant did not require such a hearing. Since both the facts and the question of law had been determined in the light of the Administrative Court's constant case-law, it could abstain from holding a public hearing, thus avoiding further procedural delays. Furthermore, the applicant had failed to indicate why he considered a public hearing necessary."], "id": "10fe1baa-3821-4647-8cf1-66f0fe2d4680", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government submitted that, under Georgian law, the primary role of the Supreme Court in cassation was to review the lawfulness of appellate decisions (Article 408 \u00a7 3 of the CCP; paragraph 26 above). Thus, where the cassation court could not inquire into the circumstances of the case and was only called upon to assess the already established facts from a legal point of view, the parties' participation at an might not always be necessary. This rule could be justified by such legitimate considerations as the right to a hearing within a reasonable time and the demands of economy."], "id": "7ede2712-a8af-4f1d-b087-ee7b232d25c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that they had not had an before the Adana Assize Court for the determination of their compensation claims. They further claimed under the same provision that the proceedings did not comply with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement and that the amount of compensation awarded to them had been too low."], "id": "2a9bfae3-779b-4581-98b2-6f1df9160085", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants claimed that the length of the proceedings had been excessive, in particular as the duration of the proceedings in such a simple matter had exceeded eight years. It had taken eighteen months for the Office of the Prosecutor-General to decide on charges and that decision had finally been made three years after the pre-trial investigation had been completed. It had taken almost one year and ten months for the Appeal Court to examine the case although no had even been held."], "id": "985df351-ba36-4e6d-bc49-628c9bef7e62", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government submitted that the Supreme Court's final decision of 9 December 2002 had been sent to the applicant on 9 January 2003. As proof, they submitted a copy of the record acknowledging the dispatch of that decision to the applicant's address on the above-mentioned date by registered post. As the application was lodged on 16 August 2003, that is more than seven months after the final decision was sent to the applicant, the complaint about the absence of an did not satisfy the six months' requirement of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Government claimed that the relevant domestic law did not require the domestic court to obtain delivery records of its dispatches. They argued that, had the decision not reached the addressee, the postal services would have returned it to the Supreme Court. The Government also submitted a letter, dated 18 April 2007, from the Head of the Zestafoni post office, stating that the impugned decision was delivered to the applicant's address on 13 January 2003. This statement was not supported by any evidence."], "id": "996ba761-26ae-4cfb-ab85-c22d7014d3e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant maintained that there were no exceptional reasons capable of justifying the refusal to grant him an . His appeal against the Social Insurance Office's decision had raised both issues of fact and of law. These could not be determined solely on the basis of the medical records and opinions, since his claim for disability benefits was based not solely on his reduced functional capacity but also on his need for assistance and on the extra costs he had incurred. At an oral hearing the applicant would have been able to supplement the evidence by explaining his medical condition and its consequences in his daily life before he had reached the age of 65. Moreover, it would have enabled the national courts to put supplementary questions on these aspects to the applicant and to the witnesses he had requested be heard."], "id": "00307827-e434-42e8-8b5f-5816e7450ac6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicants complained that their right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention had been violated as the Appeal Court had convicted the first applicant and ordered the forfeiture of the profit gained by the applicant company without holding an and the Supreme Court had upheld this judgment. Due to the lack of an oral hearing, the applicants had not been able to present all evidence in the case."], "id": "4a969386-b15e-4aff-9ca4-5f125311b184", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government acknowledged, nevertheless, that hearings on appeal to the Court of Audit from a judgment of the regional audit office levying a surcharge against a public accountant were not public and that the parties were neither invited to attend nor even notified of the date. They pointed out, however, \u201cas a preliminary point\u201d, that, as the applicant had neither requested that the appeal be heard in public nor sought leave to address the Court of Audit before it ruled on his appeal, he was \u201cnot justified in complaining of the lack of an on the appeal before the Court of Audit\u201d. Furthermore, the lack of a public hearing on an appeal against a judicial audit of accounts was not, in any event, they argued, contrary to the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7 1 given the \u201cobjective\u201d and highly technical nature of judicial audits of public accounts (in connection with this point, the Government referred to the following authorities: Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263; Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, 15 July 2003; and Varela Assalino v. Portugal (dec.), no. 64336/01, 25 April 2002). Verification of the voluminous accounts submitted annually by public accountants, and of the existence and validity of the supporting documents produced for every sum spent or unrecovered, was far better dealt with in writing than orally. Moreover, the Government added, compliance with the adversarial character of proceedings was also guaranteed, at first instance, by the aforementioned \u201cdouble judgment\u201d rule, which protected the rights of the defence in particular. They went on to point out that, generally speaking, the public finance courts did not rule on charges brought against an accountant by a public body, but themselves identified, where applicable, operations that might engage the accountant\u2019s liability. They did not reach their decision until the end of adversarial and written proceedings, which placed the parties in a wholly identical position since judgments and interim rulings were served on them in accordance with the same formal requirements and gave them the same opportunity to reply; the public body concerned did not take part in hearings when these were not public either. In short, in the instant case the applicant had not suffered any disadvantage in the presentation of his case before the public finance courts compared with the school of which he was the accountant."], "id": "5d3d7511-a39c-4033-baf9-471a027a1225", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant submitted that the Administrative Court should have held a hearing in which questions of facts and law had to be discussed. He submitted that the relevant provisions of the Lower Austria Building Act required that an be held before the building authorities. The Administrative Court should therefore have held one. In addition, there was nothing to indicate that he should have given reasons for wanting an oral hearing."], "id": "ecd6fe52-210b-44d7-9fad-c973c0fa79f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government argued that the applicants had not sustained a significant disadvantage owing to the failure of the Constitutional Court to hold an oral and public hearing. An would not have contributed to the establishment of new or different facts. The relevant facts regarding the applicants\u2019 removal from the Parliament gallery had been undisputed between the parties and could have been established on the basis of written evidence submitted in support of the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaint."], "id": "96095811-8a82-465c-a498-f8bd1f7feaa8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal and that they had been denied an before the Court of Cassation. They further alleged that they had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence as safeguarded under 6 \u00a7 3 (b) of the Convention, because the State Security Court refused to grant them an extension of the time-limit for the preparation of their initial defence against the indictment by the public prosecutor."], "id": "9a5c9b17-f481-40e0-a993-dab5ab159edd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government, referring to the Court's case-law, argued that under exceptional circumstances the domestic courts, for reasons of efficiency, could refrain from holding a public and where only questions of law or highly technical questions were to be determined or where questions of fact or law raised by the applicant did not require the conduct of such a hearing. As the questions in the present case merely concerned the correct application of the relevant provisions of the Lower Austria Building Act, the Administrative Court could forego an oral hearing as those questions could adequately be decided on the basis of the case file. Moreover the applicant had not given any specific reasons why a hearing before the Administrative Court was necessary. In particular, he had not requested the Administrative Court to hear him in person."], "id": "0a8fe5b5-b07e-4479-bb87-213e9115b570", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government reiterated that, whilst section 9-15(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure stated that appeals against interlocutory orders and decisions should normally be determined following a written procedure, section 9-15(2) provided: \u201cAn shall be held if required out of regard to the need to ensure sound and fair legal proceedings\u201d [emphasis added]. In the present case, after having considered whether an oral hearing was required by the fair hearing guarantee in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the High Court decided to determine the applicant\u2019s appeal on the basis of the written case-file."], "id": "b13f3fc7-8652-454c-83fe-689999106fd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant was therefore in principle entitled to an before the Constitutional Court, because none of the exceptions laid down in the second sentence of Article 6 \u00a7 1 applied (see H\u00e5kansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, \u00a7 64, Series A no. 171\u2011A). However, no hearing was held before the Constitutional Court, even though the applicant had explicitly requested one and, moreover, the Constitutional Court did not give any reasons why it had considered that no hearing was necessary."], "id": "2d0094f1-603e-45be-b199-0e39dc2228d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government pointed out that the County Court in its judgment of 3 December 2010 had thoroughly assessed all the positions submitted by the applicant. It had justified the extent to which it agreed either with the plaintiff or the defendant and the reasons why. The court\u2019s decision to dispense with an in this case could not have had any effect on the content of the final judgment. Subsequently both the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court had arrived at the conclusion that no manifestly incorrect application of substantive law or a manifest and significant violation of procedural rights had occurred."], "id": "f5dcb448-2e6c-4896-8f3f-f735abee31c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government were of the view that there were exceptional circumstances in this particular case that justified dispensing with an . As could be seen from the County Administrative Court's reasoning in its decision of 15 January 1998, it had decided the issue in accordance with domestic law, in the light of the subject-matter to be determined by it and having regard to all the written material that was already available in the case. The main issue to be determined was whether the applicant's need for assistance and additional costs had reached the level required for a disability allowance under the 1962 Act. However, one prominent feature was that the assessment as to whether the applicant was entitled to a disability allowance had to be made in relation to a particular point in time in the past, namely when he had retired at the age of 65. That was in 1983, 13 years before the matter was brought before the courts. This fact alone indicated that the relevant basis for the assessment was the written material from that time."], "id": "c7c3a2b0-39a6-415a-accf-3cf2418077dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government submitted that, even if the Court were to find that Article 6 was applicable, there had been no violation of the applicant company\u2019s right to an before a tribunal as the special features of the proceedings constituted \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d which justified the absence of a hearing. The Government noted in that connection that in their submissions to the Administrative Court the applicants had not substantiated their complaint relating to the maximum quota or their request for an oral hearing. The Administrative Court had, therefore, been in a position in which it could decide the case on the basis of the case-file."], "id": "6489210b-fa1f-4a95-8935-23ba609f7146", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial had been violated as the Appeal Court had not made a full examination of his case and had not organised an but had used instead the so-called filtering procedure. According to the case-law of the Finnish Supreme Court, the filtering procedure could not be used if the adjudication of the case depended on the credibility of oral evidence. He claimed that this had been the situation in his case as the District Court had not been unanimous as far as the evaluation of the evidence was concerned."], "id": "98a4bf86-f1ee-4ff2-ba44-c93b160cf2bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government pointed out that there was no causal link between the applicant\u2019s pecuniary damage claims and the alleged violations of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. As to the non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered that the applicant\u2019s claims were excessive as to quantum and that the compensation for non-pecuniary damage in respect of the lack of an should not exceed EUR 1,300 and in respect of the excessive length EUR 800."], "id": "d8bc2fa6-64d1-4fb8-8749-4abc00196214", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government noted that at the material time the Law of Civil Procedure provided for a mandatory before the appeal court. However, the parties\u2019 attendance in appeal hearings was not compulsory and courts were free to proceed with the examination of cases in the absence of one or both of the parties unless the parties had not been adequately informed of the time and the place of the hearing or had failed to appear for justified reasons (section 209 of the Law of Civil Procedure, cited in paragraph 55 above). The Government observed that the domestic procedural law gave the domestic courts absolute discretion to decide whether to adjourn a hearing because of the failure of one or both of the parties to appear. In this regard the Government pointed out that it was primarily for the domestic courts to interpret and apply the procedural rules (Miholapa v. Latvia, no. 61655/00, \u00a7 24, 31 May 2007)."], "id": "6945b070-59b7-4f59-bfdb-f32d7c69cc64", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government maintained that in the present case the purpose of the applicant\u2019s request for an was to challenge the reliability and accuracy of the report on the tax inspection by cross-examining the tax inspector and the expert. They noted that the Administrative Court took the measure of inviting written observations from the tax inspector and after that a statement from an expert chosen by the applicant. An oral hearing was manifestly unnecessary as the information provided by the applicant himself formed a sufficient factual basis for the consideration of the case. The issue at hand was rather technical, being based on the report of the tax inspector. Such a dispute could be better dealt with in writing than in oral argument. There was nothing to indicate that questions of fact or law would have emerged which could not have been adequately resolved on the basis of the case file and the written observations of the applicant, the tax inspector and the expert. No additional information could have been gathered by hearing, as required by the applicant, the tax inspector or the expert in person. Furthermore, the applicant was given the possibility of putting forward any views in writing which in his opinion would be decisive for the outcome of the proceedings. He also had the possibility to comment on all the information provided by the tax authorities throughout the proceedings. Further, he was able to appeal to the County Administrative Court and Supreme Administrative Court, both of which had full jurisdiction on questions of fact and law and could quash the decisions of the tax authorities. The Government concluded that there were circumstances which justified dispensing with a hearing in the applicant\u2019s case."], "id": "8d89bfba-434b-4ce7-94e4-824c4b010bf8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "oral hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant alleged in general that the quality and the conclusions of the court-appointed expert\u2019s opinion had been wrongly assessed by the domestic courts. As to the private expert opinion, he considered that the fact that the court-appointed expert had been made aware of the private expert\u2019s comments did not suffice for the respect of the principles of a fair hearing, but that the court itself ought to have examined the private opinion in substance and taken a reasoned decision on which opinion to follow in its judgment. However, in the present case the domestic court had refused to admit the private expert opinion into the proceedings as evidence. The applicant also observed that the possibility for a private expert to assist a defendant and counsel during the hearing had only been introduced into the amended Code of Criminal Procedure in 2008. Further, the applicant claimed that allowing the private expert opinion would not have led to a repetition of evidence. The applicant alleged that the private expert was more experienced and had submitted a more extensive opinion based on his examination of him. He also asserted that in view of the unfair decision regarding the private expert opinion by the domestic court, the dismissal of the request to admit B.S., J.H. and A.U. as witnesses to testify regarding the applicant\u2019s character had been especially unjust. Lastly, the applicant complained that the Regional Court had not allowed him to put \u201cnumerous questions\u201d to the court-appointed expert in the course of the ."], "id": "95a74c6c-0c07-4b8c-b051-5657f7401aa6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government concluded that the applicant had been given a fair trial. In addition to the complaints made in separate proceedings, the complaints about the alleged violation of the applicant\u2019s had been raised in the main proceedings before the courts at three levels of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Tallinn Court of Appeal had excluded all the applicant\u2019s statements made during the pre-trial investigation from the body of evidence. That evidence had not been taken into consideration in reaching the judgment."], "id": "3f3714d4-b899-4264-b4ca-8beda4486b6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government contended that the applicant had lost his victim status in so far as by the final decision of 17 October 2003 the T\u00e2rgu Mure\u015f Court of Appeal had expressly admitted that the applicant\u2019s had been breached in that he had been questioned without a lawyer, and implicitly admitted that he had not had adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence. They observed that in application of that decision the case had been sent back to the prosecutor, who had then taken a statement from the applicant in the presence of a lawyer."], "id": "5d5b6a89-8661-4959-855f-8fdc92946884", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant considered misleading the Government\u2019s assessment that the evidence classified as secret had constituted only a minor part of his file. He submitted that some very important documents remained classified as secret and that he had a very limited access to them. These included the Militia\u2019s files which had constituted the main evidence against the applicant, receipts that he had accepted the money, the documents in which he had allegedly agreed to cooperate etc. Moreover, all the documents presented to the court by the Commissioner had been photocopies made from microfilms, which raised doubts as to their quality and genuineness. The applicant maintained that the classified evidence in his case covered documents produced by the former security services a long time ago which were no longer important for protecting the State\u2019s interest. Their confidentiality, however severely curtailed the applicant\u2019s in the lustration proceedings. As a result, he could not challenge the version of events put forward by the Commissioner."], "id": "3fc65de9-db9d-49ff-9519-416e975bd528", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant submitted that he had not had a fair trial and that he had been deprived of the right to put questions to M.H., whose statements played a decisive role in his conviction, in breach of Article 6 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. The applicant argued that his had been restricted to an extent incompatible with the requirements of this Article."], "id": "4300608c-d971-4fed-bdc9-9f3d65054727", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government also submitted that there was a marked difference between the present case and the case of F. and M. v. Finland (no. 22508/02, \u00a7 60, 17 July 2007), where the Court found a violation of the applicant\u2019s . In the said case, not a single interview between the psychologist and the complainant child had been recorded on audio or videotape."], "id": "3b8b2974-1320-4603-a0bb-ed781a561726", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained that he did not have a fair trial and that his had been violated since he had had no opportunity to examine or have examined, both during the investigation and at the trial, any of the witnesses against him. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provide:"], "id": "ab1ee750-d467-46b4-9e7d-ff2d7cba8a4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government considered that the applicant was able to defend himself through counsel of his choice and no restrictions on exercising the were imposed on counsel in the proceedings. The applicant\u2019s obligation to participate in the hearing was not related to the exercise of the right of defence but constituted a legitimate requirement that the defendant had to attend the court hearing and the foreseeable consequence of the failure to comply with this obligation was the refusal to examine the complaint. The Government noted that counsel could not give statements about the misdemeanour matter at the court hearing instead of the applicant."], "id": "ec865101-8494-4196-a296-503ca5380f8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["120. The Government further submitted that Mr Berisha was unsuccessfully summoned on a number of occasions to give evidence. However, he was not a decisive witness either for the prosecutor or the applicant. He enjoyed parliamentary immunity, the lifting of which by Parliament was a precondition to testifying. Relying on A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X), the Government contended that Mr Berisha\u2019s parliamentary immunity did not impose a disproportionate restriction on the applicant\u2019s . Moreover, security reasons had accounted for his non-appearance. In light of an attempt to murder Mr Berisha, his personal security could not be secured at trial."], "id": "85338772-9b3c-4fe2-b629-7c479f7d804d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government observed that the applicants had given their statements to the public prosecutor in the presence of a lawyer. Furthermore, they were reminded of their rights under Article 135 of the Code of Criminal Code by the Band\u0131rma Criminal Court. However, the applicants had opted to defend themselves and had not requested a lawyer before the Band\u0131rma Criminal Court, which had taken their statements under delegated powers, pursuant to Article 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They submitted that the applicants had thus enjoyed their . They further alleged that the applicants' statements were not the only evidence on which the Ni\u011fde Criminal Court had based its finding."], "id": "d9f8ae88-7377-4b4d-86cf-d0992ebf2d4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["155. The Government submitted that the Uzbek authorities had guaranteed that the applicants would not be prosecuted or punished for any offences committed before extradition which were not mentioned in the extradition request, and that they would not be ill-treated in order to obtain confessions or sentenced to death. The Government had also received assurances that the applicants' would be respected and that they would be provided with counsel."], "id": "443aa9f3-c288-4cf1-bc3c-b04abaa558aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant further complained about the unfairness of the proceedings as his had not been observed, and alleged that the presumption of his innocence had been infringed. The Court recalls that the question of whether court proceedings have been fair, as required by Article 6 \u00a7 1, can only be answered by examining the proceedings as a whole, i.e., only once they have been concluded (see H. v. France, judgment of 24 October 1989, Series A no. 162 A, p. 23, \u00a7 61 and Vass v. Hungary, no. 57966/00, \u00a7 47, 25 November 2003)."], "id": "532c7807-f33b-4d33-9cac-8f26d3dcee66", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant contends that neither he nor his lawyer was informed of the opinion the principal public prosecutor submitted to the Court of Cassation. Accordingly, he did not have the opportunity to respond to the prosecutor\u2019s opinion and to present his own arguments. Therefore, his rights to procedural equality and his were breached, with the result that he had an unfair trial."], "id": "0fad3edb-4f0d-49cd-b46e-f29affd788e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "rights of defence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicant complained that on the night of 3 May 2001, the prosecutor had not informed her of the charges made against her or of her right to remain silent, thus breaching irremediably the . She argued that the fact that she had been a criminal lawyer at that time should not come into play, as the law did not institute derogation from the right of defence for those in legal professions. She pointed out that the law prohibited the use of evidence obtained through compulsion or against the will of the accused."], "id": "da55e6e5-6f9b-468f-a3dd-96038be99d79", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["195. The applicant complained that the presiding judge had acted arbitrarily in deciding on the issues of admissibility of evidence and , in breach of the principle of equality of arms, the guarantee to examine defence witnesses under the same conditions as prosecution witnesses, and, more generally, the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "id": "b8fbfaa0-6597-4147-bae5-9c9a9411c25e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that they had been deprived of their right to a fair and public hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them. They stressed the fact that the courts had determined their case without holding a hearing. The applicants further alleged a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention in that they had not been informed promptly of the accusations against them as the public prosecutor's indictment had not been communicated to them. They also maintained that they had been deprived of their rights to defend themselves in person or through a lawyer, and to submit counter\u2011arguments and evidence, including the , within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b), (c) and (d)."], "id": "76f8d118-d8a6-449f-a1cb-05c4103e3982", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government argued that, in the assessment of the relationship between the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and the obligation to withhold information pertaining to ongoing police operations from the parties to court proceedings, a difference should be made between the withholding of facts not affecting nor relating to the case and the withholding of facts affecting or relating to the case. The right of everyone \u201cto examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) cannot be considered to extend to the examination of witnesses in respect of facts which do not affect or relate to the case."], "id": "b5eaa5e2-df58-472c-8883-0f0d721311de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["114. The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing as a result of the domestic courts' admission of statements obtained from him under torture and in the absence of a lawyer during his detention in police custody. The applicant maintained also that he had not been informed promptly of the nature and cause of the accusations against him and that he had not been able to secure the attendance and on his behalf in the proceedings brought against him."], "id": "e0b25cd2-18fa-4be1-baa9-f0a98ea3b5cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained under Article 6 that the principle of equality of arms had been violated and the length of the proceedings had been excessive. He complained that, unlike the public prosecutor, he had been deprived of the opportunity to attend the session of 2 November 2005 before the Court of Appeal; that the witnesses' statements to the company's management had been communicated to him with a one-year delay, which had put him at a disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis the prosecution; that the on 6 May 2004 had occurred in his absence; that the courts had refused his request for a re-examination and that the courts had examined only 6 witnesses for the defence \u2013 far fewer than for the prosecution. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "99316ccc-c144-45a1-b8ab-d6a7960140a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government, after emphasising that there was no provision of domestic law which would prevent the President of the Republic from joining criminal proceedings as a civil party, in the course of his term of office, pointed out that, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case-law (Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, ECHR 2003\u2011V), it would not be useful to hold an adversarial for each side if the conviction was not based on witness statements. The Government observed that in the present case, it could not be seen from the decisions of the domestic courts that the arguments developed by Mr Sarkozy, particularly in his criminal complaint, had been used in evidence against the applicant. His conviction had been based on other findings, in particular the statements of another defendant and his own confessions. Moreover, he had never asked for testimony to be taken from the President."], "id": "a532413e-81c4-4fed-a5a2-43b784b6b7df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross- and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial."], "id": "67ddc7b1-43d8-430a-8d03-fbce0368710b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government noted that the applicant\u2019s lawyer had requested that witnesses residing in another State be examined, and therefore he had to be aware of the procedural rights guaranteed to the defence under two relevant international legal instruments: the Minsk Convention and the European Convention. However, it does not follow from the applicant\u2019s submissions or available materials that the applicant\u2019s defence counsel had ever requested to participate in the in accordance with Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine. Furthermore, should his request have been accepted the lawyer could have either participated himself or instructed local lawyer in Russia to participate on his behalf in the examination of the witnesses. They asserted that the trial court could not interfere in such a matter by arranging for such participation of its own motion. Therefore, the Government considered that the applicant had failed to avail himself of the remedy envisaged by the international conventions on legal assistance in criminal matters; in particular, he had not requested that his defence counsel be allowed to participate in the execution of the letters rogatory for examination of the witnesses residing outside Ukraine."], "id": "cd285a45-a519-4952-bb5e-99d635b05ce7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant argued that the refusal of the Court of Appeal to hear G. as a witness had deprived him of his right to obtain the attendance and on his behalf. G. had been of crucial importance to his case as the documents allegedly drawn up by him had been decisive in leading the Court of Appeal to conclude that there had been an intentional plan or conspiracy to commit the offences. G. had managed all the companies which had allegedly transferred assets abroad illegally and could have provided crucial information. G. had not even been heard in the pre-trial investigations, which had made it impossible to verify the content of the documents allegedly drawn up by him."], "id": "fef0fb94-6b3f-4d6e-abdb-bbea8b33c678", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["149. The applicant complained that in the criminal proceedings against him he had not been afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence and have confidential meetings and discussions with his lawyers throughout his trial, that the domestic courts had failed to ensure that he could exercise his right to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and on his behalf under the same conditions as applied to witnesses against him, and that the appeal hearings in the Supreme Court had been held in his absence. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "id": "3a3aa549-2450-4fc6-b18b-6d5a83523f04", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of his rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that he understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to provide him with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of his own choosing and to prepare his defence, to allow the cross- and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial."], "id": "fabe711f-ad02-46fe-851e-3e8f6adaf21c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about the lack of a fair hearing as they were not allowed to obtain the attendance and on their behalf as the identity of the police officers who had been at the place of the events at issue was not revealed to them by N. during the District Court proceedings, and as the Court of Appeal refused to hold an oral hearing or to refer the case back to the District Court."], "id": "aaee72dd-d4de-4aba-8461-86c332796e4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant made several complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention that the proceedings against her were unfair. In particular, she submitted that (1) the principle of equality of arms was violated, because she was in an unequal position in comparison to the prosecution; (2) the court was biased; (3) it heard primarily witness testimonies which supported the police's version of events; (4) it failed to give adequate reasoning in its judgment and did not perform a thorough analysis of the presented evidence; (5) she was not informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against her; (6) she did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence as a result of the proceedings having been organised very quickly and in view of the fact that after her arrest she had been held in isolation at the police station; (7) she was not provided the opportunity to retain an attorney of her own choosing; and, (8) she was denied the right to obtain the attendance and on her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against her even though she indicted she could do this on several occasions during the court hearing of 8 September 1999."], "id": "a8861329-caa3-4243-8b45-2bd15c86936b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["129. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a fair and public hearing during the appellate proceedings had been restricted, that he had been unable to obtain prepared to testify on his behalf, and that the court had been biased in favour of the prosecution and had rejected the majority of his petitions without justification. Article 6 provides, where relevant, as follows:"], "id": "e7e68498-8f0a-4c7f-af50-6904dc015da3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained about the outcome of the proceedings against her, stating that they had been unfair. In particular, she submitted that the proceedings had not been public, that she had not been provided with adequate time and facilities to prepare her defence, and that she had not been able to obtain the attendance and on her behalf, since she had not been informed in advance of the hearing of 6 November 2000 and had not been able to consult a lawyer. She argued that the court-appointed lawyer was not her lawyer of choice. The applicant invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b), (c), and (d) of the Convention in this regard."], "id": "cfaa251c-7e24-46b8-a9b9-30bce3d27e58", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross- and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "id": "1fac9215-aee6-4daf-ba27-ebbcdf4592db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government argued that the fairness of the criminal proceedings had to be assessed in view of the proceedings in their entirety. They pointed out that in legal practice in Estonia the obligation to make an initial assessment of the evidence lay with the court of first instance. Pursuant to Article 15 \u00a7 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a county court judgment could only be based on evidence which had been orally presented and directly examined in the court hearing and noted in the court records. However, under Article 15 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appellate court, unlike a county court, could also base its judgment only on the evidence which had been directly examined in a county court and disclosed in appeal proceedings. The Government distinguished legal systems where the domestic law allowed additional in the appeal proceedings from those where that was not allowed. Under Estonian legislation, the accused or his counsel could also request witnesses to be summoned to the hearing in an appellate court. The right of the accused under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention to directly examine the witnesses against him was thereby secured."], "id": "363fe7bd-7424-4e6b-b1b4-3b2a95ea1cbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that they had been deprived of their right to a fair and public hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them. They stressed the fact that the courts had determined their case without holding a hearing. The applicants further alleged a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention in that they had not been informed promptly of the accusations against them as the public prosecutor's indictment had not been communicated to them. Finally, they complained that they had been deprived of their right to submit counter-arguments and evidence, including the , within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) and (d)."], "id": "6bb9c0c7-8eee-4eb4-a1e6-1e4ebde24bce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government further submitted that examining the witness under the general rules for would not have added anything to the process of establishing the facts. Furthermore, the applicants were not prevented from presenting their version of the events and stating their arguments concerning the witness\u2019s testimony. Their conviction was based neither solely nor to a decisive extent on the evidence produced by that witness. That was confirmed by the domestic courts, which ruled on the basis of the principle of free assessment of evidence (\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b\u043e \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043b\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434\u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0446\u0435\u043d\u043a\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u043e\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0438\u0442\u0435). They analysed the evidence produced by the undercover witness carefully and assessed its credibility in relation to other available evidence, in particular the audio material. Furthermore, the witness was warned about the legal consequences of false testimony."], "id": "50aec5f7-4543-42ee-8be3-5abc24c5638f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government submitted that the concealment of the identity of the undercover agent who had given oral evidence at the trial had been justified in view of the respondent State\u2019s struggle against organised crime. It was not disputed that the undercover witness had been an agent employed in the DEA\u2019s Athens office. He had also been authorised by the Macedonian public prosecutor to be used in the operation against the applicant. The applicant had not contested, either in the domestic proceedings or in the proceedings before the Court, the need for protection of the identity of this witness. Even if his identity had been disclosed or he had been examined under the general rules for it would not have added anything to the process of establishing the facts. In this connection, they submitted that the applicant\u2019s conviction had been based neither solely nor to a decisive extent on the evidence produced by this witness. The admissibility of that evidence had been confirmed by the domestic courts, which had ruled on the basis of the principle of free assessment of evidence (\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b\u043e \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043b\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434\u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0446\u0435\u043d\u043a\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u043e\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0438\u0442\u0435). They had analysed the available evidence carefully and had provided sufficient reasons for having regarded the evidence produced by the undercover witness as credible. The trial judge had known the identity of that witness; she had established that the witness had been involved in the events recorded on the video material; she had followed his behaviour during examination and drawn conclusions about his reliability. That the applicant and his lawyers had not attended the oral examination of this witness had been in compliance with the applicable rules at the relevant time. Live streaming media, with the possibility for face and voice distortion, had become available later. The public prosecutor, although present at the oral examination, had not put any questions to this witness, as evident from the relevant court record. Furthermore, the witness had been warned about the legal consequences of false testimony."], "id": "082f3949-13ea-4543-9c45-381c47cf95bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["95. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross- and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "id": "92473819-406b-4493-837c-0d02d8084b6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the case had been of some complexity as it required the determination of a number of questions concerning the persons whose property rights could have been affected by the proceedings at issue; it also involved the assessment of intricate factual circumstances and had been complicated by the fact that the applicant on several occasions amended her claims and had been involved in other proceedings closely related to the dispute in question. In this respect the applicant submitted, first of all, that the essence of her complaint was to challenge the decisions of the local administration and the lawfulness of the sale contract, which did not represent any particular complexity from the standpoint of legal analysis. The case did not call for any lengthy process of establishing the factual circumstances, or performing complex expert examinations. Secondly, the parties to the proceedings were determined as early as 25 February 1999, and no modifications in this regard were made by the end of the proceedings. The proceedings relating to other claims filed by the applicant did not obstruct the proceedings in question as they were not directly linked to the merits of the complaint at issue. Thirdly, neither the issue of succession after the decease of the applicant\u2019s mother could impede the proceedings, given that it had been settled as early as 1996-97. Since then the applicant had been acting on her own behalf. Finally, after the judgment of 19 November 1997 had been quashed by way of supervisory review it took the domestic courts one or two hearings to decide on the merits of the case."], "id": "57fac748-8985-44f3-bcbd-ceb202b86d56", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government noted in their observations that under the domestic law courts should always allow the who had arrived at court and were prepared to give evidence. As to witnesses who were absent, courts had discretion as to whether or not they should be called. Mr M., at the moment of the applicant\u2019s trial, had been serving his prison sentence in the penitentiary institution. His name had not been specified \u201cin the list of witnesses subpoenaed\u201d for the defence. Consequently, the District Court had decided that his appearance was not necessary."], "id": "d9c735ac-7d24-4bd6-892d-979c8f505ca3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["10. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that they had been unable to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance, as there had been no public hearing in their case. They further stated that the indictment of the public prosecutor had not been served on them. In this respect, they complained that they had been denied adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and the possibility of submitting counter arguments and evidence, including the , in breach of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a), (b) and (d) of the Convention."], "id": "ddc2e424-b389-43ea-96c6-a10680ce52d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["127. The Government submitted that the first and third applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the part of the complaint relating to the alleged lack of impartiality of the Assize Court\u2019s judges. They further submitted that the third applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the parts of the complaint relating to the , the provision of adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, and the right to effective legal representation."], "id": "f26e3769-bc36-461e-bc44-a1fe78fdb969", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant maintained his complaints. He submitted that after being removed from the courtroom he was unable to participate in the and the assessment of other evidence, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. Nor had the court appointed a lawyer to represent him during the trial despite his requests. In response to the Government's submissions regarding his victim status, the applicant argued that the measures taken by the Russian authorities did not constitute adequate redress. According to the applicant, such redress should have included monetary compensation since the appeal judgment had not been quashed until three years later. Nor had his rights been restored in full. Merely appointing a lawyer to represent him during the appeal hearing had not been sufficient to restore his rights."], "id": "1ca4a2ce-a942-48e0-9eb0-1b7b90466401", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of his rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that he understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to provide him with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of his own choosing and to prepare his defence, to allow the cross- and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "id": "006dc57e-bec1-4566-b447-217ab5bedc9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3(d) that he was refused the attendance and on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, that the Court of Appeal refused him an oral hearing and subsequently the right to supplement his appeal after he had been denied a hearing and that the Court of Appeal ignored his written evidence."], "id": "3c6140bf-6d09-40df-bc2e-9126ba3b0c6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government observed that the depositions of the witnesses in question had been taken on commission, a measure justified by the concern to safeguard their physical integrity in view of the poor level of road safety. They further noted that domestic law had made clear provision for that method of examining witnesses and that the applicant had been perfectly entitled to apply to the courts delegated to take evidence in order to attend the and to be confronted with them (see paragraphs 61 and 62 above). They added that the trial court had also taken other evidence into consideration in establishing the applicant's guilt."], "id": "0636dcfe-7d1c-4a43-9f42-807a1de554b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross- and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial. Lastly, there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the \u201ccourt\u201d which tried the applicant was neither impartial nor fair."], "id": "f0b722d3-c786-4900-8ad6-aa37407c326a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government contended that the applicant had been assisted by one or more chosen legal representatives during the proceedings. He had denied having committed the offence from the beginning of the investigation and had had the opportunity to examine witnesses and to obtain the attendance and on his behalf under the same conditions of witnesses against him."], "id": "1d99849c-6f0e-4648-8670-4cbe969c6ed2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant argued that the refusal of the Court of Appeal to hear G. as a witness had deprived him of his right to obtain the attendance and on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him. G. had been of crucial importance to his case as the documents allegedly drawn up by him had been decisive in leading the Court of Appeal to conclude that there had been an intentional plan or conspiracy to commit the offences. G. had managed all the companies which had allegedly transferred assets abroad illegally and could have provided crucial information. G. had not even been heard in the pre-trial investigations, which had made it impossible to verify the content of the documents allegedly drawn up by him."], "id": "0843deb3-663a-4973-b449-c133ff5b89e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the instant application was an exceptional case in which the applicant had been denied each and all of the basic fair-trial guarantees provided for in Article 6 of the Convention. The violations of her rights included inter alia a failure to inform the applicant promptly, in a language that she understood, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her, to provide her with adequate time and facilities to find a lawyer of her own choosing and to prepare her defence, to allow the cross- and to provide the applicant with proper interpretation and a transcript of the trial."], "id": "c9f19a63-9293-4d14-8c98-c37d84bb52dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government observed that the applicant had not indicated the identity of the witnesses whom he had been unable to have reheard, but they presumed that he was referring to the witnesses whom he had wished to cross-examine a second time according to the submissions he had filed at the hearing on 12 December 2003, namely S.N, J.M., L.L. and A.R. Those witnesses had all given evidence to the Assize Court and the applicant and his counsel had been able to put to them any questions they wished and to challenge any evidence adduced by the prosecution and the civil parties. With regard to the persons not featuring on the list of witnesses submitted to the Assize Court before the start of the trial and the witness who had refused to appear in court, the Government pointed out that the Assize Court had held that the examination of those witnesses would tend to prolong the proceedings needlessly and would not produce any results. They noted that Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) in principle left it to the domestic courts to decide whether the was necessary."], "id": "cb650b31-5d26-43b2-984e-485aa6507c90", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "examination of witnesses", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants bore the burden of proving the truth of a large number of allegations covering a wide range of difficult issues. In addition to the more obvious disadvantages of being without experienced counsel to argue points of law and to conduct the examination and cross- in court, they had lacked sufficient funds for photocopying, purchasing the transcripts of each day's proceedings, tracing and proofing expert witnesses, paying the witnesses' costs and travelling expenses and note-taking in court. All they could hope to do was keep going: on several occasions during the trial they had to seek adjournments because of physical exhaustion."], "id": "b1d96057-435e-40e3-bcd5-f420e426372d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant also submitted that the Land Office or the Municipal Court had not considered the fact that although the lands in issue had been expropriated in 1949 and assigned to the natural persons in 1957, they had remained under the control of the State Forest Enterprise or agricultural cooperative. The natural persons had thus formally owned the lands but had never used them. The applicant argued that the administrative file had not contained any documents which would have given any detail concerning the owners of the lands. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the facts of the case had correctly been established by the Land Office. However, as it applied section 250(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Municipal Court deprived the applicant of the possibility of raising these objections at a ."], "id": "4057f2ad-1ff2-4172-8848-3547a989701c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings. It further complained that there had been no before the Supreme Court which on 28 February 2002 and 26 October 2004 had quashed the decisions of the first-instance court and returned the case to the latter court. It also complained that the Constitutional Court, by partly dismissing its complaint, had breached its right of access to a court. It relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "ff693ef1-a457-462c-b7d0-6d378174b742", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant argued that, before the Constitutional Court rendered its decision of 30 April 2009, she had not known, nor could have known, that judges M.J. and D.\u0160. would sit in the case. This was so for two reasons. First, given that under section 68 of the Constitutional Court Act that court, as a rule, decided on constitutional complaints in a panel of six judges and only exceptionally in a plenary session (see paragraph 25 above), she could not have known in advance in what formation the Constitutional Court would be sitting when deciding on S.B.\u2019s constitutional complaint. In fact, she could not even have imagined that judges M.J. and D.\u0160. would sit in the case after having acted as (third/interested) parties in the proceedings before the Administrative Court and after having expressed their opinion that her request had been unfounded and that the election of the Constitutional Court judges had been in accordance with the law (see paragraph 11 above). Rather, those judges should have been ex lege disqualified from sitting. Second, given the lack of an oral and , the applicant could not have requested judges M.J. and D.\u0160. to withdraw before the decision had been taken."], "id": "02975bb7-940f-45e2-aee5-42cdd37e6e14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government objected to this view. They contended that the applicant\u2019s conviction was not based to a decisive extent on Mr N.L.\u2019s depositions. The courts disposed of an ample array of sources of evidence, including numerous witnesses and several forensic assessments. However, even assuming that the initial depositions by Mr N.L. had provided a basis, among other sources of evidence, for the applicant\u2019s conviction, the use of these depositions was not unfair. In particular, before resorting to the depositions in question as a means of establishing the facts, the authorities had reasonably attempted to locate Mr N.L. and bring him before the court. As these attempts had been unsuccessful, the trial court had first consulted with the parties as to whether it was feasible to start the trial in Mr N.L.\u2019s absence and, subsequently, whether they had any objections to the examination of his earlier statements. The defence had never objected to these proposals. After all, Mr N.L.\u2019s depositions had been read out at a and the applicant had had every opportunity to challenge them."], "id": "55fcb3d6-8dcd-4e7c-9145-007fdb5042da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government acknowledged that the notice in question had contained a clerical error because it had indicated that the case would be heard in a in writing (see paragraph 22 above) instead of a public oral hearing. However, they argued that this did not preclude the applicants from being informed of the oral hearing because they had not asked their case to be examined in writing and the Court of Appeal had not adopted such a decision. The Government also argued that the applicants had received the notice on 25 June 2009 that a hearing would take place on 6 October 2009 but had only sent a letter to the Court of Appeal about their inability to participate on 2 October 2009 (received by the court on 7 October 2009). The Government also stated that the second applicant had not been summoned to the other proceedings and the fact that there had been another hearing at the same time that day should not have prevented him from participating in the hearing."], "id": "9d85330b-ab4c-4371-b363-d053c2ddffb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that the case was heard in the course of a , since the public were not excluded from it and the participation of the applicant and / or his representative was not obligatory, pursuant to the legislation in force. The applicant was properly informed about the time and place of the hearing and his absence cannot be attributable to the State."], "id": "0e4e71bd-bc38-45ea-bd89-91ec1282f2fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government submitted that the court\u2019s decisions to hold the trial in camera had been in compliance with domestic law and the Convention. In particular, it had been necessary to ensure the security of the parties to the proceedings. In any event, in the Government\u2019s opinion, the applicants failed to show that the court\u2019s decision to hold the trial in camera had had an adverse impact on the fairness of the criminal proceedings against them. As regards the first applicant\u2019s case, the Government pointed out that the court had decided to dispense with the only in response to the complaints lodged by the witnesses who had received threats and whose reputation had been damaged as a result of the publications about the trial."], "id": "34f28fe9-ca40-4bc0-80ee-0d52798c8c11", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["10. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that they had been unable to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance, as there had been no in their case. They further stated that the indictment of the public prosecutor had not been served on them. In this respect, they complained that they had been denied adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and the possibility of submitting counter arguments and evidence, including the examination of witnesses, in breach of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a), (b) and (d) of the Convention."], "id": "71224f99-4515-440f-8f0c-fc1cdbd52a23", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant submitted that the trial court had exercised undue pressure on him in order to induce him to waive his right to appeal. The court had, in particular, declared that it would sentence him to fourteen years\u2019 imprisonment if he rejected the agreement, which had included the waiver of the right to appeal. The agreement reached between the applicant, the prosecution and the Regional Court had been invalid, because it had not complied with the requirements set forth by the Federal Court of Justice. Amongst other things, it had violated the principle of a because it had been concluded outside the main hearing and its content had not been read out in court and recorded in the court transcript. Referring to a number of documents submitted in proceedings instituted after the termination of the relevant criminal proceedings, the applicant alleged that the public prosecutor had taken part in the deliberations concerning the agreement and that the submissions made by the Government as to the conduct of the negotiations were contradictory."], "id": "95d7d429-ab18-4a01-93d5-c9193550636f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicants maintained that the proceedings under consideration concerned a wide scope of complex legal issues relating to the lawfulness of their deprivation of property. Such issues could not be determined in a fair manner without hearing the parties. They contended, with reference to the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding that Article 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure was contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that their right to a before a tribunal had not been respected."], "id": "3dc1125e-b7e5-4567-881d-af0ff6cd76e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicants conceded that during their police investigation they had an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the police reports on M.\u2019s and R.\u2019s statements. Nevertheless, they pointed out that all the evidence should be produced in the presence of the accused at a with a view to adversarial argument. The applicants should have had a right to put questions to M. and R."], "id": "b74726de-ae28-47e2-86e0-8ff43c19c57a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant considered that the trial court's decision to dispense with a of his case had been in contravention of domestic laws. He further reasoned that the domestic judicial authorities had failed to strike a balance between his right to a public trial and the protection of other interests at stake, namely security of the courtroom and prevention of disclosure of information concerning private life. He believed that the trial court could have employed alternative measures to ensure security and to ensure that there were no weapons in the courtroom. He further noted that the law expressly provided that the court bailiffs were under an obligation to carry out weapon screening to prevent anyone from secretly bringing a weapon into the courtroom. The applicant further submitted that the circumstances of the alleged rape had not been subject to the examination by the trial court and that the alleged rape victim had not been questioned on the issue. He concluded that the authorities' failure to employ alternative measures to ensure security of the courtroom had resulted in the violation of his right to a public and fair trial."], "id": "ffda4150-90b1-427a-ad7d-7df0373ccee6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government further submitted, in particular, that the proceedings had not been pending for an unreasonably long period of time before the Constitutional Court, whose judges did not work full time. The applicants had considerably delayed the proceedings by repeatedly submitting observations the day before or on the day fixed for the final deliberations and had not suffered any prejudice from the proceedings\u2019 duration as they had been aware that their complaint had no prospects of success. Moreover, the adoption of the final text of the judgment following a instead of deliberations in camera had been more difficult."], "id": "6da24326-bbaa-4964-b45f-404d30e15bbd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that there had been no before the Supreme Court which on 28 February 2002 and 26 October 2004 had quashed the first\u2011instance decisions and returned the case to the Regional Court. It also complained that the Constitutional Court, by partly dismissing its complaint, had breached its right of access to a court."], "id": "ed528154-3a39-4898-a356-fb31ab565a01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained that public access to the courtroom during the first, second and third-instance proceedings had been unnecessarily restricted. Only those creditors who had submitted their written observations objecting to the settlement with the bank were allowed into the courtroom. Access for members of the public and for those creditors who had either failed to submit their written observations beforehand or had not received notice in good time was not permitted. The applicant contended that the failure to hold a undermined the transparency of the proceedings."], "id": "d8052a38-9509-4314-96a4-36e2840543c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicants, for their part, argued that the proceedings concerning the administrative offences had failed to comply with the guarantees of a fair and , alleging that the principle of equality of arms had not been secured in that the witnesses for the defence had not been called, and that the public had been excluded from the trial of the first applicant."], "id": "e5db808d-7cf6-4342-abe2-7791470040ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant replied that the lack of a in the present case had not been predicated by urgency given that the Government themselves accepted that the impugned proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time. She further argued that owing to the failure to hold a public hearing in the case, the public was prevented from observing the administration of justice."], "id": "09923e16-8e57-4ca9-81d5-6a2e0664af73", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant maintained that there had been a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 because the proceedings had not been public. In particular, he argued that the Moscow City Court had not provided any reasons for its decision of 17 September 2001 to hold the trial in camera. Furthermore, at no point in the proceedings had the City Court cited \u201cinterests of national security\u201d or \u201cState secrets\u201d as a ground for excluding the public. As regards the decision of 25 December 2001, the applicant noted that Article 18 of the CCrP had contained an exhaustive list of grounds for a decision not to hold a . The need to protect the safety of victims and witnesses had not been among them."], "id": "ec1220ca-1027-48ad-acf1-e2ac5f74797f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he did not have a fair and in the determination of the criminal charges against him. He stressed the fact that the courts had determined his case without holding a hearing. He further alleged a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 3 and stated that he had not been informed promptly of the accusations against him as the public prosecutor's indictment had not been communicated to him. Article 6, in so far as relevant reads as follows:"], "id": "0c51860a-ad2c-4fa4-9b0d-a56696b70e28", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant complained that the proceedings on her motion of 22 March 1993 had been unfair in that, contrary to the applicable procedural rules and established judicial practice, the courts had not examined her motion diligently ex officio but had expected her to substantiate the claims herself and had arbitrarily and unjustly construed the lack of substantiation of her claims to her disadvantage. The applicant further complained that there had been no before a court and that she had thus been deprived of an adequate possibility to present her case. The applicant also complained that the length of these proceedings had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. She relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "dae6838e-3170-4692-9240-92528a2438e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant complained that the District Court\u2019s decisions of 27 April 1994 and 29 October 1996 (see paragraphs above) had been given in private despite her request for a . She further alleged that the judges sitting in her case were biased, as Mr T.P., the former District Court\u2019s judge sitting in her case in November 1992, had subsequently represented the defendants. In addition, family members of Mr. T.P. were employed in the \u0160tip courts, a fact that had affected the latter\u2019s impartiality. The applicant also complained that the courts had reached different decisions during the proceedings and that the enforcement of the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision of 11 March 2003 had been unlawfully suspended."], "id": "da9907a0-bfe0-40f7-85e5-f9f7bb450a4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that partial exclusion of the public in the present case had been justified on national security grounds. The Government argued that the course of the proceedings had been determined by the fact that a part of the evidence examined by the court had been considered \u201ctop secret\u201d under the applicable legislation. Consequently, some of the hearings, at which the court had examined classified documents or heard witnesses whose statements had to be kept confidential, had been held without the public. On the other hand, other hearings had been public. Furthermore, W.C., the main witnesses in the case, had been discharged from the obligation of confidentiality in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings, so he could be heard during a . The applicant disagreed with the Government's submissions."], "id": "5c626b8e-bdfe-4fab-858e-ad0981a421d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not require a before the first-instance court when ordering a temporary suspension from a post. However, the decision of the first-instance court could be appealed, and the appellate court was required to hold a public hearing. The Government contended that such a practice was in line with the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, especially since the proceedings in question had not concerned the determination of the applicant\u2019s guilt but only a temporary restriction of her rights."], "id": "f00b1d24-2e90-4711-8936-237f161b522c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government emphasised that both parties had been afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case, including evidence, under conditions that had not placed them at a disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis their adversary. There was no doubt, either, that the status of the parties had been equal and that they had had the same opportunities to adduce evidence and to submit questions to the SMLB. The equal right of the parties to have questions put to the SMLB had been fully respected, and both had exercised that right. They had also had unlimited and equal access to the evidence and the case had been argued orally at a ."], "id": "102d134f-eb22-423e-a9e2-f18610641bca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government further maintained that the principle of producing all evidence in the presence of an accused at a is not absolute and might be subject to exceptions, particularly when a case concerns a sexual offence. The Government conceded that M.H. \u201ccould indeed be regarded as a \u2018principal\u2019 witness in the criminal case against the applicant\u201d. For this reason she was questioned twice by the prosecutor, on 12 June and 5 July 2000, and afterwards heard in court on 6 July 2000. The prosecutor sent a summons to the applicant\u2019s address to inform him about that hearing, but at that time he had been in hiding in an attempt to avoid prosecution. The Government maintained that the applicant had not participated in the questioning of M.H. on 6 July 2000 by his own choice; therefore, he had deprived himself of the opportunity to put questions to her."], "id": "3e1180c2-71a2-42ab-9e0f-860cfe5b9bf2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant submitted that the proceedings, seen as a whole, had to be regarded as unfair because the Regional Court had violated the principles of a , the protection of confidentiality and the court\u2019s obligation to examine relevant facts on its own motion. The Regional Court\u2019s judgment had been based on insufficient and inconclusive evidence which had not been properly introduced into the proceedings, a fact which he had only learned of later on when he had been granted access to the case files. Furthermore, the public prosecutor had omitted to introduce relevant evidence into the proceedings, thus violating the principle of equality of arms."], "id": "fe85d584-b6e2-4dad-b1f4-a2fc89f88fc3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention about the unfairness and outcome of the first set of proceedings and about the lack of in the Supreme Court. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he could not privatise the land on which his house stood and that he had been deprived of his house without any compensation. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the authorities\u2019 attempts to have the court decisions adopted in the course of the second set of proceedings reviewed."], "id": "1154163b-38b8-406c-a035-f1e091bf0ee6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant further complained of the failure of the Federal Constitutional Court to reason its decision and of the lack of a regarding the negotiation of the agreement with a view to terminating the criminal proceedings. He also claimed that the waiver of his rights to the confiscated goods had violated the presumption of innocence (Article 6 \u00a7 2). Under Article 14 he complained that his waiver of the right to appeal would have been held to be invalid had his appeal on points of law been reviewed by a different Chamber of the Federal Court of Justice. Citing Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant also complained of the alleged content of the agreement and of his wife\u2019s waiver of any rights to the confiscated goods."], "id": "ce165a52-765f-40ba-9e5e-cf3b66eb3cc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government acknowledged that, contrary to the domestic rules of criminal procedure, the trial court had not furnished any reasons for its decision to conduct the trial in camera. Nevertheless, they considered the lack of a in the present case had not amounted to a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In their opinion, there had been no infringement of the applicant\u2019s procedural rights, including the right to defence. The Government further submitted that the trial court\u2019s decision to conduct the trial in camera had been based on moral and security considerations. The applicant and some other defendants had been members of a gang of skinheads. They had been accused of having murdered K. out of national and racial hatred. K.\u2019s brother had attended the trial. In those circumstances, it had been necessary to prevent other gang members who had been still at large having access to the courtroom."], "id": "35c00a97-2cb2-4afc-84f4-ee41c2ef1f84", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["145. The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 claim that their case had not been examined in a before the Turin Court of Appeal was false. Pursuant to section 23 of Law no. 689 of 1981, all of the hearings held before that court were open to the public. As to the statements signed by the Administrative Director of the Registry of the First Section of the Court of Appeal and submitted by the applicants (see paragraph 142 above), the Government argued that they did not reflect the reality of the situation. In counter-argument, they produced five statements signed by the President of the First Section of the Turin Court of Appeal and by the Administrative Director of the same Section, stating that, in the five sets of proceedings concerning the applicants and challenging the penalties imposed by the CONSOB, only the hearings concerning the urgent measures (sub procedimento cautelare) had been held in private, all of the other hearings having been public. In those statements, dated 6 September 2013, the President of the First Section of the Court of Appeal indicated that, at the relevant time, he had not been assigned to that body (he had taken up his duties on 1 March 2013), but that he had been able to reconstitute the sequence of events by examining the registers and case files, and on the basis of information provided directly by the staff of the registry and by the judges who had dealt with the cases in question. In particular, the applicants\u2019 cases had been added to the list of non-contentious cases (registro volontaria giurisdizione). Further, Law no. 62 of 18 April 2005 stated that proceedings in respect of Article 187 of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998 were to be held in accordance with the conditions laid down in section 23 of Law no. 689 of 1981 (which did not provide for the holding of a hearing in private). Although the applicants\u2019 cases had remained on the list of non-contentious cases, the procedure followed had been that required by Law no. 62 of 2005."], "id": "14c96b91-3558-40d8-9f3b-e93ce1991701", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government maintained that there was no violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial in that his claims were considered in a by a competent tribunal established by law. The reversal of the May 2001 judgment gave the City Court a power to review the case in its totality, including the assessment of evidence and determination of the amount of the award. The domestic court considered the case properly and gave a reasoned judgment."], "id": "76cf7866-ffb9-4277-9ef4-0095f15810d5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government maintained that the Court had ruled that an accused\u2019s presence was not required at hearings before courts which examine appeals on points of law. They explained that the procedure before the Supreme Court required that parties be represented by their own lawyers, who make submissions in writing and orally at a . They submitted that the applicant had been duly represented by counsel, as required by law, before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had not examined any matters or evidence that would have necessitated his presence at the hearing. At the end of the proceedings, the Supreme Court, observing that the Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the provisions concerning the use of the summary procedure, had decided to uphold the District Court\u2019s judgment. In the Government\u2019s view this marked the difference between the instant application and the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Kremzow v. Austria, cited above."], "id": "91293f8b-f6f4-436d-bc05-c18d4de3d486", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on the ground that the criminal proceedings were unfair because the additional security measures had prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury and therefore breached the principle of the presumption of innocence and/or his right to a ; because the prosecution had failed to comply with its continuing duty of disclosure and/or because the law governing disclosure in the United Kingdom did not comply with Article 6 of the Convention; and because the trial judge had erred in allowing the statements of VO to be read to the jury."], "id": "7e8a486e-f9a6-4c45-93b9-36beaa490c31", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["168. The applicant also complained that the disciplinary proceedings concerning her had been confidential, and more specifically that neither the proceedings before the CSM nor those before the Supreme Court had been public. In her submission, neither the CSM nor the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court had ever held a in disciplinary proceedings. Hence, although the applicant had formally requested a public hearing before both the CSM and the Supreme Court (in the proceedings in issue in application no. 74041/13), her request had been refused on each occasion, despite the existence of a dispute as to the facts, namely the content of her alleged remarks. In her view it had been necessary, in order to assess the evidence, to test the credibility of the statements of the only witness against her, the judicial investigator F.M.J. Against that background, in her submission, the taking of evidence on this point had been essential in order to secure her defence rights."], "id": "3baa3ec9-558b-4d8b-a1fd-4ebf51f28c31", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant maintained that his right to a fair and was breached on three counts: firstly, he was never afforded an oral hearing in the determination of his compensation claim; secondly, he was never given an opportunity to reply to the Public Prosecutor's written opinion submitted to the Bergama Assize Court and to the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court of Cassation on the merits of his appeal and, thirdly, on account of the low amount of compensation awarded to him in respect of non-pecuniary damage."], "id": "89390666-3223-422c-9c32-0a3abfa869a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicants maintained their complaints that the manner in which the courts had examined their criminal case had been arbitrary and alleged that they had not received a fair and in the determination of the criminal charges against them. They complained of arbitrary interpretation of the law by the domestic courts and of the unforeseeable legal classification of the criminal offences of which they were convicted. They stated that they had only learned of the change of legal classification from fraud to commercial fraud when they had received the judgment and had therefore not been able to prepare their defence at first instance accordingly. Furthermore, they pointed out that whatever the classification, the offences of which they had been charged were indistinguishable from regular commercial activities and that the courts had failed to indicate the specific acts which had constituted the offence of fraud."], "id": "5b4a9b08-0423-4588-bc35-cce798a69a6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant complained that she had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Van State Security Court which tried and convicted her. She further complained under the same head that her right to a as well as free legal assistance had been infringed. Finally, the applicant claimed that the principle of \u201cequality of arms\u201d had not been respected, since the bill of indictment was not in a language she could understand. The applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "id": "4931cfb5-0650-4f2a-a9b8-4fc14365ec15", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and that it had acted as a first and only instance court, which had also infringed his right to an effective remedy. He further maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that he had been denied a due to the lack of reference to the principal public prosecutor\u2019s name in the court decisions. The applicant contended that his expulsion from the military academy had amounted to a punishment without a law, in violation of Article 7 of the Convention. Lastly, he maintained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been expelled from the military academy by reason of his father\u2019s affiliations with a certain trade union, which amounted to discrimination."], "id": "23c49c35-78a0-4f03-a66d-c49160283d4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained of the procedure by which his tariff was set after considerable delay by the Secretary of State. He submitted that it was contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 1 for the decision to set the tariff to be taken by the executive in an administrative procedure and not by the judiciary. The decision by the tribunal for the purpose of this provision should be legally binding rather than purely advisory. The procedure was also fundamentally flawed as it failed to provide for a . It was irrelevant to that failure that his tariff had now expired."], "id": "2a06b1c2-6557-4f4c-a480-3eb4a2fa6aab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government conceded that the Constitutional Court had found in the present proceedings that the principle of a was a vital aspect of the right to a fair trial. Thereby, that court closed a gap in the Liechtenstein catalogue of fundamental rights which did not expressly protect that principle. It had further found that the right to a fair trial was also laid down in Article 6 of the Convention and was not directly covered by a reservation on ratification."], "id": "04668242-772d-4930-9ffc-22dad7484aa0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the applicant had a fair and . He had failed to submit any proof in support of his allegation that the judge was not impartial. The applicant had been promptly provided with detailed information concerning the charge against him. Furthermore, he had been afforded adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. In particular, the applicant had been familiarised with the materials of the case against him and informed about his procedural rights, including his right to file motions, to call witnesses and to have a lawyer, which he did not wish to do."], "id": "b1998894-105f-4e94-8db3-c3dc3fc59371", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government, referring to the Court's case-law, argued that under exceptional circumstances the domestic courts, for reasons of efficiency, could refrain from holding a public and oral hearing where only questions of law or highly-technical questions were to be determined or where questions of fact or law raised by the applicant did not require such a hearing. Since both the facts and the question of law had been determined in the light of the Administrative Court's constant case-law, it could abstain from holding a , thus avoiding further procedural delays. Furthermore, the applicant had failed to indicate why he considered a public hearing necessary."], "id": "40a62851-5657-4b16-9ff3-878dabcf0364", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant asserted that during the trial the national courts had deliberately prevented him from challenging in an effective manner the evidence which his accusers had been required to produce; an effective assessment of the authenticity and relevance of that evidence should have been carried out in order to satisfy the requirements of a fair and . All the other evidence had been contradictory and had not formed a sufficient basis for a conviction. Despite the fact that his conviction had been limited to fraud, it was clear from the courts\u2019 reasoning that that offence had been held to have been committed by means of forged cheques."], "id": "e73f054d-91dd-419c-8537-e6155998321c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant complained that the above-mentioned proceedings had not been fair because: (a) a had not been held, (b) the proceedings had not been adversarial and the principle of equality of arms had not been respected in that the expert opinions of eminent lawyers and opinions and information obtained from various institutions by the Constitutional Court had been served on her only after the proceedings had ended, and (c) the Constitutional Court had not been impartial given that judges M.J. and D.\u0160. had sat in the panel of that court that delivered the decision in her case even though these two judges had acted as third parties in the previous proceedings before the Administrative Court, in which they, inter alia, had expressed their opinion that the election of the three judges to the Constitutional Court had been lawful. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "eb05f4e5-3253-43a7-87ed-5cc3aa3861e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicant complained that the proceedings concerning his sick leave, that is the second and fifth sets of proceedings, had been unfair and discriminatory. The applicant further submitted that he had not received any legal aid during the second set of proceedings. With respect to the first set of proceedings, the applicant also complained about the lack of a ."], "id": "c7462176-924d-4e0b-920c-b4e1ebac6ca2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 that the supervisory review decision of 10 August 2001 violated the principle of legal certainty. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that in breach of the right to a fair and neither he nor his lawyer were summoned to the supervisory review hearing held by the Supreme Court of Russia on 10 August 2001. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:"], "id": "1feb085f-cd4f-49c6-bd0b-445b2997fcbc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["192. The applicant claimed EUR 153,532 for the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Chamber and EUR 27,338.70 for the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Grand Chamber (including those of the before the Grand Chamber). He submitted detailed time sheets indicating the amount of hours spent by his lawyers for the preparation of the case before the Court: 669.5 hours of legal work, charged at an hourly rate of EUR 190.50, and 406.9 hours of para-legal work, including translations, charged at an hourly rate of EUR 63.50, in respect of the proceedings before the Chamber; 135.6 hours of legal work and 13.4 hours of para-legal work in respect of the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, charged at the same hourly rates. The applicant\u2019s total claim for costs and expenses came to EUR 180,870.70."], "id": "e4dab727-c76e-41f9-8caf-1eda52e45683", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant complained, in particular, under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that no information was provided to him about the date and time of the hearing on 14 August 2000 in the Dnipropetrovs\u2019k Regional Court and that there was no on that occasion. The applicant alleged various violations of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant provides as follows:"], "id": "d0a02203-a758-45fb-85a3-f93d309895ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government submitted that the applicant had had a fair and . He had failed to submit any proof in support of his allegation that the judge had not been impartial. The applicant had been provided with an opportunity to call witnesses, submit evidence and to lodge requests and challenges, which he had failed to do. The judge had advised the applicant to avail himself of his right to have a lawyer but he did not wish to do so. The applicant\u2019s argument that the materials of the administrative case against him had not been revealed to him prior to the hearing was not supported by the materials of the case: both the record of arrest and the record of an administrative offence had been signed by the applicant after he was taken to the police station. Thus, taking into account that the applicant had signed the record of an administrative offence without any objections, had refused to have a lawyer, had not lodged any requests and had not availed himself of other procedural rights, the police officers had considered two hours to be sufficient for the preparation of the applicant\u2019s defence."], "id": "515e223d-e25b-43ca-9833-9eaa0ccd4d3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["129. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a fair and during the appellate proceedings had been restricted, that he had been unable to obtain examination of witnesses prepared to testify on his behalf, and that the court had been biased in favour of the prosecution and had rejected the majority of his petitions without justification. Article 6 provides, where relevant, as follows:"], "id": "42953453-4d18-47d8-aa6f-ff0e7d97ccda", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["106. The applicants alleged that the proceedings before the CONSOB had been essentially in written form, that no had been scheduled and that the rights of the defence were not respected. The Court of Cassation itself had acknowledged that the guarantees of a fair trial and protection of the rights of the defence (Articles 111 and 24 of the Constitution) did not apply to administrative proceedings (see paragraph 38 above)."], "id": "163a1d5a-f3fc-4fa6-a035-a72783f1598c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government asserted that the Juvenile Court had heard the applicant in person on 2 August 2000. As to the question whether there should have been a , the Government asserted that the 1854 Non-Contentious Proceedings Act left it to the discretion of the court whether or not to hold a hearing in public. However, the right to a public hearing was not absolute and an exclusion of the public was admissible under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, inter alia, in the interests of a minor or for the protection of the private life of the parties. Referring to B. and P. v. the United Kingdom (nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, \u00a7 38, ECHR 2001-III), the Government argued that court proceedings involving custody decisions of minors were prime examples of such justified exclusion of the public. Finally, they submitted that the applicant had not asked for a public hearing."], "id": "8d225618-35b4-4a9d-925a-f6ace9fdcbfd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicants considered that it was the concept of debate itself that lay at the heart of their applications. A debate necessarily entailed unity of time and place. However, under French law, the place where the debate was organised was the held by the Criminal Division and the debate began on the day of the hearing. They contended that they had been deprived of unity of time and place, as their pleadings had been lodged at the beginning of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, whereas the advocate-general had made his submissions on the day of the hearing. Furthermore, appellants in the Court of Cassation had to make their representations in writing whereas the advocate-general made his submissions orally. The solution would therefore be to permit appellants in the Court of Cassation to take part in all the stages of the proceedings before the Criminal Division, including the hearing, with the assistance of a lawyer of their choosing, that is to say without being required to instruct a member of the Conseil d'Etat and Court of Cassation Bar. On that point, they challenged the monopoly of the members of the Conseil d'Etat and Court of Cassation Bar, pointing out, inter alia, firstly, that lawyers practising at a European bar had sufficient technical expertise to take part in proceedings before the Court of Cassation, as attested by the fact that they were entitled to appear before all other national and European courts and, secondly, that the monopoly on the rights to address the Court of Cassation was not based on any provision of domestic law."], "id": "8945f425-da43-4dfe-8cd2-be44f9ff0396", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government submitted that the applicant had had a fair and . He had failed to submit any proof in support of his allegation that the judge had not been impartial. The applicant had been provided with an opportunity to call witnesses, submit evidence and to lodge requests and challenges, which he had failed to do. The police officers and the judge had advised the applicant to avail himself of his right to have a lawyer but he himself had not wished to do so. The materials of the case had been revealed to the applicant prior to the hearing, which was demonstrated by the fact that those materials had been signed by the applicant. Thus, taking into account that the applicant had signed the record of an administrative offence without any objections, had refused to have a lawyer, had not lodged any requests and had not availed himself of other procedural rights, the police officers had considered two hours to be sufficient for the preparation of the applicant's defence."], "id": "995a14b6-1933-49ab-bb2f-3a73d671c158", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant further disputed the facts as established by the Ljubljana District Court, and argued that he had never had a chance to tell his side of the story, let alone be heard at a . He argued that under the domestic law he should have been given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. He submitted that the Companies Act required that the general provisions of the Non-Litigious Civil Procedure Act applied to the proceedings in the present case (see paragraphs 24 and 25 above). In his view, the judge deciding the case had consciously acted in breach of law, expecting that his decision would not be subject to any further scrutiny."], "id": "70fc4498-f340-45ce-bc25-bc162f11dddf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["130. The Government submitted that the applicants had had a fair and . They had failed to submit any proof in support of their allegations that the judges examining their cases were not impartial. The courts had not based their findings solely on the materials prepared by the police but also on the applicants\u2019 own submissions made in court. The applicants had been provided with an opportunity to call and examine witnesses, submit evidence and file motions and challenges, which they had failed to do. Furthermore, they had been informed of their right to have a lawyer both by the police officers and during the court proceedings, but they had not wish to do so. The applicants had had sufficient time and facilities for the preparation of their defence."], "id": "f6063ca4-4315-40f0-bb24-29b9c7cdfeda", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicants argued that the rules on exclusion of the public from a hearing should be construed narrowly and that such exclusion should occur only when it was strictly necessary in the circumstances of a case. They maintained that in their case the exclusion of the public from the entire trial and the appeal proceedings had been unjustified and that the courts should have opted for partial exclusion. The trial had been held entirely in camera, even though some evidence heard by the Regional Court was not classified. The Court of Appeal had not held a either, despite the fact that the classified evidence had been excluded."], "id": "99a8f8ae-45ff-412e-982e-f5660f2584c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government added that this judgment was not the final decision in the case, the determination of the scope of the applicant\u2019s property rights to the lands in question being the subject of the subsequent proceedings before the Land Office. In this context, they emphasised, as they had already done at the admissibility stage, that the applicant could have lodged a remedy against the Land Office\u2019s decision of 25 July 1995, as provided for in section 9(6) of the Land Ownership Act. If he had done so, he could have requested the Municipal Court to re-examine this administrative decision at a . Furthermore, the applicant could have brought a civil action before a competent district court, pursuant to section 8(1) of the Land Ownership Act, thereby disputing the validity of the transfer of his father\u2019s property to the natural persons concerned."], "id": "d16420cc-b6d2-48ba-8d16-8b8a552163d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that they had been deprived of their right to a fair and in the determination of the criminal charges against them. They stressed the fact that the courts had determined their case without holding a hearing. The applicants further alleged a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention in that they had not been informed promptly of the accusations against them as the public prosecutor's indictment had not been communicated to them. Finally, they complained that they had been deprived of their right to submit counter-arguments and evidence, including the examination of witnesses, within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) and (d)."], "id": "117925f5-373c-4e34-8b6b-f4848a4cc4f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his conviction was unfair. In particular, he challenged the independence and impartiality of the trial judge, as he had to take into the consideration the position of the Regional Court expressed in its decision of 30 November 1999. He also complained that the non- of the case on 22 June 2000 was unreasonable and unlawful."], "id": "61d88c26-2d72-475d-bc2f-353a00148d23", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government argued, in particular, that the reservation at issue could not be considered as a prohibited reservation of a general nature. The wording of the reservation referred to a specific Convention Article, Article 6 \u00a7 1, and, more specifically, to the requirement that \u201c... everyone is entitled to a fair and ...\u201d and that \u201c[j]udgment shall be pronounced publicly\u201d."], "id": "8fa078fc-ff4c-4963-a6db-384b71eb584a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant company complained about the quashing of the resolution of the Review Panel of 11 March 1999, stating that the latter had been the final and binding decision given in its favour. It alleged that the procedure before the Plenary Court had been incompatible with the principles of legal certainty, equality of arms and a . The applicant invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "01d1344d-f376-4293-a74e-384c2cb7a71e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government maintained that the only point at issue in the proceedings complained of was whether the applicants were entitled to have the property restored within the meaning of Section 4 of the Land Ownership Act and, in particular, whether or not that property had been expropriated from individuals or from a legal person. Since the Regional Court had determined that issue in a different set of proceedings, to which the applicants had been a party and in the course of which a had been held, the Government concluded that the Nitra Regional Court\u2019s failure to hold a hearing in the proceedings complained of had not been contrary to the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7 1."], "id": "f2c9843f-2e99-429e-9afa-0ebc89c4dbd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government submitted that after the CCrP had been amended in 1999, pre-trial detention was ordered by the competent first\u2011instance court, after a in the presence of the prospective detainee and of his counsel. The court issued a decision forthwith and in case of an appeal, the hearing before the appellate court was scheduled for not later than seven days after that. The basis for these amendments had been the Convention, which was directly applicable in Bulgaria."], "id": "3b972dbf-3b2f-4c42-ad28-f2a8c569c847", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government further stressed that had the Supreme Court found it necessary to take oral evidence, it would have been required under Article 157 (3) of the Penal Code to do so. However, the applicant did not avail himself of the possibility under Icelandic law to request the Supreme Court to hear witnesses. Nor did he use the possibility of being present at the in his case, during which it would have been possible for him to address that court. The matter of which he complains under the Convention was never put to the Supreme Court, either in substance or by express reference to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicant's counsel had tacitly accepted on his behalf that there was no reason for the applicant or the witnesses to give oral testimony to the Supreme Court."], "id": "5c690736-7b3a-4c3c-b6cc-d43c053c25fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant submitted that his right to a under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention had been breached. Relying on the Court\u2019s case\u2011law in Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2) (23 February 1994, Series A no. 283\u2011A), and Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2) (19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I) he was of the view that only exceptional circumstances could justify not holding an oral hearing. He stressed that his case before the domestic courts involved numerous questions of fact and difficult legal issues which were of fundamental significance. Therefore, he saw no reason to dispense with a hearing."], "id": "236a8242-36d1-46a0-ac3f-e3134fe72c93", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant submitted that the Administrative Court had unlawfully dismissed his request to hold an oral hearing, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to discuss the expert opinions in the context of a . Since an oral hearing could have elucidated the facts of the case, the Court's refusal to hold one was in breach of Article 6 of the Convention."], "id": "61b57823-6686-4e4f-9fa2-7bb41325072e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained that he did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and that he was not allowed to defend himself in person or through a lawyer as there were no public hearings. Moreover, he complained that he did not have the possibility of an effective appeal to the Court of Cassation. He claimed that if he had a regular trial with a , rather than a penal order, he would have also had the chance to appeal before the Court of Cassation. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention:"], "id": "35f5deb2-55ee-4006-9fab-19710afa40e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government submitted that in accordance with Article 360 \u00a7 1 (3) of the CCP a court could order that part or all of a hearing be held in camera if a might disclose matters which should remain secret in the light of significant State interest. In the present case that interest concerned the secrecy of police investigation procedures. In the Government\u2019s view, it remained within the State\u2019s margin of appreciation to order part or all of the hearing to be held in camera or to classify the evidence. The Government underlined that the exclusion of the public from the hearing had been indispensable in order to protect the secrecy of police investigation procedures and ensure their efficacy. The exclusion in the present case had been \u201cstrictly necessary\u201d within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "569e71a4-f6dd-479d-9632-18406d150ef1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed the applicant\u2019s allegations, arguing that all elements of a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention had been preserved in the relevant proceedings before the Icelandic courts. The Government stressed that applicant\u2019s case had been argued orally at a in the District Court where the parties had enjoyed equal status in every respect and unlimited and equal access to the evidence adduced and the same possibilities to call witnesses. In the proceedings before the Supreme Court the defendant had waived his right to respond to the applicant\u2019s appeal with written pleadings and additional evidence. As a consequence, under the relevant statutory rules on civil procedure, he was then assumed to adhere to the requests he had made to the District Court. This had not, however, entailed any restriction on the applicant\u2019s right to submit her requests and new evidence to the Supreme Court. The statutory arrangement that her case would not be orally argued before the Supreme Court under these circumstances had been based on reasonable and justifiable grounds relating to the changed nature of the proceedings when the adversary party opted not to respond appellant\u2019s submissions."], "id": "92cbc8b2-a6a0-48e3-b2cb-c3986bc90612", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government argued that the applicants had not sustained a significant disadvantage owing to the failure of the Constitutional Court to hold an oral and . An oral hearing would not have contributed to the establishment of new or different facts. The relevant facts regarding the applicants\u2019 removal from the Parliament gallery had been undisputed between the parties and could have been established on the basis of written evidence submitted in support of the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaint."], "id": "66ecf84b-1ac4-42a9-8a15-8b1c61c6f4e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant complained of a breach, before the Court of Audit, of his right to a \u201cfair and ... by an ... impartial tribunal\u201d within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He submitted that, prior to the hearing, neither he nor his lawyer had received the reporting judge\u2019s report (whereas it had been sent to State Counsel) and that the reporting judge had taken part in the deliberations of the bench despite having previously been involved in investigating the case. Referring to Guisset v. France (no. 33933/96, \u00a7\u00a7 72-74, ECHR 2000\u2011IX), he added that he had neither been summoned to the hearing nor invited to submit his observations, nor even informed of the date of the hearing, which, moreover, was not public."], "id": "22d0ce95-a704-4d13-8159-0d6a4dd2d9e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant asserted that he had not been given all the necessary guarantees that the members of the jury were intellectually capable of reasoning in decisive terms, even though professional judges had previously drawn their attention to that issue. In the applicant's submission, it would have been possible to proceed in a manner that respected everyone's rights; it was not unfeasible to hear evidence from masked or hidden witnesses at a in the Assize Court, or during an investigation, as was shown by the case of Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands (23 April 1997, Reports 1997-III)."], "id": "0111bc1e-42ae-4ffc-a631-9db73d9ca033", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government emphasised that in the present case the Regional Court had neither considered the first-instance judgment ill-founded nor found it necessary to take evidence or to hear the applicant. The applicant\u2019s case had not presented any special circumstances requiring the defendant to be heard by the appellate court, unlike other cases with which the Court has dealt with (cf. Constantinescu v. Romania, op. cit., \u00a7 58; Botten v. Norway, judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I, \u00a7 50). Neither the character of the offence nor the nature of the evidence had imperatively required the applicant to be heard by the appellate court: his credibility had not been decisive in assessing the evidence. Lastly, the Government pointed out that the appellate court, unlike the above-mentioned cases where the second-instance court had found the defendants guilty the first time, had simply reviewed the first-instance judgment already convicting the applicant. In these circumstances it had not been necessary to hold a ."], "id": "221dfe73-1a91-467c-a0da-1687db0074a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant bank\u2019s shareholders could also assert their rights by making objections to the list of agreed claims drawn up by the bank\u2019s liquidators. Such objections would be examined jointly by the liquidators, the debtor (the applicant bank), the creditor whose claim was challenged, and the person who had made the objection. If the liquidators rejected their objections, the shareholders could later repeat them before the insolvency court, which would examine them at a (see paragraph 66 above). In such proceedings the courts could scrutinize the facts disputed by the applicant bank, including the question of the existence of the debt to the Commercial and Savings Bank AD and its repayment. The applicant bank\u2019s shareholders had not availed themselves of that possibility."], "id": "4ff41d38-7f47-4893-8846-4fee1784d8e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicants further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of a before the Constitutional Court. They also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the Republic of Austria, by repeatedly appealing against the decisions of the agricultural authorities, was trying deliberately to delay the exchange of the right to the use of the wood for ownership of the land."], "id": "84e69823-5483-4a22-8c66-0febdff5c0bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant finally claimed that the hearing was not public since it was allegedly held in a judge's office at 23h00. The Court reiterates that the public character of court hearings constitutes a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6 \u00a7 1 (see, among other authorities, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, \u00a7 58). The accused's right to a is not only an additional guarantee that an endeavour will be made to establish the truth but also helps to ensure that he is satisfied that his case is being determined by a tribunal whose independence and impartiality he may verify. The public character of proceedings before judicial bodies protects litigants against the administration of justice in secret without public scrutiny; it is also one of the means whereby confidence in the courts, superior and inferior, can be maintained. By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 \u00a7 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see Fejde v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212\u2011C, pp. 67-68, \u00a7 28; Tierce and Others v. San Marino, nos. 24954/94, 24971/94 and 24972/94, \u00a7 92, ECHR 2000\u2011IX)."], "id": "8b48bd67-b92a-47ee-a3ae-d1f32a3d35d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government submitted that the applicant had had a fair and . He had failed to submit any proof in support of his allegation that the judge had not been impartial. The applicant had been provided with an opportunity to call witnesses, submit evidence and to lodge requests and challenges, which he had failed to do. The court had issued a reasoned decision which was based on various materials, including a witness statement. Both the police officers and the judge had advised the applicant to avail himself of his right to have a lawyer but he had not wished to do so. Lastly, the applicant had been afforded adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence."], "id": "d25e4e96-f1d4-420a-b57f-4bcd381c191d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["193. The Government contested these claims. They considered that the costs incurred on account of claiming damages related to the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could not be considered to have been necessarily incurred and reasonable. The Government also submitted that the applicant\u2019s claims for costs and expenses related to the before the Grand Chamber were excessive and exaggerated."], "id": "4c91b90e-5dc9-4f04-b207-4eedc4d67c23", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant argued that the reservation made by Liechtenstein in respect of the publicity of proceedings did not extend to holding an oral hearing with the parties alone, including the questioning of witnesses. Article 6 \u00a7 1 guaranteed three distinct rights, namely the right to a controversial oral hearing, the right to a and the right to a public pronouncing of the judgment. Under the Court\u2019s case-law, reservations had to be interpreted in a restrictive manner (the applicant referred, inter alia, to Schmautzer, cited above). Liechtenstein\u2019s reservation only concerned the publicity of the hearing and the public pronouncing of judgments. It did not cover oral hearings, be it in camera, with the parties alone being present."], "id": "9e246312-037f-4c0b-91e1-24c22db3b299", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicants maintained that they had not waived their right to a . Neither a request nor advice within the meaning of Article 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure had been served on them. The fact that the letter had been served on their counsel's son raised a question as to the date upon which it had been served. A mere legal fiction could not be an unequivocal waiver of right, and they had not intended to waive their right to a public hearing. Moreover, such an assumption could not be made in this case since the request and the relevant advice had not been served on the applicants."], "id": "7a40652c-820f-4e02-b9a6-1e5acb1b24ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicants submitted that CONSOB Resolutions no. 12697 of 2 August 2000 and no. 15086 of 21 June 2005 had de facto eliminated the principle of adversarial proceedings, which was, however, a requirement under Article187 septies of Legislative Decree no. 58 of 1998... As in the present case, those resolutions permitted non-communication to the defendant of the Directorate\u2019s conclusions, which then formed the basis of the decision taken by the Commission; in addition, the latter did not receive the pleadings submitted by the defendants during the investigation phase. Furthermore, the Commission ruled without hearing the defendants and without a , a fact which, in the present case, had prevented the applicants from addressing the Commission directly and from defending themselves in relation to the Directorate\u2019s findings. Those findings had been important evidence, and familiarity with them would have enabled the applicants to detect inconsistencies in the investigation or to obtain relevant information for their defence. The Commission held only an internal meeting, in the course of which the sole individual questioned had been a civil servant from the IT Office (that is, from the body responsible for the \u201ccharge\u201d). The applicants were not invited to the meeting and had not even been able to obtain a copy of its minutes."], "id": "1605ff68-2db7-4e1d-a1c2-0a60838d0215", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government submitted that the applicant had had a fair and . He had failed to submit any proof in support of his allegation that the judge had not been impartial. The applicant had been provided with an opportunity to call witnesses, submit evidence and to lodge requests and challenges, which he had failed to do. The judge had advised the applicant to avail himself of his right to have a lawyer but he did not wish to do so. The applicant\u2019s argument that the materials of the administrative case against him had not been revealed to him prior to the hearing contradicted the materials of the case: both the record of arrest and the record of an administrative offence had been signed by the applicant after he was taken to the police station. Thus, taking into account that the applicant had signed the record of an administrative offence without any objections, had refused to have a lawyer, had not lodged any requests and had not availed himself of other procedural rights, the police officers had considered two hours to be sufficient for the preparation of the applicant\u2019s defence."], "id": "032f276d-9eb1-4a08-b4e3-f7970f141427", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant complained that his employer had arbitrarily collected, retained, and used sensitive, obsolete and irrelevant data concerning his mental health in considering his application for promotion, and had unlawfully and unfairly disclosed this data to the applicant\u2019s colleagues and to a civil court during a . The applicant relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "367cb76f-cea9-47bd-8045-9499ab958452", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government contended that the decision to hold the hearing in camera had not worked against the full and objective examination of the evidence. They argued that there had been exceptional circumstances which had justified, according to the Court's case-law, dispensing with a in the applicant's case (cf. H\u00e5kansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, \u00a7 64; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 283\u2011A, pp. 10-11, \u00a7\u00a7 21-22; Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2), judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I, p. 168, \u00a7 46)."], "id": "8245297a-59d1-4edf-9dea-26cfb638a112", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant maintained that, even if the proceedings had been formally in line with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Proceedings, this did not automatically mean that the principle of \u2018equality of arms\u2019 had been observed in the case. In his view, the fact that neither he nor the prosecution had been present at the second-instance proceedings did not render the proceedings fair as a whole, since the Regional Court was entitled to decide in both question of facts and law. The applicant referred to the Court\u2019s case law in this respect requiring the same safeguards to be implemented during the appellate trial as during the first-instance proceedings, in particular the obligation to hold a ."], "id": "59c9fc17-df7e-46b3-8835-bb2efb3018f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government argued that the Administrative Court had decided the case on the basis of facts which had been sufficiently established by the administrative bodies. The case had not been complex and it had not required additional evidence to be adduced before the court. The Administrative Court had not reassessed the facts, but had decided on purely legal issues related to the interpretation of the relevant legislation. In its judgment it considered the issue of whether in the relevant period there were conditions for treating the applicant in the respondent State irrelevant and excluded it from its consideration. They further argued that holding a hearing in the case would run contrary to the principle of efficiency and economy of the proceedings, especially in view of their length. The issues decided by the court did not require a and, in view of the nature of the present issue, it could have been expected that the applicant would have requested that the public be excluded. The fact that the Administrative Court did not address the applicant\u2019s request for a public hearing only concerned the reasoning of the court\u2019s judgment."], "id": "9948dbab-63d4-4925-97a9-44ef7a7463e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicants maintained that in the present case the Constitutional Court had not been called on to decide only issues of law. There had been several contested issues of fact, which had required that an oral and be held in the presence of the applicants and their representatives. Those issues concerned the manner in which the applicants had been removed from the Parliament gallery, notably whether the reasons for their removal had been explained to them, who had authorised the actions of the security officers, the level of force used by them and whether any security officer had been injured in the incident. Other disputed issues of fact concerned the applicants\u2019 (in)ability to follow the incident in the parliamentary chamber and the security risk that had required, as established by the Constitutional Court, their removal. In the latter context, they referred to the dissenting opinion of Judge N.G.D. of the Constitutional Court, in which the above elements had been pointed out (see paragraph 15 above). The applicants further argued that an oral and public hearing had been required not only for the purpose of establishing the relevant facts, but also given the \u201cexceptional public interest\u201d in the case. The holding of a public hearing would have contributed to public confidence in the administration of justice."], "id": "4eceb7ee-455b-4060-a41e-120f3472b004", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicant replied that the fact that the Constitutional Court Act expressly provided for a possibility of holding a only in abstract constitutional review proceedings did not mean that holding such a hearing in the proceedings following an individual constitutional complaint was prohibited. In any event, the Government\u2019s argument had been disproved by the practice of the Constitutional Court, which on 8 April 2011 had held a public hearing in proceedings instituted by the constitutional complaint of Mr P.T. (see paragraph 27 above) and had invited him to attend it."], "id": "50cc0291-1a44-4d4f-b6d1-a5aa74862b48", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government maintained that the lack of an oral hearing before the administrative courts did not violate the applicant\u2019s right to a fair and within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The right to an oral hearing was not absolute. Social security disputes were generally rather technical, their outcome usually being dependent on written opinions given by medical doctors, and many such disputes were better dealt with in writing than in oral argument. The administrative courts had to have regard also to the demands of efficiency and economy: systematic holding of oral hearings could be an obstacle to the particular diligence required in social security cases."], "id": "3d13f5d7-467d-41d1-bf5e-fb74e4258204", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government further pointed out that the Constitutional Court Act in its section 50 provided for a possibility of holding a but only in the abstract constitutional review proceedings (see paragraph 25 above), and that the Constitutional Court had held only two public hearings since 1990. However, such a possibility was not at all provided for in respect of the proceedings following an individual constitutional complaint, and was therefore excluded. Consequently, the applicant\u2019s request for an oral hearing could not have been granted, and she, as a legal professional, must or should have been aware of this."], "id": "46e7f21f-036b-43b7-a78a-08180345df82", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government noted that the costs and expenses before the Regional Court had not been incurred in order to prevent or repair the alleged breach of the Convention and that the costs and expenses incurred before the Constitutional Court would be justified in the event of a finding of a violation of the applicants' right to a . The Government had no objection to the reimbursement of about CZK 9,500 for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court."], "id": "db3197c4-0541-4837-ab89-95f50e80ff8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government emphasised that, in the present case, the Regional Court had neither considered the first-instance judgment ill-founded nor had found it necessary to take evidence or to hear the applicant. The applicant\u2019s case had not presented special circumstances requiring the defendant to be heard by the appellate court, unlike other cases which the Court has dealt with (cf. Constantinescu v. Romania, op. cit., \u00a7 58; Botten v. Norway, judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I, \u00a7 50). Neither the character of the offence nor the nature of the evidence had imperatively required the applicant to be heard by the appellate court: his credibility had not been decisive in assessing the evidence. Lastly, the Government pointed out that the appellate court, unlike the above-mentioned cases where the second-instance court had found the defendants guilty the first time, had simply reviewed the first-instance judgment which had already convicted the applicant. In these circumstances, holding a had not been necessary."], "id": "65582e5a-f863-4be7-b9b5-d0973b808c87", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant company observed that on 9 June 1998 the trial of Case no. 13/10-98 had been adjourned until the delivery of a new judgment in Case no. 70/10-98 and that under Ukrainian law the tribunal should first have decided whether to reopen the proceedings in Case no. 13/10-98 before ruling on the merits of that case. However, on 23 June 1998 the tribunal had decided the merits of Case no. 13/10-98 without formally reopening the proceedings or inviting submissions from the parties. The applicant company therefore considered that its right to a had not been complied with."], "id": "fdd1f47d-1611-47df-b9cd-08ab52de0810", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained that he did not receive a fair and , in the determination of the criminal charge against him. He further complained that he was not informed promptly of the accusation against him, he did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and that he was not allowed to defend himself in person or through a lawyer. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (a), (b) and (c) of the Convention:"], "id": "c95c0f81-c929-474e-83ed-af736130f3bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government pointed out that, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, the obligation to hold a (public) hearing was not absolute. Most of the cases in which no oral hearing had been held and where the Court had found no violation of Article 6 were civil cases, in contrast to criminal cases where the requirement to hold a was more imperative. In particular, in the Jussila case the Court held that: \u201cthe character of the circumstances that may justify dispensing with an oral hearing essentially comes down to the nature of the issues to be decided by the competent national court\u201d (see Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, \u00a7 42, ECHR 2006\u2011XIII). Therefore, a (public) hearing was not required where a tribunal was only called upon to decide on questions of law of no particular complexity (see Valov\u00e1, Slez\u00e1k and Slez\u00e1k v. Slovakia, no. 44925/98, \u00a7 64, 1 June 2004), or in cases that raised no questions of fact or law which could not be adequately resolved on the basis of the case-file and the parties\u2019 written observations (see D\u00f6ry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, \u00a7 37, 12 November 2002, and Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003). Where cases were better dealt with in writing than in oral argument, the Court had held that it was \u201cunderstandable that in this sphere the national authorities should have regard to the demands of efficiency and economy\u201d (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, \u00a7 58, Series A no. 263)."], "id": "37362500-a882-4013-ae6f-458cb37d322b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government argued that the special features of the proceedings constituted \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d which justified the absence of a . The Government noted in this regard that the case concerned a rather technical matter and the applicant, in her complaint with the Administrative Court, raised only points of law and questions concerning the formal aspects of the proceedings before the Regional Government. The Administrative Court could therefore adequately decide the case on the basis of the case file."], "id": "4ebae91c-5af0-40b2-b8be-43f737d258e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He further alleged under the same provision that he had not been afforded a and had not been notified of the public prosecutor\u2019s written opinion, which had denied him the right to a fair hearing."], "id": "48a6122d-9149-4f40-bc0e-7b092e637dfb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government claimed that the applicant\u2019s right to a was not violated. The applicant had taken part in the examination of his case by the first-instance court. He had been duly notified of the appeal hearing of 8 February 2005. The summons had been sent to him on 30 December 2004. However, the applicant did not appear at that hearing and did not inform the appeal court of the reasons of his absence. Therefore, the appeal court decided to examine the applicant\u2019s appeal in his absence. The Government submitted that the issues to be examined by the appeal court were not such as to require the applicant\u2019s personal presence at the hearing."], "id": "f0dc5804-923f-4a62-ac90-1e04ec16d39b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public hearing", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government submitted that plea bargaining in Georgia implied a waiver of certain procedural rights in exchange for a more lenient sentence and an expedited trial. Nevertheless, the most substantive guarantees of a fair trial had still been retained under the domestic law, and they had been duly put into practice in the first applicant\u2019s criminal case. Thus, first of all, the first applicant had been represented by qualified legal counsel, had given his prior approval before negotiations with the public prosecutor were started, and had provided the requisite written acceptance, countersigned by his lawyer, of the terms of the agreement reached. Subsequently, the trial court had examined the plea bargain at an oral and , during which it had enquired as to whether the plea bargain had been reached without duress and under otherwise fair conditions and whether the first applicant was willing to accept it in full awareness of the nature of the charges and the potential sentence. As further guarantees, the Government referred to the fact that not only had the first applicant been entitled to reject the agreed plea bargain during the court\u2019s review, but also the judge, who had been required to assess the validity of the accusations, had been empowered to block the plea bargain in the event of any doubt as to the first applicant\u2019s criminal liability."], "id": "03c3d8b3-d0a1-481c-9864-aee7cf548372", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant argued that he had not known what steps he should have taken in order to take part in the appeal hearing. The Court notes that at the beginning of the trial, the presiding judge informed the defendants of their rights to , to bring an appeal against the judgment, and to participate in the appeal hearing (see paragraph 6 above)."], "id": "3a32e64b-4806-40ff-8d35-c2e4c1af0fd2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government submitted that the first applicant was not precluded from lodging an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation but there was a certain procedure envisaged by the law at the material time which should have been respected by a person wishing to apply to this court. They argued that procedural requirements for lodging appeals were not incompatible with the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention. Furthermore, the domestic law envisaged a possibility to receive upon the initiative of an advocate. The Government finally submitted that the requirement that appeals on points of law could only be lodged by licensed advocates pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring the quality of appeals lodged with the Court of Cassation and was later abolished due to difficulties revealed during the practical implementation of the relevant procedural rules."], "id": "fbda7c79-452a-45af-9fc7-94c438743965", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government submitted that the domestic courts had acted in compliance with criminal procedural legislation, which did not provide for obligatory legal representation in cassation proceedings where, as in the applicant\u2019s case, no worsening of the convicted person\u2019s situation was possible. The Government noted in that connection that the applicant had been sentenced by the first-instance court to life imprisonment, the heaviest penalty and one which could not be made more severe. They did not agree that the lack of for him at that stage had run counter to the interests of justice."], "id": "d6cf72cb-c9f6-4b85-82b9-58ab20d1c453", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["2. The applicant was charged with two different offences: the offence of failure to comply with a lawful order given by a public official, as set out in Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (\u201cCAO\u201d), and the offence of participation in a public gathering which had not been notified in advance to the authorities, as provided for in Article 20.2 of the CAO. Given that both charges against the applicant arose from the same event, I will proceed to examine whether the interests of justice required that the applicant should have had an opportunity to obtain for this case taken as a whole. A formalistic approach to the facts, separating the two imputed offences, would hinder the adequate consideration of the substance of the case."], "id": "f4d24a96-2caf-440f-9e66-0d15e5461ef7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government submitted that a detainee had the opportunity to seek legal advice, for a fee, from a bar association or a law firm. A lawyer or other persons could be authorised to visit a convicted detainee, including for a legal consultation. The applicant had not however requested any such meetings. While the national legislation did not require provision of in civil court proceedings, the applicant\u2019s reference to lack of financial means should not have prevented him from seeking legal advice, which would have been readily available free of charge in cases concerning damage to health under the Advocates Act. Lastly, the prosecutor acted as a respondent in the civil case. In view of the above, the applicant had not been put at any significant disadvantage vis-\u00e0-vis the other parties."], "id": "b85e1bcd-802c-42f7-a098-e6f9f01f46d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that the domestic courts had acted in compliance with the criminal procedural legislation, which did not provide for obligatory legal representation in cassation proceedings where, as in the applicant\u2019s case, no possible worsening of the convicted person\u2019s situation was at stake. The Government noted, in this connection, that the applicant had been sentenced by the first-instance court to life imprisonment, the heaviest penalty, which could not be worsened any further. They did not consider the lack of for him at that stage to have run counter to the interests of justice."], "id": "a295b834-f0fb-47de-9d79-7884df8d084b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant maintained that the complexity of his case, the risk of his being sentenced to life imprisonment which was the gravest criminal punishment, as well as his lack of any income, required that his free legal representation be ensured by the State in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Given that the domestic legislation recognised such a need during a pre-trial investigation and a trial at the first-instance court, the applicant considered it incomprehensible and unjustified that the was not retained for him further on."], "id": "8ff5d028-6452-49e6-84c4-0eec832bae8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government pointed out that under the domestic legislation on the matter of free legal aid, a prisoner\u2019s difficult financial situation was a necessary precondition for him to be entitled to . Then again, even if an individual satisfied that condition, the provision of legal aid was to be terminated upon the finding of a court that the proceedings had no prospects of success."], "id": "c6fd1c79-69be-4068-a5e3-ff31d531cf06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s grievances, except for those concerning legal assistance relating to the appeal in 2004, were either unsupported by evidence or unfounded. They considered that, in any event, all alleged shortcomings should have been definitely remedied in the new appeal proceedings in 2008. The applicant had had provided by A., who had studied the case file and had conducted a proper defence in support of the appeal statement lodged by Y. in 2004. The applicant\u2019s mother could not have served as a lay defence representative for health reasons and, similarly, the applicant\u2019s cellmate had been serving a sentence of imprisonment. The applicant had studied the case file in 2003; the new volumes had not contained any information affecting the appeal proceedings; and the applicant had been given access to all relevant submissions made by the other parties. The obligation to bear counsel\u2019s fees was acceptable and had not offended against Article 6 of the Convention."], "id": "3e2b4046-ce26-4ec6-8ca1-b67f7ce2abbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government, relying on Article 45 \u00a7 2 of the CCP, contended that legal representation of the applicant at that stage of proceedings had not been mandatory, as he had been sentenced to the heaviest penalty and his position could not have been worsened. This argument is immaterial for the Court, as even assuming that the applicant was not entitled to under domestic law, the question is whether he was entitled to that assistance under the Convention."], "id": "e21a34f8-7898-445e-9804-5cbc451d4bda", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention of the alleged unfairness and the outcome of the proceedings in her cases. She further complained that she had not been able to obtain any legal assistance in her cases as the insufficient amount of her pension had not allowed her to pay a lawyer and the law did not provide for in civil cases. In the applicant's opinion, the absence of qualified legal assistance significantly delayed and complicated the consideration of her cases."], "id": "80316977-b59f-4cee-9644-64f81806747f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government submitted that the applicant had been granted from the day of his initial interview on 9 April 2004 and all the investigative measures, including interviews, confrontations with witnesses, etc., were carried out in the lawyer\u2019s presence. The applicant had given his consent to be represented by the lawyer in question, which he once again confirmed on 10 April 2004. There was no evidence that, during either the investigation or the proceedings at two judicial instances, he was unsatisfied with his lawyer. He had never made any statements or complaints about the lawyer\u2019s behaviour. If the applicant was unsatisfied with his lawyer, he could have dispensed with his services at any time."], "id": "ebd38e28-8877-4b3c-8698-6db5daad204b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant argued that there existed a crucial difference between his case and Croissant (cited above). While Mr Croissant had not requested on the basis of his indigence, the applicant had specifically done so. His request had however been overlooked by the trial court, which had appointed counsel for him on a different ground. That had in itself amounted to a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c)."], "id": "077f56a2-5bbb-4022-a2b3-85399b1aa3d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Free Legal Assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government also maintained that the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention had not extended to the obligation of the State to provide an alleged victim of ill-treatment with free legal representation to support his allegations before the domestic authorities. Nevertheless, they stated that for the purpose of effective participation in the criminal proceedings the applicant did have access to legal representation. The right to legal assistance had been guaranteed by Article 59 of the Constitution of Ukraine and by the Social Services Act. They further noted that the new Act had been adopted on 2 June 2011, and specifically addressed the issue. In practical terms, the applicant could apply for legal assistance to the Horodenka territorial social support centre for pensioners, handicapped people and single disabled people. He could also apply to the legal advice office at the Horodenka District Department of Justice, which opened in 2003 and which could advise the applicant on legal issues and assist him in the preparation of various procedural documents. The Government lastly submitted that the applicant could apply to the national ombudsman and other authorities who would address his requests within their competence."], "id": "62b48f40-7807-4f6c-8512-360be0395d67", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant alleged, in a general manner, that he was disadvantaged because he was not represented by counsel despite facing two parties, the public prosecutor and S., the latter being represented by a lawyer. However, it does not follow from either the principle of equality of arms or the right to that free legal assistance has to be provided in each and every case to a party whose opponent is represented by counsel. The applicant did furthermore not argue that he had not been given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed by either the public prosecutor or S. in the proceedings before the District Court. In fact, it is not in dispute that he was given access to the file and that he made submissions on multiple occasions (see paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 above)."], "id": "a08b535a-2000-45fe-a33f-0fd75f5ca3ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government further noted that the applicant had signed a waiver refusing a lawyer during the questioning of 12 and 15 April 1998. Furthermore, on the latter date the applicant had been represented by a lawyer engaged by his farther and had talked to him before questioning but refused his services during the questioning. They also submitted that the applicant had never requested and that by the time his actions had been reclassified as a crime that required obligatory legal representation of the suspect, the applicant was represented."], "id": "aec1f8b1-e49d-4967-8ddd-ff0863b0101d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant maintained that the complexity of his case, the risk of his being sentenced to life imprisonment, the most serious criminal punishment, as well as his lack of any income, had required that he be afforded free legal representation by the State in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Given that domestic legislation recognised such a need during a pre-trial investigation and in a trial before a first-instance court, the applicant found it incomprehensible and unjustified that had not been provided for him in the subsequent proceedings."], "id": "71edb796-ecc5-4de5-9b8b-6b4c116f5f9b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicants accepted that there was no obligation under the Convention to make legal aid available for disputes (contestations) in civil proceedings, as under the Court's case-law there was a clear distinction between the wording of Article 6 \u00a7 3 (c), which guaranteed the right to on certain conditions in criminal proceedings, and of Article 6 \u00a7 1, which made no reference to legal assistance (Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, \u00a7 20, ECHR 2002\u2011II)."], "id": "6b321be6-5292-4791-8307-867b95b9ad99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government also submitted that the civil aspect of Article 6 of the Convention was inapplicable in respect of the relevant domestic proceedings under the CAO. The criminal limb of Article 6 was also inapplicable, since Russian law made no provision for in CAO proceedings. However, the applicant could retain counsel for such proceedings, which were in any event quite simple. The applicant had been made aware of her procedural rights and had made use of them during the proceedings, in particular by way of lodging submissions. Provision of free legal assistance was not made necessary by the circumstances of the case, in view of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant, and the simplicity of the procedure, which could be fully understood by a lay person. In fact, the contents of the applicant\u2019s submission to the domestic courts disclosed that she was well versed in domestic law."], "id": "e245533c-90ba-4144-9c60-e13f71010ce6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant complained that she had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Van State Security Court which tried and convicted her. She further complained under the same head that her right to a public hearing as well as had been infringed. Finally, the applicant claimed that the principle of \u201cequality of arms\u201d had not been respected, since the bill of indictment was not in a language she could understand. The applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "id": "4417b6d8-c635-4c40-9052-21c588251655", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant argued that the Berlin Tiergarten District Court was obliged to appoint, of its own motion, defence counsel for him in the first\u2011instance criminal proceedings, in which he was convicted of libel and two counts of assault, sentenced to a fine, and ordered to pay damages to the victim. The victim was represented by counsel as the private accessory prosecutor and with regard to his civil claims. Thus, the applicant was confronted with two lawyers, the public prosecutor and counsel for the victim. In this scenario, the District Court was obliged to appoint counsel for him ex officio and free of charge in order to respect the principle of equality of arms, bearing in mind that he lacked sufficient means to pay for counsel himself. He had neither been informed about the possibility to apply for nor had he been asked about aspects speaking in favour of granting him legal assistance."], "id": "1b520f02-63d8-4a52-8017-d70c0d6b1eee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant referred to the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision of 8 October 2008 which stated, inter alia, that according to the information provided by the Chamber of Advocates only two out of four public defenders authorised to act before the Court of Cassation had drafted sixteen appeals on points of law on a pro bono basis. It further stated that, given the high number of civil and criminal cases examined in Armenian courts, there was a very scarce guarantee ensuring by licensed advocates in the absence of a clear procedure and circumstances of such assistance which was simply dependent on the \u201cgood will\u201d of the Office of the Public Defender."], "id": "05de53fe-da99-48d2-91ae-4f782e1a882c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government considered that the applicant had suffered no \u201csignificant disadvantage\u201d (see, among others, Giuran v. Romania, no. 24360/04, \u00a7\u00a7 21-23, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Van Velden v. the Netherlands, no. 30666/08, \u00a7\u00a7 37-39, 19 July 2011). The Court accepts that the fines imposed on the applicant were small. The Court observes that the present case raises issues concerning applicability of Article 6 of the Convention in relation to the procedure prescribed by the Russian Code of Administrative Offences and the absence of any provision for a right to under the CAO. Both issues arise in a number of similar pending applications before the Court in respect of Russia. Noting the nature of the issues raised in the present case, which also arguably concerns an important matter of principle, as well as the scope of the limitations, the Court does not find it appropriate to dismiss the present application with reference to Article 35 \u00a7 3 (b) of the Convention (see Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, \u00a7 34, 10 July 2012, and also paragraph 40 above)."], "id": "ce8b627d-f7e3-4c24-ae5e-79be803a6965", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted that, as a matter of law, the applicant, who had been serving a prison sentence at the time, did not have the right to be personally present at the court hearing concerning determination of his civil rights and obligations or to be entitled to . Nor did the interests of justice require that he be provided with legal aid. Accordingly, the domestic courts' decision to hear the case in the applicant's absence had been in compliance with applicable domestic laws. The courts had duly advised the applicant of the date and time of the court hearings and of his procedural rights, including the rights to appoint a representative to plead the case on his behalf and to ask the court to procure evidence. The applicant, however, had chosen not to avail himself of them. The courts had thoroughly examined the applicant's claims and the submissions made by the respondent parties in accordance with the rules of civil procedure. In the Government's opinion, the fact that the applicant had not been present in court was not decisive for the outcome of the proceedings. Nor had the principle of the equality of arms been infringed."], "id": "aeea77d3-8abf-4c04-89d8-15bc14716ecf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the right of access to court is not absolute and that the domestic law provided for exceptions for persons who were unable to afford the services of an advocate. They pointed out in particular Article 6 of the Advocacy Act which stated, at the material time, that a person could receive upon the initiative of an advocate."], "id": "1f797be9-e828-4e93-b0cb-3c0d0d7a2ca3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government, relying on Article 45 \u00a7 2 of the CCP, contended that the applicant had not been entitled to compulsory legal representation at that stage of proceedings as he had been convicted to the heaviest penalty and his position could not be aggravated. This argument is immaterial for the Court, as even assuming that the applicant was not entitled to under the domestic law, the question is whether he was entitled to that assistance under the Convention."], "id": "c7dddb22-f694-4237-940d-015b20f5fe25", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government contended that the applicant never applied to a licensed advocate and only assumed that she would not be able to meet the costs involved, while the advocates were entitled to provide pro bono legal services. Instead, she applied to the Court of Cassation directly and therefore failed to comply with the rules of procedure. The Court notes in this regard that the Government failed to provide any concrete examples of cases where licensed advocates had agreed to provide to persons willing to lodge an appeal on points of law. This argument therefore is of a purely speculative nature. The Court further notes that the essence of the applicant\u2019s complaint is that her appeal on points of law was not admitted by the Court of Cassation because of the procedural requirement that such appeals should be lodged by qualified advocates whose services she could not afford, given her difficult financial situation. In such circumstances, it cannot be considered that the applicant failed to meet the requirements of Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention by not having lodged an appeal on points of law through a licensed advocate. The Government\u2019s objection, therefore, should be dismissed."], "id": "63420b74-7425-4445-ab6e-936f3cfa714e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government submitted that the applicant had not proved that he lacked the financial resources to appoint defence counsel. They further submitted that the interests of justice did not require the provision of in the present case because first, the case brought against the applicant was neither serious nor complex; secondly, the applicant was legally represented in the proceedings before the Nova Zagora District Court, and no new evidence was produced before the Sliven Regional Court; thirdly, the applicant was well-educated and in good health; and finally, unlike the applicant in Raykov v. Bulgaria (no. 35185/03, 22 October 2009), the applicant in the present case did not face the threat of deprivation of liberty as the Nova Zagora District Court had already replaced the criminal liability with administrative liability."], "id": "67c137b6-11f9-4aa9-afef-d0645f181a88", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government maintained that the applicant had contributed to the delay by the failure to specify her claims and comply with the Regional Court's orders to do so. On several occasions she amended her claims, which entailed the defendants' obligation to comment on them. The Government made also reference to the fact that she had lodged two requests for an interim measure, two requests for exemption from court costs and a request for , as well as subsequent appeals against all decisions refusing those requests."], "id": "0b1bbee7-6e45-4fad-a240-ea4ed9a18f73", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant complained of unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he alleged that one of the judges at first instance had not been impartial; that his conviction had been based in part on his and his co-defendants\u2019 statements which had been obtained under duress and in in breach of the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination; that the first-instance court had refused to summon some of the witnesses he had requested it to call; that he had not been provided with adequate time to study the case-file after his conviction; and that he had not been provided with to prepare his appeal against the conviction of 20 December 2005. The applicant relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The Court considers that this part of the applicant\u2019s complaints falls to be examined under Article 6 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "d511a8b2-c68a-4eca-9e2a-48f2a97b85a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government pointed out that in the TRNC it was the constitutional right of everyone charged with an offence to be given . It was also standard procedure to assign free legal assistance in serious cases, such as a murder or a manslaughter trial, even if the person charged did not himself appoint a lawyer to represent him. Nevertheless, the applicant had not asked the police to appoint a lawyer for him whilst he was being questioned by them."], "id": "2e492317-3c2f-4f7d-b46a-0be89494cecf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant complained that the decision of the District Court not to appoint, of its own motion, defence counsel for him for the first-instance proceedings before it, breached his right to a fair trial, in particular the principle of equality of arms and the right to . He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention alone and taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Wetjen and Others v. Germany, nos. 68125/14 and 72204/14, \u00a7 44, 22 March 2018, with further references), finds it appropriate to examine this complaint solely under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "7709c042-2af5-46f0-bc6f-9d285ebfc75d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "free legal assistance", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government submitted that the applicant was not precluded from lodging an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation but there was a certain procedure envisaged by the law at the material time which should have been respected by a person willing to apply to this court. They argued that procedural requirements for lodging appeals were not incompatible with the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention. Furthermore, the domestic law envisaged a possibility to receive upon the initiative of an advocate. The Government finally submitted that the requirement that appeals on points of law could only be lodged by licensed advocates pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring the quality of appeals lodged with the Court of Cassation and was later abolished due to difficulties revealed during the practical implementation of the relevant procedural rules."], "id": "cd59e980-6de1-484f-8472-c49be410d9df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "independent tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant complained that his detention had been unlawful and therefore contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He further complained that there had been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 since he had been convicted by a court that could not qualify as an \u201c established by law\u201d and that moreover had not afforded him a fair trial. The relevant parts of Articles 5 and 6 read as follows:"], "id": "f3ddc494-e685-4b10-8246-ab152b111465", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "independent tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant complained that his detention had been unlawful and therefore contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. He further complained that there had been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 since he had been convicted by a court that could not qualify as an \u201c established by law\u201d and that moreover it had not afforded him a fair trial. The relevant parts of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention read as follows:"], "id": "4cfe9512-846d-4ad8-a0ee-4b0387cbb9ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "independent tribunal", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government replied that the independence of the administrative court was guaranteed at the highest level in the hierarchy of domestic norms, the Constitutional Council having recognised it in 1980 as a constitutional principle by nature. As regards the members of the Conseil d'Etat, they enjoyed a status enshrined in legislative and regulatory provisions of the Administrative Courts Code which were underpinned by a strong tradition of independence. The Government referred to the guarantees of independence inherent in the status of the members of the French Conseil d'Etat, as described by the Court in the above-mentioned Kress judgment. They submitted that this status entailed sound safeguards that could be compared to those of the Council of State in the Netherlands, which the Court had examined in connection with the right to be heard by an in its above-mentioned Kleyn and Others judgment. In that judgment the Court held that \u201cin the absence of any indication of a lack of sufficient and adequate safeguards against possible extraneous pressure, [it had] found nothing in the applicants' submissions that could substantiate their concerns as to the independence of the Council of State and its members\u201d. Mutatis mutandis, the Government requested the Court to apply this case-law to the question of the status of member of the French Conseil d'Etat."], "id": "235b38d2-cd26-4a61-89ce-3fb973a38a46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["223. The Government submitted that Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention could not prevent the authorities from informing the public about any criminal investigations in progress. They maintained that the applicants\u2019 had not been breached and that neither any preliminary court decisions nor any public statements pointed to by the applicants had depicted them as criminals or established their guilt prior to their criminal conviction."], "id": "db1f8879-9a1e-4458-976b-9e8773aafe97", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government maintained that the High Court had made every effort to ensure compatibility with the in Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In its judgment it had provided an account of the differences in the standard of proof respectively in criminal and civil cases and had clearly distinguished between the criminal and civil liability in the case of the applicant. This distinction the High Court had reinforced by its diligent underlining and application of the standard of clear preponderance of evidence, a different standard than the criminal one. It had also stressed that its award of compensation did not affect the correctness of the applicant\u2019s acquittal, unlike in the High Court judgment that had been the subject of review in Orr (cited above, \u00a7 53)."], "id": "d99a91b7-d7bb-4d0c-9ccb-de74f1574c4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant\u2019s complaint concerns the alleged violation of his right to the on account of the wording used in a judgment issued in separate (civil) proceedings. In its judgment, the Voroshilovskiy District Court stated that the police officers had intended to \u201cput an end to the breach of public order, consisting of [showing] disrespect to society accompanied by the use of foul language in a public place [by the applicant], disturbing citizens in an insulting manner and refusing to obey an order by a public official\u201d."], "id": "0fb4ce3d-5816-4cff-b73b-04699f6e3881", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government also argued that the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the breach of his right to the as a result of the virulent press campaign against him was inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae. They submitted that the media campaign had been carried out by the media and had represented the point of view of the journalists who had authored the newspaper articles and of the civil parties to the case, and therefore concluded that the State could not be held responsible for their actions or for their opinions. They further argued that the applicant had not proved that he had been the object of a virulent media campaign which had breached his right to the presumption of innocence. Moreover, there had been no evidence that the media campaign had had any influence on the outcome of the case or that the appellate courts examining his case had started from the presumption that the burden of proof in respect of the applicant\u2019s guilt did not fall on the Prosecutor\u2019s Office. Furthermore, by relying on the Court\u2019s case-law, in particular Mircea v. Romania (no. 41250/02, 29 March 2007) and Viorel Burzo v. Romania (no. 75109/01 and 12639/02, 30 June 2009), they submitted that the media campaign complained of by the applicant had ended in 2000, two years prior to the decision delivered by the first-instance court. Consequently, it could not be argued that the judges could have continued to be influenced by the said campaign. Also, the impact such a campaign would have had on public opinion had been greatly diminished following the judgments of the domestic courts."], "id": "66aaf6e6-17fd-4671-8c25-2679d792e255", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government considered that issues relating to the only arose in cases in which criminal proceedings were still pending. When those criminal proceedings were concluded, as was the case in the present application, the national court could express its opinion as to whether an accused was guilty or not. Hence, no mention could be made of a \u201cpresumption\u201d in respect of the offence attributed to a defendant since his or her guilt would have been proven as an actual fact."], "id": "70473f2f-1a2e-4828-af84-446609774f13", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. In particular, he had failed to lodge a civil claim under Articles 199 and 200 of the Obligations Act, or a \u201ccitizen\u2019s complaint\u201d (appeal) with the Court of Serbia and Montenegro (see paragraphs 15-16 above). Further, since Article 19 of the Charter on Human and Minority Rights and Civic Freedoms (see paragraph 12 above) enshrined the , the present case clearly fell within that court\u2019s jurisdiction ratione materiae. Lastly, the Government submitted that the Court of Serbia and Montenegro Act was being reviewed and that its jurisdiction might, in due course, be amended so that citizens\u2019 complaints could be considered by the plenary court instead of chambers and, further, that rulings it adopted under such a procedure would formally be \u201cdecisions\u201d rather than \u201cjudgments\u201d."], "id": "85f4a2e8-1a77-42cf-b75b-59372faf26e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant submitted that the reasoning in the Regional Court\u2019s judgment had violated the under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. He stressed that the Regional Court, in its written judgment, had expressed the opinion that \u201cthe core events described by the witness have a factual basis, that is, that the accused actually carried out sexual assaults on his daughter in his car\u201d. He considered that these statements amounted to a finding of guilt despite the fact that the Regional Court had acquitted him on account of insufficiency of proof."], "id": "c234e422-551a-42d5-9f96-c6da49f99347", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant submits that the drawing of a distinction between a full acquittal and an acquittal in dubio pro reo is contrary to the as it is incompatible with this principle to have two classes of acquittal. Such a distinction is also not in line with the Court\u2019s case-law (Sekanina v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A; Asan Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, 21.3.2000). Thus, the reasoning of the Innsbruck Regional Court and the Innsbruck Court of Appeal violated the principle of the presumption of innocence as they disregarded the final acquittal in the criminal proceedings."], "id": "0a770b58-0db5-48f8-b899-b6a6247e1c91", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government further submitted that the did not apply to the instant proceedings, as the applicant had not been charged with a criminal offence and the proceedings were not aimed at establishing the applicant\u2019s guilt. In deciding whether to suspend a sentence on probation in accordance with Article 57a \u00a7 1 of the Criminal Code, the execution of sentence chamber had to make its own prognosis on the danger posed by the convicted person."], "id": "8d7cadb4-3f07-472c-a4e4-16625f155e54", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies in respect of the impugned joint statement of law enforcement authorities. In this regard, the Government submitted that the applicant could make use of the procedure concerning appeals against the prosecution authorities' actions and decisions set out in Articles 449-451 of the CCrP or lodge a criminal complaint for defamation. The Government did not comment on the part of the complaint concerning the alleged breach of the by the domestic courts."], "id": "b1b696fd-e1b5-4a77-adc3-dc4fde176b1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government submitted that a thorough and effective investigation of the applicants' allegations of ill-treatment had been conducted by the prosecutors. 15 witnesses of the events of 4 October 1993 had been questioned, and opinions of the experts had been obtained in order to establish the credibility of the applicants' complaints. The prosecution had decided to discontinue the investigation as the majority of the testimonies had confirmed the version of the events given by the police; the decision had been taken also with due respect to the principle of the of the policemen. "], "id": "c9584633-0820-46c8-b67d-9acbc746352c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicants submitted that Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention required that the late accused\u2019s necessary expenses be borne by the treasury, given that his conviction had not become final. The decision of the Regional Court of 5 April 2012 to discontinue the proceedings and to refrain from charging his necessary expenses to the treasury reinforced the finding of guilt contained in the trial judgment. It clearly endorsed that judgment\u2019s findings and fully attributed the absence of a final conviction to the defence strategy. Thereby, an image of the finality of the late accused\u2019s conviction was created while eliminating any possibility for his effective defence, notably the examination of the grounds of his appeal on points of law. In fact, the provision applied by the Regional Court (Article 467 \u00a7 3, second sentence, number 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), as interpreted by the domestic courts, itself was bound to infringe the by requiring that the procedural impediment be the sole reason for the absence of a final conviction, which would otherwise have been certain."], "id": "b89c1517-9e5f-4ce3-b984-54e61d3b862a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant further complained under Article 7 of the Convention that the conduct leading to her conviction did not constitute a criminal offence under national law as S.K. had voluntarily transferred the money to her account. From that moment on the money had no longer formed a part of his, and subsequently his estate\u2019s, possessions. She had, therefore, not been obliged to report the money in the estate inventory. She further complained that the unlawful conviction even constituted a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, as the had not been respected by the courts."], "id": "8f121d63-f7c3-43f7-8893-0df6fc254425", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["212. The applicant complained that the joint statements made by the Prosecutor General's Office, the MNS and the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the press on 20 and 21 October 2005 had amounted to an infringement of his right to the . He also complained that, subsequently during the course of the pre-trial investigation, various public officials, including the President of Azerbaijan and the Prosecutor General, had made public statements describing him as a criminal. Lastly, he complained that, in the decisions ordering and extending his pre-trial detention, the domestic courts had also breached his presumption of innocence by prejudging his guilt before he had been proved guilty following a criminal trial. Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "id": "f6d1dbde-ad18-4ca2-afef-38894b5205e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government stated that during the investigation of the criminal case against the first applicant it had been revealed that he had been assisted by another person. Since the witnesses recognised the third applicant as this person, on 6 June 2000 the third applicant was charged with fraud. However, since the third applicant was missing, the criminal proceedings against him were stayed and on 21 January 2004 the court considered only the criminal case against the first applicant. The Government insisted that the court's findings were limited only to the fact that the first applicant was assisted by his son, without determining of the latter's guilt. In the Government's view the court had referred to the witnesses' statements about the third applicant assisting his father in committing \u201cunlawful actions\u201d, but these findings could not breach the principle of the in respect to the third applicant."], "id": "a46ad19f-f56d-45c8-9cf7-b4fcd62329bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained that she had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbak\u0131r State Security Court which tried and convicted her. She maintained that her right to the had also been breached since there was no concrete evidence to secure a conviction other than her statements obtained under duress by police officers. The applicant further claimed that she had been denied the assistance of a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings and that she had not been informed promptly of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. She finally contended that the State Security Court had heard the witnesses against her, but had refused to hear the witnesses who would testify for her. She relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (a), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "ef0d2567-57e5-414c-b75d-9c02e2d1eb6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["157. The Government noted that Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention could not prevent the authorities from informing the public, with all the necessary discretion and circumspection, about criminal investigations in progress. They submitted that the applicant's had not been violated in the present case. They noted that the Prosecutor General's comments had not depicted the applicant as a criminal. The Prosecutor General had simply commented on the reasons for instituting a criminal case and informed the public that an investigation was being conducted."], "id": "d08d6b85-dac8-41f7-a2d7-b16dab1b7be1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant maintained that the domestic courts, and, in particular, the execution of sentence chamber of the Marburg Regional Court, in its decision of 23 February 1999, had assumed that he had committed the crime he had been accused of in 1997, notwithstanding the fact that he had been acquitted of all charges in this respect. That court had thus disrespected the . All further decisions on the applicant\u2019s requests to suspend the further execution of his sentence on probation based their assessment on the assumption that he had committed the act he had been accused of in 1997, and thus perpetuated the violation of his Convention rights."], "id": "fe26e7ef-22cd-4b25-8314-002358da0d67", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government further maintained that in so far as the applicant complained about the media attention that the Regional Court\u2019s judgment had attracted in particular in Turkey, and even assuming that protection from public attention formed part of the principle of the , he could have been expected to exhaust the appropriate civil-law remedies in that respect. In any event, the Government could not be held responsible for statements made in the Turkish media."], "id": "483f78f2-ffb3-4117-9561-7be2aae2a60e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant further claimed that the labour court not only disregarded the final acquittal and found that the applicant had committed the offence of incitement, but that in doing so it also relied on the self-incriminating statements given by the applicant to the police in the absence of her lawyer. The Court notes in this context that it has already found that the use as evidence for a criminal conviction of statements given by the accused to the police without the assistance of a lawyer may amount to a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, \u00a7\u00a7 56-62, ECHR 2008). The Government have not commented on the applicant\u2019s claim that her statements to the police were used as evidence in the civil case. The Court further notes that the labour court in its judgment referred to the fact that the applicant\u2019s employer had relied on the fact that the applicant had confessed to inciting M.G. into committing the crime, and that the labour court explicitly stated that it had examined the entire criminal investigation file (see paragraph 14 above). Thus, the facts of the case seem to indicate that the statements given by the applicant to the police without the assistance of a lawyer were relied on by the labour court, and the Court does not rule out that reliance by a court on such statements in civil proceedings may raise an issue under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. However, having regard to the fact that the labour court\u2019s reasoning and the wording used violated the applicant\u2019s right to , the Court does not find it necessary to also assess if the labour court in reaching its conclusion relied on evidence in violation of the right to a fair trial."], "id": "74dfea20-0070-4451-a3c5-c9b6fda12a7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government submitted that the principles of , adversarial procedure and equality of arms had been applied throughout the proceedings. Russian law contained sufficient guarantees in respect of impartiality of judges. The absence from the hearing of the official who had drawn up the report on the administrative offence or of other prosecuting authorities or officials had not therefore meant that the domestic courts had assumed the role of proving the accusation against the applicant. The domestic courts had not collected the evidence for the prosecution: the evidence had been collected and submitted to the courts by competent officials and by the defence; the courts\u2019 role had been limited to assessing that evidence. Given that administrative-offence cases were usually simple, it was not necessary for the prosecutor to participate in the oral hearings. However, if the judge considered that the prosecution\u2019s evidence was incomplete or defective, it returned the case to the competent officials for corrections. The courts had therefore had a purely judicial, rather than prosecuting, role."], "id": "0c784687-7a41-413c-a3c7-4b0d04e6d7be", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicant argued that the domestic courts had violated the because in their decisions ordering and extending his detention they had repeatedly stated that the defendants had engaged in trafficking in illegal drugs, showing persistence and resolve in committing the criminal offence in question. Furthermore, the national courts had repeatedly stated that there was a risk of reoffending because he had already been convicted of the same offences. However, there was no final conviction against him. They had also considered the fact that two other sets of criminal proceedings were pending against him as a relevant factor in assessing the risk of his reoffending, thus implying that he was guilty of the offences that were the subject of those two sets of proceedings."], "id": "ce80a150-1996-4fe5-8c02-ab899e3d8efe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the criminal case could not have been comprehensively examined if the reference to the individual who had managed the criminal enterprise had been omitted. Such an omission would have made impossible the determination of the roles which each member of the gang had played. In the Government\u2019s view, this reference did not amount to a breach of the ."], "id": "8b02bf5c-f83e-4156-bcba-4c4ab4b6cef7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government maintained that the High Court had given sufficient reasoning for its decision to award civil compensation to the children. As regards the applicant\u2019s submission that the High Court should have discussed the counter evidence, namely the possibility of alternative perpetrators (two such perpetrators had at an earlier stage been charged but were not indicted), the Government argued that such a detailed account would inevitably challenge the . Whilst a Norwegian court would give extensive reasoning for its decision in an ordinary civil case, in joint proceedings such as the present, a high court sitting with a jury would by tradition state its reasons succinctly in order to avoid making statements that could be viewed as being inconsistent with the jury\u2019s acquittal."], "id": "b2bab581-2a5b-4f67-bd6a-6918f55a7738", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government did not dispute the fact that the disciplinary investigation against the applicants had been conducted on the basis of the criminal investigation file. However, they submitted that other evidence, such as witness statements, had been collected during the disciplinary investigation. They argued that the disciplinary authorities, on the basis of a less strict burden of proof, had reached the conclusion that the applicants should be held liable in terms of disciplinary law for their conduct which had given rise to a criminal investigation. In the case of the first applicant, they argued that the grounds for his dismissal had been disturbing the peace and order of the work environment and not membership of an illegal organisation and, therefore, the decision could not be considered to be contrary to the applicant\u2019s right to the . They argued in that connection that the findings of the disciplinary and judicial authorities had only concluded that the applicant had a link with the illegal organisation without suggesting that he had been aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation from a criminal law perspective. In the case of the second applicant, they contended that since the Mardin Administrative Court in its judgment of 24 November 2009 had limited its reasoning to the disciplinary sphere by expressly indicating that the criminal charges against the applicant had been discontinued, it could not be said that that court\u2019s reasoning ran contrary to the presumption of innocence. Lastly, they argued that where there were serious suspicions against civil servants, the disciplinary bodies should not have to await the outcome of criminal proceedings, which could take years to finalise. In the face of serious allegations such as those in the present cases, it would be contrary to the public interest if the disciplinary authorities were required to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings."], "id": "3b011677-3025-4231-bb1a-f9e401c696e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicants submitted that the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision of 4 October 2012, by which it declared their appeal against the decision of the Regional Court of 5 April 2012 inadmissible for lack of standing, was in plain contradiction to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of N\u00f6lkenbockhoff v. Germany (25 August 1987, Series A no. 123). In that case, the Court had recognised the victim status of a widow in respect of the , as guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, concerning, inter alia, statements relating to her late husband in connection with the discontinuation of criminal proceedings against him by reason of his death. It did not remedy this manifest breach of the applicants\u2019 right of access to a court that the Court of Appeal went on to state that their appeal was, in the alternative, ill-founded."], "id": "d1a93edb-ff39-4dda-b208-486bdd527a30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained that the as guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention had been violated and submits that the Independent Administrative Panel had applied a reversal of the burden of proof. The applicant further complained about the Austrian authorities\u2019 failure to hear J. Z. in the proceedings before the Independent Administrative Panel as a witness. The applicant complained that no prosecuting authority participated in the proceedings before the Independent Administrative Panel and that therefore the member of the Independent Administrative Panel acted both as judge and prosecutor. He submits that, therefore, he did not have a fair hearing by a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. Finally, the applicant complained about the lack of an oral hearing before the Administrative Court."], "id": "df6abe65-914f-4263-97ce-8f68c7734528", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants submitted that in the reasoning given for its judgment base on Article 341 CPP, the Court of Cassation had observed that the reopening procedure was independent and distinct from the initial proceedings. They therefore considered that they should have been tried as \u201caccused\u201d rather than \u201cconvicted\u201d persons. Furthermore, they should have benefited from the until the judgment delivered with regard to them had become final."], "id": "800d7536-2207-4a4c-be72-1533129ee0b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government submitted that being an ordinary measure introduced about twenty years ago and applied to all defendants in custody, the \u201csecurity barrier\u201d used in the applicants\u2019 case could not have influenced the jury at their trial or undermined the . Besides, the presiding judge had drawn the jurors\u2019 attention to the fact that the applicants\u2019 remand in custody did not constitute evidence of their guilt. Furthermore, the first applicant had been acquitted on all the charges and the second applicant on most of the charges brought against him."], "id": "7013b774-8c8a-40f2-b341-99b8e58ecb86", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["127. The applicant further complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair in that the courts had not been impartial, he had not been afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence and he had not been able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, in particular in view of the poor conditions of his detention, which had prevented him from preparing his defence. He also complained that the statements of some high-ranking State officials to the media ran counter to the ."], "id": "c16f2677-cf8a-4fda-a19d-6a866aff2dca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government pointed out that the charges against the applicant had concerned several serious sexual crimes which had been committed in co-operation with other persons. Some of the crimes had been committed with extreme cruelty and involved minors. The applicant faced a heavy sentence and there existed, in the Government's opinion, a genuine public-interest requirement which, notwithstanding the , outweighed the rule of respect for individual liberty and justified the applicant's continued detention. They noted that the applicant was eventually sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment and temporary deprivation of his civic rights."], "id": "6002551d-8981-4365-95a3-4f974b1fc03d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["312. The applicant emphasised that the Court of Cassation had not merely impugned the mistake of law committed by the Court of Appeal. In his view, by substituting its own ruling for that of the court below in a non\u2011customary manner, the Court of Cassation had established the existence of all the necessary elements for the offence of unlawful site development to be made out, that is, in both its material and mental elements. The applicant explained that, according to the Court of Cassation, the change in use of the buildings was proved by the statements of third parties and by the documents in the file. In that court\u2019s view, according to the applicant, the unlawful nature of the development was not in doubt. This decision thus clearly breached the principle of the enshrined in Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "78aca5c0-1a24-4c6a-baec-fbc8d6957389", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted that Law No. 4616 did not contain a provision to prevent national courts from expressing their opinions regarding the merits of cases when suspending them. In the view of the Government, such opinions expressed by national courts do not amount to definitive judgments. In the present case, although the Istanbul Assize Court had been of the opinion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, it had confined itself to Law No. 4616 and suspended the proceedings. According to the Government, assessment by a national court of the evidence and its probative value and expressing an opinion by that court regarding the merits of the case, could not and should not be considered to be in breach of the right to the within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "bc8abf44-68a2-43ca-ad79-3f4899a67955", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government accepted that State authorities which had to take decisions concerning the applicant after, and on the basis of the Regional Court\u2019s impugned judgment could only refer to the operative part of that judgment acquitting the applicant. The precluded them from referring to the Regional Court\u2019s statements on the applicant\u2019s guilt in its reasoning. In contrast, the sentencing Regional Court itself had not been precluded from making such findings in its reasoning (the Government referred to Tendam, cited above, \u00a7 36 to support its view). In so far as the applicant complained that the family courts, in subsequent proceedings, had excluded contacts with his daughter by reference to the Regional Court\u2019s reasoning, he had, however, failed to appeal against that decision."], "id": "31ab43da-fe5d-4238-9d6b-950c0b17b220", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant maintained that his conviction violated Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 2 of the Convention. He submitted in particular that apart from the fact that he was the registered keeper of the car which had been recorded speeding on 26 February 2003, the authorities did not have any evidence against him. The fact that he had been found guilty of speeding merely because he had refused to disclose the identity of the driver violated his right to silence on the one hand and the on the other. In addition, he asserted that the registered keeper's obligation to disclose the identity of the driver of the vehicle pursuant to section 103(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act in itself violated the right to silence."], "id": "e9e37a4a-8636-49a0-8d90-ba1bed4f6cb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 of the Convention that his right be presumed innocent had been breached since he had not been allowed to examine witnesses on his behalf. The applicant, however, failed to provide the Court with any evidence in support of these allegations. Furthermore, it is not clear how the applicant\u2019s could have been breached based on the alleged refusal of the domestic courts to hear certain witnesses."], "id": "3dd6c5bb-f285-46ca-ba64-d2e02f643ba2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention of a violation of the . In this respect he alleged that during the proceedings the burden of proof had been unfairly shifted to the defence a number of times and that the Supreme Court had failed to examine all the appeal grounds or issue a judgment with sufficient reasoning."], "id": "938d1f29-bcf9-4fd0-a422-503907e11c6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government noted that in the case of Garlicki v. Poland (no. 36921/07), currently pending before the Court, a question concerning the effectiveness of a remedy under Articles 23 and 24 of the Polish Civil Code was raised with respect to the alleged violation of the . The Government submitted that if such remedy was considered effective by the Court in the above-mentioned case, the applicant should, in consequence, be required to make use of it before lodging an application with the Court."], "id": "1715e35c-bdf8-4668-b13a-06092150e515", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant further complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that his right to the had been breached, as the domestic court assumed from the start that the applicant was guilty. He argued under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing as the decision of the Court of Cassation, as well as the decision on the request for rectification of the judgment, had lacked reasoning. He maintained finally under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 6 \u00a7 3 (d) of the Convention that the first-instance court had failed to hear the crucial witness, A.S."], "id": "0ca428d8-c53c-4966-9dd7-bc5e51c240c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government did not dispute the fact that the applicants' conviction for the offence of handling information protected by the secrecy of a judicial investigation or by a duty of professional confidence constituted interference with their right to freedom of expression. In their opinion, that interference was prescribed by law, namely by Articles 226-13 and 321-1 of the Criminal Code, which fulfilled the conditions of accessibility and foreseeability required by the Court (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999\u2011I). The Government considered, however, that the interference constituted a measure that was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others and for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Without disputing the fact that the aim of the applicants' work had been to inform the general public about an affair of state that was of interest to public opinion, they considered that it prejudiced the in respect of G.M. The publication of the book just a few days after the death of Fran\u00e7ois Mitterrand had given it a certain commercial and media impact, thereby increasing the prejudice sustained by G.M. Moreover, the affair had been a very sensitive one and the book had contained precise reproductions of a number of documents from the case file."], "id": "d600dbe0-2ced-415b-a7a1-956e42637f85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["83. The applicant maintained that he had been charged with, defended himself against and been convicted of a possession offence committed on the evening of 8 September 1996. In finding that he had been involved in offences connected with the shipment of cannabis even before the narcotics had arrived in the country on the morning of 8 September 1996, the Supreme Court had violated the . It had regarded his guilt as having included the shipment's import, viz. smuggling and the related arrangements which must have been involved given that he had been considered guilty of acts committed on and before 6 September 1996. Narcotics smuggling, in particular when it was linked to participation in an organisation formed for that purpose, was an offence essentially more serious than the possession of which he had been accused. In the proceedings against him the Court of Appeal had assumed the role of the prosecutor when it replied to his demands that the incitement be taken into account by stating that he had committed the offence on or before 6 September 1996. The applicant had not been afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that he had not been involved in the shipment before 8 September 1996. The Supreme Court's judgment of 22 November 2000 had been based on a prohibited presumption of guilt."], "id": "ee762bea-fbb2-490e-b129-3664311441c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["114. The Government disputed that there had been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 2 in the present case. Section 133 of the 1988 Act did not offend the , as it did not call into question the correctness of the acquittal or the applicant\u2019s entitlement to be presumed innocent. The cases to which the applicant referred, such as Rushiti, cited above, could not be interpreted as justifying an extreme interpretation of Article 6 \u00a7 2 to the effect that once a person had been acquitted she must be treated always as positively innocent for all purposes. That, the Government submitted, would not be compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 or with the Court\u2019s case\u2011law on the compatibility with Article 6 \u00a7 2 of civil proceedings arising out of the same facts (referring to Y v. Norway, cited above)."], "id": "16b875a9-561c-4bc8-ac8b-35f25fb483e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies with respect to his complaints about a breach of the and lack of impartiality of Judge Sh. In particular, he could have requested her removal from the proceedings at the trial stage; raised a relevant complaint in his cassation appeal or instituted separate civil proceedings demanding rectification of the newspaper article and damages."], "id": "105a83c2-af7f-46be-a8b7-575f23e41585", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant argued that an excessive period of detention, such as the period in the present case, was in itself incompatible with Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, given the principle of the . He maintained that however strong had been the suspicion against him, it could suffice as a basis for holding him in custody only in the early stages of the proceedings."], "id": "92103506-eeee-4e45-9011-225d6ccad670", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant maintained that the Court of Appeal's refusal to hear G. as a witness prior to the principal hearing had also violated the and had shown that the court had prejudged his guilt. He had been given to understand that the court was not going to admit the documents in question to the case file. However, the Court of Appeal's judgment had taken him by surprise in that the court had based its judgment on those very documents."], "id": "01a34308-1b54-48c8-9d39-c63cba882f1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government argued that the impugned statements had not violated the . According to the Government, account must be taken of the context in which the statements were made, namely, the fact that the applicant had been apprehended while committing an offence, and the sufficiency of evidence which might justify lifting the applicant\u2019s parliamentary immunity and instituting criminal proceedings. The impugned statements must be interpreted as explaining to the public the need to bring criminal proceedings against the applicant, and not as declaring him guilty of an offence. Furthermore, the statement of the Chairman of the Seimas on 6 October 1998 referring to the applicant as a bribe-taker did not breach the presumption of innocence because the applicant had not been charged with an offence of bribery."], "id": "0026b253-5c67-4197-a5a8-40350ad951b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (a), (b) and (d) that the materials in the investigation file had been made available to them only at the end of the investigation, that they had not had an opportunity to question the witnesses for the defence and the victim and that the trial judge had been biased and had dismissed their challenges. They further claimed that the length of the criminal proceedings against them had been excessive. Finally, they alleged a breach of their guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in that the prosecution authorities had closely cooperated with the mass media during the trial. The relevant parts of Article 6 read as follows:"], "id": "218a6fe0-3a8c-40bc-9bdc-7a7b70a76f9b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicants submitted that the investigator Mr Kurbatov and other employees of the prosecutor\u2019s office had not only granted Ms Temeyeva unrestricted access to the criminal case file but had also actively participated in the television show. The showing of the front cover of the case file in the opening sequence of the television show demonstrated that it had been made physically available to the journalist. The show had been recorded before the case had been referred for trial; it had been extensively advertised with the sensationalist line \u201cSlavery in Glazov at the end of the twentieth century\u201d and aired at such times as to precede the adjourned trial hearings and the appeal hearing. Article 139 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure could not be interpreted as justifying an encroachment on the applicants\u2019 . Their right to be presumed innocent until found guilty had been further damaged by the statements made by the journalist Ms Temeyeva, the prosecutor Mr Zinterekov, the investigator Mr Kurbatov and the prosecutor Mr Nikitin during the television show. In addition, the prosecution had also granted access to the case file to the journalist Ms M., the author of the article \u201cThe Land of Slaves\u201d, which had also been highly prejudicial to the applicants. The applicants insisted that the extensive press coverage of their case and the statements by high-ranking prosecution officials had led the public to believe them guilty."], "id": "77d704f8-1c56-4744-b4f2-21f0fecd53b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that he had not been summoned to certain hearings in which the court examined his remarks on the minutes of previous hearings and that the court had wrongly established the facts in his case; under Article 6 \u00a7 2 that in his respect had been violated by certain statements of the Department of Education of Orel; under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (b) and (c) that in the first round of proceedings he had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence, nor had he had legal assistance because of dismissal of his request to grant time to his lawyer to study the case file; under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) that in the first round of proceedings the courts had refused to obtain the attendance of witness K; under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that the obligation not to leave his place of residence imposed on him had been disproportionate."], "id": "c359f3b7-081a-4db7-8798-dbfdda32fc99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant also submitted that, in general, a taxpayer had an almost insurmountable burden of proof when claiming that a tax surcharge should not be imposed or should be remitted. He said that the case-law showed that orders for the remission of surcharges were made only rarely. Moreover, the enforcement measures, including the bankruptcy proceedings, had prejudiced the applicant's position in the ongoing tax assessment proceedings. Such measures, if taken before a determination by a court, thus conflicted with the legal safeguards afforded by the Convention. For those reasons, the principle of had not been upheld in the tax assessment proceedings. Rather, it was the applicant's contention that there had been a presumption of guilt with regard to the tax surcharges."], "id": "ef30ed64-803c-47cd-bf11-ef2c0874fc2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant contended that the criminal limb of Article 6 was applicable to both domestic cases, on account of the generally binding nature of the relevant provisions of the CAO, which were not designed to apply only to a specific group of people. The proceedings had been instituted by a public authority. Following conviction of the applicant for administrative offences the court ordered mandatory penalties, which had a punitive and deterrent character. The procedural guarantees, such as the , are indicative of the \u201ccriminal\u201d nature of the procedure. In any event, the fine imposed on the applicant, which could also entail imprisonment in case of non-payment, was sufficiently severe to make the sanction criminal in nature."], "id": "0e200b32-2085-44e4-a1d9-b9a3ad08cf68", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant complained under various Articles that: (a) his detention between 18 and 22 September 2011 had been unlawful; (b) the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision lacked reasoning with regard to his complaint that the decision of 22 September 2011 contained no signature or stamp; and (c) the had been breached by the High Court\u2019s decision of 22 September 2011."], "id": "965ec499-e397-4798-bdee-a3734c74b325", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government argue further that when examining whether or not there has been a breach of the in the present case, the Court should not have regard to its judgment in the Rushiti v. Austria case, because, at the time the Austrian courts decided on the applicant\u2019s compensation claim in 1996, that judgment had not yet been given. "], "id": "9da44d40-5fdf-49e8-8e68-556761a3f6cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government observed that the right to silence and the were closely connected and that they would therefore address both issues jointly. They noted at the outset that in the present case the applicant had not been convicted of failure to disclose the identity of the driver, as the proceedings regarding that offence had been discontinued. The applicant had been convicted of the underlying traffic offence, namely speeding, on the basis of evidence which had been freely evaluated by the authority."], "id": "33f5e5bc-6229-4832-a43b-1ccc8d661538", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government submitted that the domestic courts had examined whether recourse to physical force and special means by the police during the applicant\u2019s arrest had been justified and lawful. The courts had made no findings as to whether the applicant had indeed committed an administrative offence or a crime. The applicant\u2019s allegations of a violation of his right to the were therefore unsubstantiated. The fact that the applicant was unhappy with the result of the trial did not mean that the domestic courts had not been diligent when examining his complaint."], "id": "cdd908eb-5654-4b29-9aa9-f464fed3bc8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant submitted that during the pre-trial proceedings the police had tortured A.D. and V.P. to make them incriminate him. With regard to the Government\u2019s argument that the applicant and his lawyer had had an opportunity to challenge their evidence, the applicant submitted that, in line with the principle of , it had fallen to the prosecution to prove his guilt and that he had not had to prove his innocence."], "id": "61587724-5fab-4462-88cf-29ae39c05c72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government noted that the Court had found in its partial decision in the present case that the information disclosed by the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office had been a short summary of a factual nature that had concerned a matter of general interest and that the applicant\u2019s right to respect for private life had not been infringed (see Shuvalov v. Estonia (dec.), nos. 39820/08 and 14942/09, 30 March 2010). This finding was also important from the aspect of the ."], "id": "fa373e52-bd11-45e1-9658-c2339d143dfc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant complained separately under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he was deprived of a fair and impartial hearing in that his procedural requests were denied and his conviction had allegedly been based solely on the testimony of one witness and the co-accused M.M. He challenged the courts' examination of the depositions by D.K. and S.N. and the credibility of the depositions by his co-accused M.M. Under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that the was violated as a consequence of the unfair trial. The Court considers that these complaints all fall to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 cited above (paragraph 12)."], "id": "23b4f5c2-cc64-413c-84f7-0d457a87bff1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant further complained that the appellate courts violated Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention when they did not remit the tax surcharges after Mr Nitschke's death but transferred them to his estate. In its view, the inheritance of the guilt of the dead was not compatible with the and the standards of criminal justice."], "id": "dab879cc-0ba7-4144-b411-b2e2d922e8bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government submitted that the Regional Court\u2019s decision that the late accused\u2019s necessary expenses should not be borne by the treasury did not breach the . It did not constitute a penalty or similar measure, nor did it contain a finding or attribution of guilt. The Regional Court had, in accordance with domestic law, made a prognosis based on an assessment of the remaining state of suspicion and had legitimately referred to the trial judgment which constituted a reliable basis for such prognosis. The Regional Court was competent to make this prognosis under domestic law, given that the case file had not yet been received by the Federal Court of Justice. It was not required to assess the grounds advanced by the defence for the appeal on points of law when making the prognosis as to the existence of a significant state of suspicion against the late accused. Even if the Federal Court of Justice had been competent, it would not have been required to engage in a full assessment of the appeal on points of law either, as the decision on the accused\u2019s necessary expenses was an auxiliary one and only required a comprehensible and soundly founded prognosis, which was clearly distinguishable from a conclusive finding of guilt."], "id": "e017cac9-e808-4256-8785-c963c6917556", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained that he was convicted of three counts of murder solely on the basis of hearsay evidence of a witness suffering from emotional instability and histrionic personality disorder and that the conviction was completely arbitrary and ran contrary to the guarantees of a fair trial, the right to the and the principle of the equality of arms."], "id": "88723583-a4f9-47e7-b811-f63ea8952044", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant did not raise the complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of lack of in his grounds of appeal, nor did he bring a civil action against the alleged offenders. It follows that this complaint also must be rejected on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention."], "id": "4dc0a7cd-17af-4e5f-b84a-3cdc5fcf0434", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government further submitted that the language used in the media articles and statements by officials had not contained declarations about the applicant\u2019s guilt. The Government argued that the statements by the President, the Minister of the Interior and other officials had to be seen in a political context, and that they had discussed political liability for the shortcomings within the police system, not the applicant\u2019s criminal liability for the accident. As for the President\u2019s statement (see paragraph 12 above), the Government submitted that it had aimed to demonstrate his determination to demand a responsible attitude from leading police officers and the executive in response to the problems within the police system, and that it had highlighted the need to investigate offences committed by police officers with due diligence and to ensure effective deterrence. Invoking the Court\u2019s judgment in G.C.P. v. Romania (no. 20899/03, 20 December 2011), the Government argued that statements by politicians made in a political context should be allowed \u201ca certain degree of exaggeration and liberal use of value judgments\u201d. The Government also argued that the words used by State officials in respect to the applicant\u2019s case could not be compared to those which the Court had considered as contrary to the in the cases of Lavents v. Latvia (no. 58442/00, 28 November 2002) or Butkevi\u010dius v. Lithuania (no. 48297/99, ECHR 2002\u2011II (extracts))."], "id": "0238cc98-a4f5-4465-9912-420e91d1410a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["219. The applicants submitted that no effective remedies existed in practice in respect of their complaint alleging a breach of the . Even if such remedies existed in theory, they did not offer any reasonable prospects of success in their particular case, as the domestic authorities had \u201cclearly shown their tolerance towards the persistent and blatant violations\u201d by the prosecution authorities of the applicants\u2019 Convention rights. They maintained that the provisions of the Criminal Code and the CCrP mentioned by the Government were irrelevant to this particular type of complaint and noted that there existed no court decisions in domestic judicial practice concerning a violation of the right to presumption of innocence."], "id": "a609851f-3930-40ab-92f3-12e6a8bc0c57", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant disputed the Government\u2019s submissions and maintained that the narrow interpretation of the principle of the by the Government and Federal Constitutional Court was not in line with the Court\u2019s case-law establishing that the scope of application of Article 6 \u00a7 2 was not limited to situations where a person\u2019s guilt had been determined by means of a formal judicial decision (he cited Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, \u00a7 37, Series A no. 62; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, \u00a7 35, Series A no. 308; and Borovsk\u00fd v. Slovakia, no. 24528/02, \u00a7 45 et seq., 2 June 2009)."], "id": "33ebb30a-f7f0-40fe-b939-6ab021843a8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government submitted that the period to be taken into consideration for examining the alleged breach of the applicant\u2019s right to the was between 10 April 1997 and 23 December 2002, the dates when the applicant was charged and when the criminal proceedings initiated against him ended, respectively. They argued that, consequently, all statements made by the authorities in respect of the applicant\u2019s case prior to 10 April 1997 could not be taken into consideration because they fell outside the framework of the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant."], "id": "f14c1fc6-6fde-4f34-9830-5a8f00ab85d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government argued that the power under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1998 (\u201cthe 1998 Act\u201d) to obtain an answer to the question who was driving a car when a suspected motoring offence was committed and to use that answer as evidence in a prosecution or, alternatively, to prosecute a person who failed to provide information was compatible with Article 6. There were very good reasons why the owner should be required to identify the driver: driving offences are intended to deter dangerous conduct which causes risk to the public and deterrence depended on effective enforcement (research showed that speed cameras, etc., had reduced crashes by up to 28%), there was no obvious generally effective alternative to the power contained in section 172 and without such a power it would be impossible to investigate and prosecute traffic offences effectively, and the simple fact of being the driver of a motor car was not in itself incriminating. Nor did section 172 breach the as the overall burden of proof remained on the prosecution. It provided for the putting of a single question in particular circumstances and all the usual protections against the use of unreliable evidence or evidence obtained by improper means remained in place, while the maximum penalty was only a fine of GBP 1,000."], "id": "b9ebf54c-c493-4a09-b5d3-53467e8c8915", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["135. The applicant further claimed that the principle of protected a person's right not to be considered a criminal in the eyes of the public until his guilt had been proved. The Court of Appeal should have refrained from any actions which could give the public the impression that he was guilty. However, the Court of Appeal decided to keep him in a metal cage, in spite of the fact that this could actually create such an impression, since persons kept in the cage were commonly identified with serious criminals."], "id": "6ce83c30-45b0-436e-9b87-06a566780c7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicants complained that they were not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal within a \u201creasonable time.\u201d They asserted that, since they were detained during the trial, their right to the was breached. They further asserted that their consultations with their lawyer were subjected to very strict regulations which hindered the preparation of their defence. They claimed that they were not allowed to consult a lawyer during their police custody, before the public prosecutor or the first time they appeared before the trial court. They finally claimed that they could not put questions to the main prosecution witnesses. With respect to their complaints, the applicants invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2, and 3 (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which in so far as relevant read as follows:"], "id": "73177e04-dcb3-4f08-9efc-978e4c617832", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["182. The Government claimed that the grounds on which the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Prosecutor decided on 30 August 2004 to terminate the proceedings against the applicant, as prescribed by Article 37 \u00a7 2(2) of the CCP, were compatible with the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7 2. This was a procedural decision which did not make a finding of guilt of the accused. Similarly, when a person is arrested on suspicion of having committed an offence or when the prosecutor brings charges and later defends them in court, such measures do not imply that the accused is guilty and do not violate the . The decision to terminate the criminal proceedings against the applicant which, moreover, could be contested before the courts, merely expressed the prosecutor\u2019s unwillingness to take the case to court and did not contain any statement of the applicant\u2019s guilt. With reference to the judgment in the case of Salabiaku v. France, the Government argued that presumptions of fact or law operated in every legal system and the Convention did not prohibit such presumptions in principle (see Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, \u00a7 28, Series A no. 141\u2011A)."], "id": "7e4f2e56-a866-4deb-8709-76027bb83c31", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant complained that her dismissal had been unfair and that the refusal of the administrative courts to reinstate her in her post had been in breach of her right to the . She also submitted that her repeated attempts to find employment as a teacher were still being blocked by the authorities, who were claiming that their refusals were based \u201con the offence she had committed\u201d. In support of this latter submission the applicant referred to the documents summarised above (see paragraphs 14-15)."], "id": "0fc8ab72-71ed-40e1-a230-a804e4441343", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies in respect of the impugned joint statement of the law-enforcement authorities and, in any event, had not complied with the six-month rule. In this regard, the Government submitted that the applicant could have made use of the procedure concerning appeals against the actions or decisions of prosecution authorities set out in Articles 449-451 of the CCrP or lodge a criminal action for defamation. As to the domestic proceedings instituted by the applicant under Articles 449-451 of the CCrP, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the context of these proceedings and, even if there was an appeal and subsequently a relevant decision of the Court of Appeal in that respect, it would take place in 2005, well before the applicant lodged his application with the Court. For this reason, the complaint was incompatible with the six-month rule. The Government further submitted that the applicant could have complained of a violation of his by bringing a separate court action for defamation under Article 147 of the Criminal Code."], "id": "3e5c92fe-1003-4bf3-9cb5-6bdd12f5eb13", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government contested that argument, denying the State\u2019s responsibility for the publications in private media. They accepted that officials of the prosecutor\u2019s office of St Petersburg may have given out information to the press during the interviews and did not contest the accuracy of the statements published by the media and referred to by the applicant. However, the Government did not consider that these statements disclosed any appearance of a violation of the applicant\u2019s right to ."], "id": "c1f4f017-bcea-4786-bc73-3725b7886e6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["146. The applicant complained that the testimony of the then Minister of Justice, who hinted at the applicant\u2019s guilt, breached the as guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. Furthermore, the domestic courts presumed him guilty on the basis of witnesses M.\u2019s and A.L\u2019s testimonies, which had been considered contradictory and unreliable. Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "bc27a9e5-7947-4b40-ba01-66c393c5912e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant submitted, first of all, that the domestic remedy the Government referred to was not effective. In particular, he argued that almost all the judicial decisions it had produced only concerned the civil liability of journalists for defamation. He pointed out that none of the decisions submitted to the Court acknowledged the liability of a member of the Government for infringement of the . One of the judgments adduced even concerned a case where the exemption of members of the Government from personal civil liability had been found by the domestic courts to be constitutional, which confirmed his allegations. Lastly, he argued that there was no available remedy by which he could have asked the criminal court concerned to acknowledge that there had been a breach of the presumption of innocence in his case."], "id": "f3893671-0ff7-4d00-af78-0d8ce901c68e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (d) of the Convention. He alleged that on all seven occasions the proceedings in which he was convicted of an administrative offence fell short of the fair hearing guarantees, in particular the principles of equality of arms, adversarial proceedings, independence and impartiality of the tribunal, and the . Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads:"], "id": "73132df6-7bed-46e0-8465-cea9f39698fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant, relying on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, further complained of lack of impartiality of the trial judge, lack of reasoning, errors of facts and law in the assessment of evidence and lack of adequate time and facilities to prepare the defence. He also alleged a violation of the ."], "id": "17cc926e-83ad-4c95-87ce-328c5fafc300", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["112. The applicants concluded that the Government had failed to submit evidence that the security risks invoked by them had actually existed and that the applicants might have absconded or resorted to violence. There had been no serious grounds to fear unlawful behaviour on their part in the courtroom. Their placement in a metal cage during the hearing of their case by the Magadan Regional Court had therefore not been justified by security considerations and had amounted to degrading treatment in breach of Article 3. Such treatment, comparable to the treatment of wild animals kept in metal cages in a circus or zoo, had intimidated the applicants and humiliated them in their own eyes and in those of the public and aroused in them a sense of fear, anguish and inferiority; it had also undermined the principle of the . The recently initiated process of replacing metal cages in courtrooms with glass cabins showed in itself Russia\u2019s acknowledgment that the use of metal cages had constituted a breach of human rights."], "id": "04462c61-b44a-48b6-9705-8d1a5c07caf3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["218. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, as they had not taken any proper steps to bring this complaint to the attention of the relevant authorities. In particular, the Government argued that, under domestic law, the applicants could have lodged a criminal complaint alleging defamation under Article 147 of the Criminal Code and Chapter 27 of the CCrP, or a civil action for damages, against the public officials who had allegedly violated their ."], "id": "4591a37f-5fe6-4992-a13b-13fb62547e63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government further argued that the Regional Court\u2019s judgment did not bind the courts or the prosecution authorities as regards criminal proceedings pending or to be instituted against the applicant in the future. The principle of the precluded any prejudgment of the applicant\u2019s guilt by the trial court conducting the proceedings against him and under no circumstances could a possible future conviction be based on the impugned statements in the judgment previously rendered against his co-accused. On the contrary, the trial court would be under an obligation to impartially assess all available evidence submitted by the prosecution authorities in the applicant\u2019s own proceedings. Hence, the impugned passages of the Regional Court\u2019s judgment, which were of no legal relevance for the applicant\u2019s subsequent trial, only affected him in an indirect de facto manner as a result, for instance, of the media coverage of the proceedings."], "id": "084ebbce-1287-4032-90a7-a4aff9288ae7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["139. The applicant complained that, in the decisions ordering and extending his pre-trial detention, the domestic courts had breached his right to be presumed innocent by prejudging his guilt before he had been proved guilty following a criminal trial. He further complained that the joint statements made by the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office, the MNS and the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the press on 20 and 21 October 2005 had amounted to an infringement of his right to the . Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention provides as follows:"], "id": "8fe23db4-076e-4a3d-a7ef-3ef9bb4f1a12", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government lastly considered that the present case had to be distinguished from that of Fressoz and Roire (cited above). The secrecy of the judicial investigation and respect for the , which protected collective and public interests, could not be placed on the same footing as confidentiality in tax matters, which protected purely private interests. Moreover, the French courts had adduced sufficient reasons in support of their decisions after a precise examination. The public's right to information on the \u201cElys\u00e9e eavesdropping\u201d affair had not been impaired, the publication of the book had continued and no copies had been seized. The public had, moreover, continued to be informed extensively by the media. In addition, the applicants had been given a \u201ctoken sentence\u201d, far less than the statutory maximum."], "id": "e0897ee7-ea15-402b-8b27-31e34e5d8cba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["137. The Government maintained that the guaranteed under this head had been respected. The fact that the court had stated that what had been said constituted contempt prima facie and had invited representations on the matter could not be considered contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It had been open to the court to form a preliminary view and to invite representations from the applicant as to why he had not been guilty since the facts had been before the court itself and it had direct knowledge of the issue. If the applicant had produced a good explanation for his apparent misconduct, the result would have been a finding that he had not been in contempt."], "id": "9669f1c8-6243-4cd7-b230-35df59c5ea06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicants, referring to Hibbert v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 38087/97, 26 January 1999), pointed to the distinction made in the Court's case-law between statements which reflected the opinion that the person concerned was guilty and statements which merely described a state of suspicion. The former infringed the while the latter did not. Since the statements at issue fell within the first category, Article 6 \u00a7 2 had been violated."], "id": "7e16f355-f959-49e0-a5c5-a410e18542e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant also complained that the proceedings for compensation were unfair, particularly as the belated communication of the submissions of 22 June 2000 infringed the principle of \u2018equality of arms\u2019. Moreover, he submitted that the decisions declaring his claim for compensation time-barred, and part of his claims for damages unfounded, were wrong. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, cited above, and paragraph 2 of the same provision which ensures the ."], "id": "a07a9b41-110b-4210-ae02-a77685eecfbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the Appeal Court had not re-assessed the evidence in her case and under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) that her witnesses had not been given the possibility to testify and that, if they had, their testimonies had not been reflected in the Appeal Court's judgment. Moreover, she complained under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention that the had been violated as the public prosecutor could not prove her calculations wrong or her to be guilty. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that she had not had an effective remedy as the other parties to the proceedings had been civil servants."], "id": "d8617901-f74f-4663-8f53-693fdb26e5ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicants also submitted that, in general, a taxpayer had an almost insurmountable burden of proof when claiming that a tax surcharge should not be imposed or should be remitted. They said that the case-law showed that orders for the remission of surcharges were made only rarely. Moreover, the enforcement measures, including the bankruptcy proceedings, had prejudiced the applicants' position in the ongoing tax assessment proceedings. Such measures, if taken before a determination by a court, thus conflicted with the legal safeguards afforded by the Convention. For those reasons, the principle of had not been upheld in the tax assessment proceedings. Rather, it was the applicants' contention that there had been a presumption of guilt with regard to the tax surcharges."], "id": "f7594847-268b-48f5-9279-400543ace99c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicants asserted that section 93-3 of the 1982 Act established an irrebuttable presumption of the publishing director's responsibility, which was automatically and necessarily inferred from his function, notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary he might seek to adduce, relating to his conduct or the conditions in which information was published or broadcast. The domestic courts had thus inferred the second applicant's criminal responsibility from the existence of a repeated statement and his status as publishing director. In the applicants' submission, that had infringed the right to the , guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in the following terms:"], "id": "d7abbbc7-c1ef-4c89-b8a6-d412363d3e4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["177. The Government submitted that Mr Allahverdiyev had not exhausted domestic remedies and that, in any event, the applicants\u2019 had not been breached and that the applicants had failed to present copies of any statements they had referred to or any other \u201cdocuments proving the fact that their presumption of innocence [had been] violated by the public authorities\u201d."], "id": "9209727e-6c68-4a62-9aae-f0aa1d2bfa56", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained that the Regional Court had violated the when determining his penalty as it had taken into account, as an aggravating element, sexual offences of which he had not been found guilty as the proceedings against him for those offences had been discontinued. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "b1d2a4e9-dc60-4a03-bbb7-acf25b55186d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant alleged the face-to-face confrontation could not be considered as an effective opportunity to examine S. since the applicant\u2019s lawyer had not been given notice to attend. The applicant affirmed that he had refused to sign the record. Furthermore, the authorities had not taken reasonable steps to secure S.\u2019s presence at the trial. The Government had provided no evidence to prove that any summons had been issued or measures taken. According to the applicant, S. had incriminated the applicant in exchange for release from custody. Moreover, S.\u2019s testimony was unreliable since he had changed his deposition several times before the trial, in particular regarding the identity and number of persons involved in the thefts. In view of the above, the trial court\u2019s reliance on S.\u2019s pre-trial statement in finding the applicant guilty on two counts of theft had been unlawful and in breach of the ."], "id": "d13b36ff-727b-468b-8c4d-d932d581c799", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government submitted that when suspects and accused people who faced detention on remand as a preventive measure were escorted to courthouses they were placed before the court on benches \u201cbehind a barrier (metal enclosure/cage)\u201d measuring 355 cm in length, 225 cm in height and 115 cm in width. The metal enclosure was primarily intended to enforce the restrictions associated with the custodial measure, that is, to exclude the risk of flight, influencing witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice. The applicant\u2019s confinement in the metal cage had not violated the principle of equality of arms and the . The applicant had been able to communicate freely with the court, his lawyers, the victim and other participants at the trial and exercise his procedural rights without restrictions. When the applicant had not wanted to communicate with his lawyer in the presence of the escort, the court adjourned. Under no circumstances had the applicant\u2019s confinement in the metal cage meant that the court had been predisposed to deliver a finding of guilt. The Government further submitted that the applicant\u2019s confinement in the metal cage in the courtroom had not amounted to a violation of the applicant\u2019s right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, because the measure in question had been a reasonable and indispensable restriction applied within the framework of the criminal procedure existing in Russia and had not reached the minimum level of severity to attain the threshold of Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "3cfbe2c7-e221-4a6a-8df7-bf48b0707cc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government contested the allegation, arguing that prior to the main hearing the Court of Appeal had, on the occasion of assessing the necessity of evidence offered, to establish which matters were material to the outcome of the case. This naturally did not imply that the Court of Appeal would have violated the by deciding not to hear G.'s testimony."], "id": "088aa23f-ad8c-4062-abbd-bed290f1a8e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government submitted that despite the court\u2019s phrase in the Baroness judgment to the effect that it found the applicant to be the very image of a receiver of stolen goods, it transpired from the judgment as a whole that the court was not in any manner attributing criminal responsibility to the applicant. Indeed, the court made it clear that its conclusions were based on the fact that the claimants had managed to prove that the silver bullion was made of melted-down silverware belonging to them, and the applicant had not presented any evidence to challenge that. In all three cases the courts limited themselves to the finding of responsibility in the civil sphere, without in any way pronouncing themselves on criminal liability, and only after having considered evidence over and above that which had been available during the criminal trial. It followed that, in the Government\u2019s view, there could not be any violation of the Convention (see, a contrario, Y. v. Norway, cited above), as the language used by the domestic courts was limited to a finding of civil responsibility and did not demonstrate a lack of respect for the ."], "id": "88f39c1d-7f8d-4540-b80b-8500bb82ca0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained that he had been unable to defend himself in person or through legal assistance, as there had been no public hearing in his case. He further alleged that the principle of the had also been violated in the present case. He invoked Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "08319d25-e34b-430e-8269-7ac87c136534", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant submitted that she had already, in her initial statement of application dated 5 October 2005, expressly complained that the lustration proceedings were unfair. She had also argued then that the procedural violations complained of had included, inter alia, a violation of the . Her subsequent submissions were by way of supplementing and refining the substance of the complaint. They did not constitute a new complaint and did not extend the scope of the original one."], "id": "f7ec03f8-4b1f-46af-a701-84838093e0d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicants\u2019 confinement in a cage, as if they were dangerous criminals who had already been found guilty, had served as an instrument of unlawful influence upon the jury, in breach of the rules governing jury trials, which prohibited any actions capable of undermining the and, in particular, any submissions which might cause jurors to be prejudiced against defendants, by referring for example to defendants\u2019 previous convictions or to the fact that they were chronic alcoholics or drug addicts, unless that information was necessary for establishing the elements of the offences of which they were accused. In view of the foregoing, the applicants could not have a fair trial respecting the principle of the presumption of innocence. They had never pleaded guilty and it had been necessary to overcome the jury\u2019s prejudice in order to prove their innocence. Being held in a cage before their judges who were to decide their fate, the applicants had felt helplessness, inferiority and anxiety during the entire trial. Such harsh treatment had had an impact on their power of concentration and mental alertness during the proceedings concerning as they did such an important issue as their liberty."], "id": "b79c34d2-0230-433d-87e5-fa11e622f25e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s submissions, claiming that the statements at issue had violated the . He noted that the Government had accepted the authenticity of the impugned statements which amounted to declarations of his guilt for offences with which he had or had not been charged. In the applicant\u2019s view, the wording of those declarations could not be justified by the need to inform the public about probable or pending criminal proceedings."], "id": "40e6b1d2-6ba3-4294-b0d3-10966d24e950", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicant disputed the argument that Article 6 \u00a7 2 only applied where there was a close link to the criminal proceedings. She pointed to the Court\u2019s finding in \u0160iki\u0107 v. Croatia (no. 9143/08, \u00a7 47, 15 July 2010) and Vanjak v. Croatia (no. 29889/04, \u00a7 41, 14 January 2010) to the effect that when criminal proceedings were discontinued, the had to be preserved in \u201cany other proceedings of whatever nature\u201d. She submitted that this must be all the more true in cases of acquittal, where the protection afforded by Article 6 \u00a7 2 was even stronger."], "id": "9cfd47a5-7ea7-4b89-9165-af12aad28512", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "presumption of innocence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants' acquittal of attempted manslaughter had not been called into question. In fact, in deciding whether or not to award compensation for pre-trial detention, the Court of Appeal had found that the facts as established, while not amounting to attempted manslaughter, could have led to a successful prosecution on a different charge. However, the Court of Appeal had not been called upon to give a decision on this basis, and the was therefore not at issue. It had concluded, as it was fully entitled to in light of the Court's Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands judgment (28 September 1995, Series A no. 327-A) and its Leutscher v. the Netherlands judgment (26 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II), that there were no reasons in equity to order the payment of compensation to the applicants."], "id": "762c3954-7d46-46cb-8a80-e3350797416b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["160. The applicant bank complained that the , which resulted in the seizure of a substantial amount of money from its account (see paragraphs 20-68 above, hereafter: \u201cthe enforcement proceedings\u201d), had given rise to several violations of its rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The applicant bank\u2019s complaints under that Article were focused primarily to the part of those enforcement proceedings concerning the so-called third attempt to continue the enforcement (see paragraphs 42-66 above), and in particular to the decision of 3 October 2003 (see paragraphs 44-45 above) and the instruction of 28 October 2003 (see paragraph 61 above). Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention reads as follows:"], "id": "aeba76d2-2f98-46b1-987d-47063701a7e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant admitted that the case had been complex. However, its complexity was not a consequence of its subject-matter but rather of the envisaged scheme according to which he had first been required to institute administrative proceedings before the local authorities, which had then been entitled to institute civil and, subsequently, for eviction. In the applicant's view, that doubled the procedural steps to be taken and the length originating from the complexity of the case was therefore attributable to the State."], "id": "ae7b1c67-034e-4e73-bb99-d3d324daf46c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant, relying on Articles 8, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, complained, in essence, that as a result of the proceedings in his case he became a homeless person, that his appeal and cassation appeal had been dismissed, that he had been discriminated against and that he had been deprived of his property due to the actions of the domestic courts. He also appeared to complain about the ineffectiveness of the against his former wife."], "id": "b090edb7-3d0f-4af1-8d74-3c81665f636d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government maintained that the State could not be held responsible for the debts of the Company, since the latter was a separate legal entity and the State had a minor share in it. Moreover this share had been reduced from 25% to 19.99% in December 2002. Therefore, the Forced Sale of Property Moratorium Act no longer protected the debtor\u2019s funds from the . They further maintained that the applicant had not exhausted the remedies available to him under the domestic law."], "id": "b8b16266-518d-409d-a5de-2bf3885b0579", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant also complained, relying on Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that due to the allegedly unlawful actions of the authorities in the course of the injunction and the , notably the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation to return the guarantee to the defendant company (see paragraph 11 above), she had been deprived of the full amount of the damages and interest awarded to her in the domestic proceedings and that she had not had effective remedies in that respect."], "id": "736d6770-7943-46d7-b22a-63ed8a226388", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government maintained that the responsibility of the State in this situation was limited to the organisation and proper conduct of and that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been caused by the critical financial situation of the debtor company and the energy sector of the Ukrainian economy in general. The Government contended that the Bailiffs\u2019 Service performed all necessary actions and cannot be blamed for the delay. The regularity of the enforcement proceedings in the present case was confirmed by the domestic courts. The Government argued that the State could not be considered responsible for the debts of its enterprises and that the State annually allocated substantial amounts from its budget to cover part of the disability allowances and other compensatory payments to the workers in the mining industry."], "id": "56c033a2-44cf-47a4-8f1c-5628b77147f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant argued that the instituted against her had concerned telephone calls she could not have made, since she had been in prison at the relevant time and her telephone had been taken away from her. The applicant further argued that the first enforcement order had never been served on her and therefore could not have become final. The applicant also argued that all of her arguments from the appeal to the second enforcement order were erroneously declared inadmissible as lodged out of time, since the Koprivnica County Court had deemed her appeal to have been lodged on 6 December 2006, while it had in fact been lodged on 4 December 2006. According to the applicant, the County Court\u2019s error was an obvious one, but that court had failed to rectify it even after her intervention. In the applicant\u2019s view, the domestic courts had acted unfairly and had deprived her of access to court."], "id": "f6d89d5b-563b-4655-a619-cef800b9b7c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant put in doubt the willingness of the Bailiffs to enforce the decisions in his favour. He maintained that the were barred first by the bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor and then by the Law \u201con the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property\u201d. The applicant submitted that the steps taken by the State were insufficient to ensure his right to have court decision given in his favour enforced without undue delay."], "id": "89bfc340-d464-41c2-8921-24635fc522b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["280. The applicant bank also complained that it had no remedy in the Croatian legal system to recover the sum seized from it in the , despite the fact that it had managed to prove that this enforcement had had no basis in law. It relied on Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto. Article 13 reads as follows:"], "id": "e6618472-7f10-4851-a09d-4708f5b20069", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government invited the Court to reject the application for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the applicant could have lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. In support of their argument, the Government produced a copy of the Constitutional Court decision of 2 February 2005 (see paragraph 66 above) in which that court had found a violation of the complainant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time on account of lengthy ."], "id": "aeb9591a-3572-41f0-9a20-c3cda4dcebd3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["661. The applicant company argued that the circumstances of the tax assessment and as well as the allegedly \u201cpolitical\u201d motivation behind the prosecution of Mr M. Khodorkovskiy and other owners and senior officials of the applicant company showed that the proceedings against it, taken as a whole, were abusive in that the State clearly wanted to destroy the company and to take control of its assets."], "id": "cfff9f81-3f35-4cd2-a20d-341434d4d70b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government maintained that the length of the had been caused by the critical financial situation of the debtor company and the large number of proceedings against it. The Government further maintained that the debtor was a separate legal entity and therefore the State\u2019s responsibility extended no further than the performance of the Bailiffs\u2019 Service. The latter, in the Government\u2019s opinion, performed all necessary actions and could not be blamed for the delay. Finally, they submitted that the length of the enforcement proceedings was reasonable."], "id": "285c02ea-ba9c-42e8-85a0-90d92ae00114", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicant, for his part, would not appear to have contributed in any way to the delay complained of. In this regard, the Court observes that an attempt was made to serve the decision to stay the on the applicant in person, contrary to the relevant domestic provisions given that he would appear to have been duly represented by a lawyer at the time, as it was only in September 2009 that the applicant asked the domestic court to communicate directly with him (see paragraphs 11, 18 in fine, 19 and 37 above). Once the applicant learned that the enforcement proceedings had been stayed he immediately sought that they be continued (see paragraphs 20 and 22 above). Therefore, the Court considers that the period between 31 October 2006 and 9 September 2009 cannot be attributed to the applicant either."], "id": "070a85f8-6685-45e8-b88f-5542cbbc55a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government indicated that the first applicant could have returned the photocopier or paid the amount awarded voluntarily but he had failed to do so, therefore, L. had been forced to initiate . The Government further contended that the national courts had recognised breaches in the enforcement proceedings and the seizure orders for the first applicant's and his company's property had been removed. Furthermore, the first applicant has failed to appeal in cassation against the decision of 20 September 2004 and against the decision of 14 December 2004, therefore his complaint should be rejected for failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies."], "id": "4af69355-f174-4f02-b0f5-902066a9f934", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicants claimed a total of AMD 7,439,000 (approx. EUR 13,642) in respect of pecuniary damage which represented the losses that the second applicant had allegedly incurred in the course of the and the income which they would not have allegedly lost, had the domestic courts granted their claims. They also requested to restore the situation by returning the land and cattle which allegedly belonged to them. The applicants did not claim any non-pecuniary damage."], "id": "c7b14683-1d87-4921-a90c-62e195a6ec22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government also argued that the applicants failed to exhaust all domestic remedies. They submitted that, once the applicants failed to recover the judgment debts, there were a number of options available to them under Turkish law. They could have initiated criminal proceedings against the municipality for failure to comply with court judgments, filed fresh cases to seek temporary remedies such as a stay of execution, or applied for a certificate of insolvency (aciz vesikas\u0131) which would allow them to resume at any time in the future. Furthermore, some of the applicants failed to initiate any enforcement proceedings whatsoever."], "id": "9df0e0dc-3717-43f8-ba60-a0b7adfe6bf0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government did not raise any objection as to the admissibility of the \u201creasonable time\u201d complaint. The Court notes that the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning his right of access to a court is in fact restatement of his complaint about the length of the and will be considered accordingly. In that context, it finds that the \u201creasonable time\u201d complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible."], "id": "d36b205c-fc72-44c0-950c-5eb90dc110e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government stated that the authorities had taken all possible measures with a view to reaching a solution to the conflict relative to the custody of the applicant's child. The authorities had solicited the help of experts who had acted professionally. In the Government's view the applicant had contributed to the delay in the as she had filed numerous unfounded complaints to various institutions. Also, the domestic court's decision of January 2004 to transfer custody of the child to her father had been based on a thorough examination of all relevant factors, with due emphasis on the interest of the child."], "id": "07ee2124-902d-4566-a38e-511a7f0b56ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government maintained that the judgment in the applicant's favour was enforced in full. The Government argued that the State could not be considered responsible for the debts of its enterprises. They further maintained that the responsibility of the State in this situation was limited to the organisation and proper conduct of and that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been caused by the critical financial situation of the debtor company. The Government contended that the Bailiffs' Service had performed all necessary actions and could not be blamed for the delay."], "id": "d8297fe8-cfda-4827-b038-ea40743520c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["627. The Government pointed out that, in the course of the , there had been no restrictions on the company\u2019s production cycle or the sale of petroleum and mineral oils and that the applicant company had remained fully operational. In view of the State\u2019s wide margin of appreciation in the fiscal sphere and the applicant company\u2019s abusive conduct, illustrated by its attempts to hinder enforcement action by hiding the register of the shareholders of its three largest subsidiary companies, the Government were of the view that the fair balance between the private and public interests had been struck."], "id": "ede1f4eb-f235-40a2-b0e5-7d2aa8ffbae1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government contended that the applicant had failed to re-submit the writ of execution and thus the State was not responsible for non\u2011enforcement of the judgment. The Government further maintained that the length of the was not excessive, that the Bailiffs' Service performed all necessary actions and that the applicant's entitlement to the award was not disputed."], "id": "e778a864-1aa2-4913-895d-fcd176f6717a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the Bogorodchansky District Court in 2001 had been unfair and that their outcome had voided the , since the debtor continued its financial operations through the unfrozen accounts and avoided the fulfilment of its financial obligations towards the applicant. She further complained that the higher courts had failed to quash this decision under the extraordinary appeal procedure. She finally complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour, invoking in substance Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These provisions, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "id": "c1e109c4-5070-4066-8b72-efe79786b823", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government maintained that the judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour was enforced in full. They further maintained that the responsibility of the State in this situation was limited to the organisation and proper conduct of and that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been caused by the critical financial situation of the debtor company and the energy sector of the Ukrainian economy in general. The Government contended that the Bailiffs\u2019 Service performed all necessary actions and cannot be blamed for the delay. The regularity of the enforcement proceedings in the present case was confirmed by the domestic courts. The Government argued that the State could not be considered responsible for the debts of its enterprises and that the State annually allocated substantial amounts from its budget to cover part of the disability allowances and other compensatory payments to the workers in the mining industry. The Government finally maintained that the length of the enforcement was one year eleven months and fifteen days which cannot be considered as unreasonable."], "id": "caafd9cd-8003-42e1-947a-3895fcadaf69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government further contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as he had not appealed against that judgment with the aim of changing the defendant/debtor in the . They maintained that it had been the responsibility of the State Court Administration, and not of the Ministry of Finance, to pay the special retired judges\u2019 allowance. They therefore proposed that the application be declared inadmissible."], "id": "f90085d1-1b83-4a04-85b1-ba82cb460455", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government maintained that the Bailiffs\u2019 Service had taken all the necessary steps to enforce the ruling of 4 March 2002 given in the applicant\u2019s favour. The Government further contended that the length of the in respect of that ruling was not unreasonable and had been caused by the difficult financial situation of the debtor company. They made no observations on the merits in respect of the applicant\u2019s complaints about the non-enforcement of the rest of the judgments given in his favour."], "id": "b17412e8-341d-4883-98de-10dc8ba71435", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as he had failed to lodge with the Bailiffs' Service an application, or an execution writ, for the initiation of in respect of the judgment of the Kupyansk Town Court of 24 September 2003. They further stated that the State was not responsible for the enforcement of that judgment."], "id": "773e45c1-9fb0-4101-acde-6c3a68525110", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government submitted that the length of the should be calculated from 25 November 1999 when the bailiffs had received the writ of execution, to 27 January 2003 when the three flats had been offered to the applicant and his family. From that length they deducted the six months, during which the enforcement had been stayed pursuant to the decision of 10 March 2000, and a further period starting from 28 February 2001 when the proceedings had been adjourned sine die and until that decision had been quashed on 30 December 2002. The Government accepted their responsibility for an overall period of non-enforcement of six months."], "id": "15458d9d-e4bf-4c7d-a02b-041f49f15794", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["619. The applicant company complained that the in its case had been unlawful, disproportionate and arbitrary. In particular, it argued that the authorities ought to have allowed the company to settle the debt and that it had been wrong to sell off its main production unit at auction with such speed. The company complained that the courts ought to have intervened and corrected the assessment of this matter by the bailiffs. The authorities should have first considered and accepted its offers of shares in OAO Sibneft, and/or allowed the company to make deferred payments over a prolonged period. As regards such deferred payments, the company submitted that the domestic law and practice gave priority to such a solution and that OAO Rosneft was able to obtain such a deferral in respect of the tax debts of OAO Yuganskneftegaz following the auction of 19 December 2004. The company argued that it could have repaid the debt, entirely or in part, had it not been for the attachment imposed by the court. It further criticised the authorities\u2019 failure to act during the twenty-two months following the auctioning of OAO Yuganskneftegaz, as well as the imposition of an unlawful and disproportionate enforcement fee."], "id": "46ecb730-339f-4f23-b6d6-01df1bdd6054", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant maintained that the proceedings had to be considered in their entirety, that was to say including the and the proceedings on the costs and expenses. She considered that the subject matter of the proceedings was in fact not particularly complex but that it had been made complex artificially by the uncompromising privatisation of the State company."], "id": "8d812fb9-93f6-4395-8805-311a09e80007", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government lastly submitted that there had been delays in the execution of the judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour owing to lack of funds. They maintained that in 2001 and 2002 about a thousand judgments had been issued against the regional internal-affairs department awarding the claimants about 10,000 Russian roubles each, the aggregate of which was a substantial amount in their view. The regional internal-affairs department had not possessed sufficient funds to pay those awards and had had to apply to the Russian Government and the Ministry of Finance for additional financial resources. It had not been until 2004 that the financial resources requested had at last been allocated to the regional internal-affairs department. The Government also submitted that the applicants\u2019 conduct had contributed to the length of the , since after the writs of execution were returned for lack of funds some of them had re-submitted the writs to the competent authorities with a substantial delay."], "id": "5073c67b-fe9f-40b3-abea-61bcb527f9d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant complained about the unreasonable delay of the and his inability to recover his debt. The Court considers that those complaints concerned the non-enforcement of the applicant\u2019s civil judgment debt and that, accordingly, they fall to be considered under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:"], "id": "1658b45b-231e-45e2-80ec-783d5d44a220", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition, within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. They alleged that the applicant company had omitted to indicate in the application form the existence of the proceedings for opposition to enforcement and the appeal that it had lodged with the Court of Appeal in those proceedings. They further submitted that the applicant company had failed to inform the Court of the fact that the had been discontinued in September 2014."], "id": "bd7a58e1-f472-4293-84e1-cfd8b9a9ff99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government submitted that the period which elapsed before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should not be taken into consideration. They further stated that the applicant had not demonstrated any interest in the and had failed to request their expedition in a proper manner (see paragraph 8 above)."], "id": "fe6eb354-903b-4817-bb51-af4851db58bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government submitted that the case had in fact been of a complex nature as it had required determination of difficult legal issues: the applicant's capacity to act; whether other had already been pending between the same parties at the time when the undertaking had requested enforcement of the 1994 settlement; and whether the latter should be regarded as an enforcement order."], "id": "fe31ffbd-3731-4b5e-9759-c376bcea3f0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["248. The applicant bank also submitted that the seizure of a substantial amount of money from its account was the result of in which the domestic courts, as plainly demonstrated above (see paragraphs 160-162, 164, 169-172, 190-195), had committed multiple procedural errors. In particular, the Commercial Court\u2019s decision of 3 October 2003 and instruction of 28 October 2003 had been rendered without a proper adversarial procedure. The applicant bank argued that in those circumstances those proceedings had not offered the necessary procedural guarantees enabling the domestic courts to adjudicate its case effectively and fairly, as required by the State\u2019s positive obligation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "619237c7-86ac-4aed-aee6-d237e8b2f555", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant put in doubt the willingness of the Bailiffs to enforce the decisions in his favour. He maintained that the were barred first by the Law \u201con the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property\u201d and then by the bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. The applicant submitted that the steps taken by the State were insufficient to ensure his right to have the court decisions given in his favour enforced without undue delay."], "id": "43ac9e86-9e8b-4909-a7e9-5cb44168a095", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government invited the Court to reject the application for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They submitted that the applicant could have lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. In support of their argument, the Government produced a copy of the Constitutional Court decision of 2 February 2005 (see paragraph 18 above) in which that court had found a violation of the complainant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time on account of lengthy ."], "id": "e6bf0d69-78c5-432d-a686-958725c3e1bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained that the length of the had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. After that complaint has been communicated to the respondent Government, the applicant also complained that the protracted length of the enforcement proceedings had denied him the right of access to a court. Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:"], "id": "03b68e5e-1dfe-4a5a-8392-8b7d23055688", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government admitted that the had been too long, but considered that they had been conducted in accordance with the law, and that the length had not been due to failures to act on the part of State institutions. The parties had been in dispute about the proportion of their financial contribution for the construction of the wall. They further stated that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings. In that latter context, they maintained that he had failed to pay the costs for the on-site examination of the wall constructed by the defendant, which fact had led to the suspension of the proceedings for nearly a year and three months (see paragraphs 9 and 10, above)."], "id": "1a97dafe-4d1d-42f0-b55e-28aee3b5e709", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government maintained that the applicant's right to have the judgments in his favour enforced had been never questioned. The Government further argued that the State could not be considered responsible for the debts of its enterprises and the responsibility of the State in this situation was limited to the organisation and proper conduct of . The length of the enforcement proceedings had been caused by the critical financial situation of the debtor companies and the Bailiffs' Service had performed all necessary actions and could not be blamed for the delay. The Government further submitted that the judgments of 26 October 2000 and 13 February 2002 had been enforced in full and the judgments of 10 February 2003 and 30 July 2003 \u2013 in part."], "id": "debf9fc7-fc24-49fc-b678-fa67052a3992", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government submitted that the applicant is not a victim of a violation of Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention, as the length of the in the applicant's case had been caused by the critical financial situation of the debtor enterprise and the pending bankruptcy proceedings against it. The State authorities could not therefore be held responsible for this delay in the proceedings. The Government noted that the applicant had challenged the alleged omissions and inactivity of the Bailiffs before the domestic courts. The courts, however, found that the Bailiffs were not responsible for the delay in execution."], "id": "05458a6c-ff0d-471c-8ed7-eb6baa81879d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government contended that the period to be taken into consideration began no earlier than 12 January 1995 when the applicant lodged his petition for enforcement. They considered that the enforcement stage of the proceedings was an autonomous procedure which had to be viewed separately and without a reference to the procedure that had preceded it. They maintained that neither at the domestic level nor before the Court did the applicant actually challenge the length of the court proceedings, as opposed to the ."], "id": "2af5b710-0c92-4d75-8881-e772ad06c5a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant maintained that the company\u2019s debt was attributable to the State. The company had performed a public function, since it had operated a car pound under the strict control of the State authorities, which had determined both its operation procedures and the applicable tariffs. The company had been unable freely to plan its activities, since it had fully depended on the Road Inspectorate\u2019s instructions in its day-to-day activities. Furthermore, the town administration had unlawfully registered the company in excess of its competence. The town administration was the company\u2019s only founder and owner, controlled the company\u2019s activities and gave instructions as to the assets management, namely, it ordered the transfer of property operated by the company to a different company. When the assets were transferred, the company did not have any debts; otherwise, under Articles 61 \u00a7 4 and 65 \u00a7 1 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 28 above), liquidation would have been possible only pursuant to a court decision, whereas there was no such decision in the present case until 2001. Moreover, after having ordered the transfer, the municipal authorities had not wound the company up. While the other municipal company, \u201cthe Housing Exchange Bureau\u201d, benefited from having economic control over the transferred assets, the Arsenal company, which formally continued to exist, was supposed to bear the respective expenses for cleaning, maintenance and electricity. As a result, the company accumulated a debt which it was unable to cover, in the absence of available assets. That permitted the Tax Service to apply to the commercial court with a request for the company\u2019s liquidation. The applicant further alleged that the had been defective and, in particular, his request for an injunction had been dismissed."], "id": "fb2dc042-178a-4785-8c19-1171f8a73860", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that the had been conducted with due diligence. The delays were attributable partly to the debtor\u2019s indigence and partly to the applicant, who had made a proposal that the enforcement proceedings be continued against the debtor\u2019s immovable assets only on 3 June 2008 and had failed to abide by the court\u2019s orders of 16 April and 8 June 2009. In addition, the Government argued that the present case was complex because of the death of the debtor and the fact that the applicant lived abroad."], "id": "41316e7f-cc27-4edf-9635-7a6d079066f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the effective remedies available to her. She should have challenged the bailiff\u2019s decision of 2 July 2012 on the discontinuation of the before the Administrative Court, a remedy which was both available and effective. As she did not do so, her application should be declared inadmissible under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention for the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies."], "id": "2bdc3b8b-f560-440b-b70f-76101612aeb4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, when the writ of execution was returned to the Narimanov District Court on 10 May 2002 due to impossibility to reinstate the applicant to the same position, the applicant was informed of his right to lodge an application with the court for re-initiation of the . This avenue of redress was provided for in Article 23.7 of the Law on Execution of Court Judgments. However, the applicant failed to make use of this remedy. The Government also argued that, taking into account the fact that his position at the Ismayilli Region Forestry had been liquidated, he had a right to apply to the court asking for \u201cmodification of the method and procedure of execution\u201d of the judgment in accordance with Article 231.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (\u201cCCP\u201d)."], "id": "229fd5dc-8242-470f-b634-0f565ae0592a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government maintained that the judgment in the applicant's favour was enforced in full. They further maintained that the responsibility of the State in this situation was limited to the organisation and proper conduct of and that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been caused by the critical financial situation of the debtor company and the energy sector of the Ukrainian economy in general. The Government contended that the Bailiffs' Service had performed all necessary actions and could not be blamed for the delay. The regularity of the enforcement proceedings in the present case was confirmed by the domestic courts. The Government argued that the State could not be considered responsible for the debts of its enterprises and that the State annually allocated substantial amounts from its budget to cover part of disability allowances and other compensatory payments to the workers in the mining industry."], "id": "9b41f18a-85bb-4f0e-8a86-fd4908d1d975", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant submitted that the domestic courts had not conducted the in an efficient and diligent manner. Despite the seizure orders of 1993, no movable assets had ever been confiscated from the defendant. He further contested the Government\u2019s argument that some delays were attributable to him and stated that the proceedings had never been suspended. On the contrary, his case had been archived for some time as the courts had wrongly regarded it as finished. In addition, the enforcement proceedings aimed at execution of a final court decision \u2013 their purpose was not, as argued by the Government, to settle any dispute between the parties. Finally, he maintained that six different judges sat in his case."], "id": "5a780207-bd67-4938-954d-909f3c3f66b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["12. The Government argued that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded. The authorities had done their best to enforce the judgment. They had started soliciting a \uf002at for the applicant even before the had begun. The \uf002at had not been immediately available because there had been no funding. A bailiff had several times \ufb01ned the applicant\u2019s commander for the non-enforcement. The court had several times extended the period of enforcement. The applicant had refused the \uf002at in Taganrog."], "id": "44d928e3-3e46-4307-af0e-cbb2ed7a224b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant doubted the willingness of the Bailiffs to enforce the decisions in her favour. She maintained that the were barred first by the Law \u201con the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property\u201d and then by the bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. The applicant submitted that the steps taken by the State were insufficient to ensure her right to have the judgments enforced without undue delay."], "id": "1eebc5fe-0432-4f19-80bd-2a0eed2c1915", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government maintained that the judgments in the applicant's favour were enforced in full. They further maintained that the responsibility of the State in this situation had been limited to the organisation and proper conduct of and that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been caused by the critical financial situation of the debtor company and the energy sector of the Ukrainian economy in general. The Government contended that the Bailiffs' Service had performed all necessary actions and could not be blamed for the delay. The regularity of the enforcement proceedings in the present case was confirmed by the domestic courts. The Government argued that the State could not be considered responsible for the debts of its enterprises and that the State annually allocated substantial amounts from its budget to cover part of disability allowances and other compensatory payments to the workers in the mining industry."], "id": "adce8fe6-6657-4018-b61d-853b3a5b933c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["13. The Government maintained that the right of the applicant to have a judgment in her favour enforced has been never questioned. The Government further maintained that the limitations of this right in the present case were aimed at the protection of the public interests and did not breach the very essence of the right in question. The Government argued that the State could not be considered responsible for the debts of its enterprises and, consequently, the responsibility of the State was limited to the organisation and proper conduct of only. The Government contended that the Bailiffs' Service had performed all necessary actions and could not be blamed for the delay. The Government finally maintained that the length of the enforcement in the present case was caused by a difficult financial situation of the debtor enterprise."], "id": "bcd9cf82-c1f3-4e69-b75a-15ea1eef1f85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government did not dispute the fact that the applicant had been in prison at the time of the service of the first enforcement order. It is also clear from the acknowledgment of the acceptance of service of the first enforcement order that the Krk Municipal Court failed to serve it on the applicant through the prison authorities, as prescribed by section 137 of the Civil Proceedings Act. Instead, it was served on a certain M.K. This error of the Krk Municipal Court leaves the Court with no other choice but to accept the applicant\u2019s allegations that she had learned about the only after the second enforcement order had been served on her. It follows that the applicant was unable to appeal against the first enforcement order in time, or to subsequently request the restoration of the proceedings to the status quo ante within the three-month statutory time-limit (see paragraph 20 above)."], "id": "6cd5efc2-e70b-4eef-84d8-e9170c80ebc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant submitted that he and his representative had been completely unaware of the fact that the debt had been paid. If it had been paid, the Government had omitted to explain why the applicant had not received any payment and how such non-payment could constitute enforcement of a judgment. The had been suspended until 13 February 2012, meaning that the judgment had thus only been \u201cenforced\u201d after seven years of non-enforcement when the case had been communicated to the Government by the Court."], "id": "65e8a270-0d5e-4b5a-ab32-98c12bea6c90", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant averred that he could not be blamed for not lodging the warrant of execution with the bailiffs' service until 28 April 2002, because no order had been issued to him before that date as all parties were awaiting the outcome of separate litigation in which a third party had tried to challenge his title to the saw-mill. He further submitted that after the bailiff's decision of 8 January 2003 to discontinue the he was not required to apply for a fresh enforcement order. Finally, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the delays in the enforcement of the judgment, saying that by the time the judgment was eventually complied with his property had been ransacked and its condition had deteriorated."], "id": "b90bc41c-9e22-4f8c-9082-7549e0b29af4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government did not address the issue of the length of the after 25 July 1995. The Court recalls that according to its established case-law, Article 6 \u00a7 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the \u201cright to a court\u201d, of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see the Philis v. Greece judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 209, p. 20, \u00a7 59). However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State\u2019s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6 \u00a7 1 should describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants \u2013 proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious \u2013 without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; to construe Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 16-18, \u00a7\u00a7 34-36). Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the \u201ctrial\u201d for the purposes of Article 6; moreover, the Court has already accepted this principle in cases concerning the length of proceedings (see Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011II, \u00a7\u00a740-45, the Di Pede v. Italy and Zappia v. Italy judgments of 26 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, pp. 1383-1384, \u00a7\u00a7 20-24, and pp. 1410-1411, \u00a7\u00a7 16-20, respectively)."], "id": "23fc6ca9-4229-405e-9be4-a9cfe5a16342", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicants complained under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about an interference with their property rights, notably about not having been issued with a building permit for a shopping centre in the first set of proceedings. They also complained about: (a) the length of the administrative proceedings related to the completion of the urban plot of land (see paragraphs 17-23 above) and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard, and (b) the length of the pursuant to the Commercial Court\u2019s judgment of 7 April 2006 (see paragraph 31-39 above), and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard."], "id": "0636793a-d7a5-4971-83cb-6a46ca25e666", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government indicated that the execution writ issued by the Krasnoarmeyskiy Town Court should have been enforced by the Saratov branch of the Federal Treasury. For some reason it was lost on its way to the bailiff\u2019s office. The applicant knew that the were not initiated, however, he failed to lodge a request with the competent court in order to obtain a duplicata of the execution order. In their further submissions the Government also indicated that the applicant did not submit to the Ministry of Finance the application form with his banking information and the writ of execution, as required by Government Decree No. 666, and, consequently, the execution order could not be enforced. Therefore, the applicant\u2019s complaint should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded."], "id": "c725f65d-6dd7-40a0-9396-12e7d317c640", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Enforcement Proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government further submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust all domestic remedies, as it had not applied to the State Bailiffs Service for execution of the decision of 26 June 1997 under sections 3 and 18(1) of the Act. They noted that the applicant had been informed about this by letter of the Ternopil Regional Administration of 20 December 2000 and the ruling of the Kyiv City Commercial Court of 23 October 2001, but had failed to seek execution. They referred to the relevant case-law of the Court in respect of non\u2011exhaustion (see Konyukhov v. Ukraine, no. 1858/03, \u00a7 20, 17 January 2006) and concluded that the applicant had not given the State bodies any opportunity to remedy the situation over the use of the church premises."], "id": "2984bc9d-7d3c-4c02-9ba3-f2dc56fb3074", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government argued that, in so far as the applicant could be said to be wishing to challenge the under Article 6 of the Convention, his complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the requirements of the Convention and its Protocols. Moreover, as regards all of these remaining complaints, they raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies: a properly formulated constitutional complaint."], "id": "c549d4da-92e7-40de-9e4a-3753ea2e9ce6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government argued that the application was inadmissible. The applicant could not claim to be a victim of a breach of the Convention since the courts had ultimately acknowledged that the Military Pensions Office had erred in not complying with the final and valid decision given on 25 August 1995 by the Social Insurance Authority. Furthermore, the applicant had in the end been paid the amounts in arrears, together with statutory interest. They further argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the relevant domestic remedies. He should have lodged a separate civil action in tort, claiming damages against the State Treasury under Article 417 of the Civil Code for the losses which he had incurred. He could also have instituted governed by the Administrative Enforcement Act."], "id": "6b9da589-1fda-4431-aa2a-26004b2a0ce3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government contended that they were not obliged to pay the above debt due to the applicant, as he had neither appealed against the Bailiffs' decision of 22 April 2004 not to open the , nor re-submitted the writ of execution at a later date. They further contended that the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage was exorbitant and unsubstantiated, and that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction in the case."], "id": "19b3f38a-d0f4-437f-8a94-780ba87771b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant sought reparation for the pecuniary damage he had sustained, which he put at 82,015,340 Italian lire (ITL) [42,357.39 euros (EUR)], the sum of ITL 70,000,000 [EUR 36,151.98] being the loss of rent for the period from 2 April 1985 (the date when the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice and ordered that the premises be vacated) to 24 March 1996 (when the applicant recovered possession of his flat), the sum of ITL 12,015,340 [EUR 6,205.41] for the costs of the . "], "id": "f329fc93-9ef1-4e0b-a203-27dfd04457dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government contested the first applicant\u2019s complaint. They submitted that the had lasted only for 15 days and that the Agency had complied fully with the Commercial Court\u2019s judgment. The fact that the first applicant refused to sign the accompanying contract was irrelevant, and the additional changes requested by it had not been within the Agency\u2019s competence. Therefore every further delay in that regard was the first applicant\u2019s fault."], "id": "64286031-34ea-4272-bbab-e4737c5c37e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government argued that the three sets of proceedings were not related. According to them, the period to be taken into consideration should be that of each set of proceedings. They submitted that, having regard to the length of each set of proceedings, the instances involved, the complexity of the case and the number of claimants who alleged that they had proprietary interests in the property in question, the overall length of the proceedings had not exceeded a reasonable time as required by Article 6 \u00a7 1. They furthermore submitted that the applicants\u2019 conduct had caused part of the delay. This was particularly due to their willingness to initiate parallel sets of proceedings based on different qualifications of their claims and to their failure to co-operate with the authorities and to submit the necessary documents during the ."], "id": "5001b763-0c25-4cee-9b72-0c91baf73ba4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Enforcement Proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government, with reference to the information from the Savings Bank of Russia, admitted that the payment received by the applicant in May 2003 had not constituted enforcement of the judgment of 16 January 2001 and stated that the Savings Bank of Russia was ready to pay the amount due pursuant to that judgment on the applicant's first demand. They also argued that on 31 March 2004 a domestic court had ruled that the amount specified in the judgment of 16 January 2001 should be recovered according to the procedure established by the Law on , and that the applicant had not applied to the bank or bailiffs for the enforcement."], "id": "1d88a56a-e65c-4be2-b683-f13f2c673dff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicants argued that the order for their eviction issued by the Pore\u010d Municipal Court had amounted to an interference with their right to respect for their home, notwithstanding the fact that they had not yet been evicted. They accepted that the interference in question was in accordance with the law, but argued that it was not necessary in a democratic society. They maintained that their house should have been exempted from the since it had been satisfying their basic housing needs."], "id": "88495d00-f214-4086-aca4-a686f6d8ceaf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government argued that the applicant\u2019s complaint was incompatible ratione materiae. According to them, Article 6 did not apply and the applicant did not have a legitimate expectation amounting to a possession since the judgment in his favour had been quashed on 2 September 2004, and he had omitted to appeal against the later decision. Further, he had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies, since he had not applied for an index-linking of the initial award. The award in the part concerning the lump sum had been executed on 21 January 2003. As regards the recalculation of the pension, the period between 31 October 2002 and 9 April 2003 had been justified by the suspension of the on 13 February 2003, and the period between 22 December 2003 and 7 April 2004 by another suspension order pending the determination of the pension fund\u2019s complaint against the bailiffs concerning an allegedly unlawfully imposed fine. In any event, the delay in enforcement was justified because, first, the initial judgment had been based on an incorrect application of the domestic pensions law. Second, the non\u2011enforcement was justified by the quashing of the initial award which, in its turn, had not breached the legal certainty principle. Indeed, the Constitutional Court\u2019s ruling constituted a new circumstance. The annulment was necessary to ensure a uniform application of the domestic law. Therefore, in any event, the complaint was manifestly ill-founded."], "id": "00edce7f-f956-45be-9dd5-8cc0daeb4e5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government submitted that the first applicant had failed to exhaust all effective domestic remedies. In respect of the complaints related to the length of the administrative and it had not made use of a request for review and an action for fair redress provided by the Right to the Trial within a Reasonable Time Act (see paragraph 78 above). Even though a request for review is effective only as of 4 September 2013, the Government considered that the first applicant had been required to avail itself thereof, especially with regard to the proceedings for completion of an urban plot, which were still ongoing. Had it made use of it, it could also have made use of an action for fair redress and obtained compensation. In any event, it could have made use of a constitutional appeal."], "id": "5f6ba63b-5989-4cef-9737-04a8dea6cf3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant disagreed. He stated that the enforcement of judgments against legal entities that were not bankrupt was a matter for the State bailiffs. Once the entity at issue was declared bankrupt, the bailiffs had to refer the writs of execution to the liquidation commission for the relevant company. That did not mean that the were to be terminated. The liquidation commission in the present case had been set up by a resolution of the Zaporizhzhia Regional Arbitration Court on 20 August 1997 (see paragraph 9 above). However, it had not existed in reality for almost four years, so it had been impossible to appeal against its actions or inactivity (see paragraphs 17 and 35 above). He maintained that there had been a delay on the part of the bailiffs and the domestic courts in failing to oversee effectively the procedure for liquidating the IBF and in paying compensation for its debts. He had complained of this delay to the domestic courts, which had acknowledged it but had made no reparation for the infringement of his rights. He further claimed that, notwithstanding the fact that it was not his duty to supervise the liquidation commission\u2019s work, he had nevertheless tried to complain to it about the failure to enforce the judgments of 24 February 1998. However, he had received no response to his complaints from the de facto chairman of the liquidation commission, and the Regional Commercial Court had not examined his complaints on the merits."], "id": "6233e1d8-8a69-420c-8fa0-0e116dae8453", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government seem to implicate that the lengthy non-enforcement was not imputable to the State authorities because the enforcement had to be suspended in view of the pending appeal proceedings. The Court notes the reasons advanced by the respondent Government for not having filed copies of the judge\u2019s letter of 26 September 2001 (see paragraph 17 above) nor of any formal ruling on the suspension of the , pursuant to Article 34 \u00a7 6 of the 1999 Law \u201con Enforcement Proceedings\u201d, as in force at the material time. In any event, the Court considers that the Government did not explain the lengthy delay in the said appeal proceedings which were limited to rather simple admissibility questions, the Zmiyivskyy Court having found as early as on 10 July 2001 that the appeal had been lodged out of time."], "id": "28f76d8e-be67-4373-ae35-b3b560f38b65", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["12. The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as he had not appealed against that judgment with the aim of changing the debtor in the . They maintained that it had been the responsibility of the State Court Administration, and not of the Ministry of Finance, to pay the special retired judges\u2019 allowance. They therefore proposed that the application be declared inadmissible."], "id": "17d7947a-70fa-4cb5-8bc1-6d1d43ebd30d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government claimed that the delay in enforcement had been caused by the applicant\u2019s failure to submit by the applicant himself the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance. However, the fact that the judgment debt was ultimately paid to the applicant demonstrates that submission of the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance was not a necessary element of the . Therefore the Court is not persuaded that the delay was attributable to the applicant."], "id": "8f70a41c-48b2-4ce2-bf10-088a6f56fa5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant maintained that the failure to enforce the judgment of 30 July 2008 had constituted a violation of her Convention rights. By its judgment of 30 July 2008, the Administrative Court had obliged the Mayor\u2019s office to conclude the agreement mentioned in the decision of 10 October 2002 no. 1785-A with the applicant. The domestic authorities had had no right to deviate from this clear judgment. The other plots of land offered to the applicant had been unacceptable since they had been located elsewhere than at the specific address identified in the judgment and they had been in an area where business would have been less profitable than at the address indicated in the judgment. The applicant had proposed nine different acceptable new locations but they all had been refused by the Mayor\u2019s office. Although the applicant had taken all possible steps for its enforcement, the judgment had remained unenforced for more than eight years. By discontinuing the , the domestic authorities had violated the applicant\u2019s right under Article 6 of the Convention."], "id": "8391e479-5dd5-4381-b6b3-c8b507c5e05f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government commented that the applicant had included surcharges in respect of the publication of the judgment which it had failed to justify. Moreover, the amount of EUR 21,400 imposed as a fine by in separate was not to be reimbursed since it had been caused by the applicant\u2019s failure to publish the judgment properly. Finally, they argued that the costs reimbursed to Mr Stadler were excessive and were not properly itemised."], "id": "fdb41fcb-3c77-49bb-9826-924ef0946e33", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants did not challenge any of the loan agreements before the national courts in appropriate proceedings. For example, they could have instituted proceedings seeking to have the contract declared null and void (ni\u0161tav) or voidable (pobojan) (see sections 322 and 330 of the Obligations Act, paragraph 47 above). This implies that the applicants freely entered into those agreements and freely stipulated that the loans could be secured using their house as collateral. The applicants must therefore have been aware that their house would be sold to secure the payment of any outstanding debts after the time-limit set for the repayment of the loan had expired. When the enforcement order for the sale of their house was issued, the applicants did not challenge that order by means of an appeal, as provided for under section 11 of the Enforcement Act (see paragraph 42 above). By not objecting to the enforcement order, which specifically concerned the sale of their house, the applicants tacitly agreed to its sale in the ."], "id": "e9ef8b4e-2975-41f6-bd95-8c19f348dcec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicants put in doubt the willingness of the Bailiffs to enforce the decisions in their favour. They maintained that the were barred first by the Law \u201con the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property\u201d and then by the bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. The applicants submitted that the steps taken by the State were insufficient to ensure their right to have court decisions given in their favour enforced without undue delay."], "id": "bb8479b0-a49a-44cc-91d5-b3d6d7cd96ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants regretted that the judgment of 21 November 2001 had not been enforced and pointed out that in the ten years during which the had been pending the bailiffs had taken no steps to force the Company to comply with the judgment and the Government had not been able to point to any such measures having been taken. They further noted that, as a result of their claim against the Company not being included on the list of creditors, a chance to have the judgment enforced had been missed as a result of negligence. Given that the bankruptcy proceedings had been opened in respect of the Company precisely in view of its inability to pay its debts to those creditors who had been put on the list, it was absurd to expect that the Company would retain any funds by the end of the bankruptcy proceedings to cover debts falling outside the list of its creditors."], "id": "b1015b2c-b49b-4874-af7a-b2325d8163c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicants maintained their complaints. In particular, Mr Nazarov stated, as regards the housing owned by him since 1999, the authorities and the first-instance court issuing the initial judgment in his favour had been aware of that circumstance and took it into account. As regards the share in a flat in August 2009-2011, that circumstance arose after the judgment and was largely due to the authorities\u2019 failure to enforce the judgment of 13 January 2009 within the two-month time-limit set in the domestic law. In any event, the judgment in his favour had not been cancelled or amended and was to be enforced, as confirmed by the domestic courts\u2019 findings in 2014 and 2015. The courts on two occasions examined the arguments raised by the Government and rejected them as irrelevant. The 2016-2017 proceedings, brought by the defendant in military courts, were unfair, the decision to discontinue the had been taken in disregard of the earlier courts\u2019 findings on the same matter, and the final judgment in his favour still had to be executed."], "id": "5e124607-f717-4cdb-bfca-421102ca91b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant contested the Constitutional Court's finding as (i) in his opinion, the had been unlawful, (ii) in his constitutional complaint, and contrary to the Constitutional Court's reasoning, he had duly specified the harm suffered and (iii) the Constitutional Court had failed to examine a part of the proceedings complained of without providing any reasons for doing so. The applicant further alleged that the Constitutional Court's finding lacked both a compensatory and an accelerating effect. In view of the above, the applicant argued that he was still a victim and that he was not obliged to lodge a fresh constitutional complaint."], "id": "db716d9e-6902-4461-b34c-70f1cdd09b7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicants each requested that the State be ordered to pay, from its own funds: (i) the sums awarded by the final judgments rendered in their favour, as well as the costs of the ; and (ii) 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They did not ask for reimbursement of the costs incurred before the Court."], "id": "448c535e-494f-4547-804d-e371b28cf828", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant argued that he had exhausted all possible remedies capable of providing redress. He had challenged the bailiff\u2019s decision on the termination of the before the Administrative Court. The Government had failed to explain how the return of the writ of execution to the District Court could have provided redress for the non\u2011enforcement issue. Even if he had obtained a judgment favourable to him, it would only have meant having another writ of execution to enforce. Moreover, the applicant pointed out that another position would not have been offered to him had he not lodged an application with the Court which was then communicated to the Government."], "id": "44d343e9-996e-493f-87db-bd345c662c0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to reintroduce the writs of execution returned to them in 2001, which therefore meant that the applicants had lost interest in the enforcement of the judgment at issue. The Government further maintained that the applicant had not applied to the Court in order to be recognised as the successor to his deceased wife. They also contended that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as they had not lodged a claim with the domestic courts to challenge the inactivity of the State Bailiffs\u2019 Service or sought to expedite the in his case. They proposed therefore to declare this application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded or for non-exhaustion."], "id": "93cf7541-195b-4553-b108-fcfd28a3bd18", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government argued that the judgments in the applicant\u2019s favour had been partly executed: E.T.\u2019s property title had been invalidated and her ownership certificate had been declared void; USD 17,000 had been exacted from the applicant and placed in the DEJA\u2019s bank account; E.T. had been evicted from the land; and the operation of the restaurant had been terminated. During the whole of the , the DEJA had taken all possible steps to enforce the Court of Appeal\u2019s judgments, but for objective and substantial reasons it had been impossible to complete the enforcement."], "id": "1b95494f-4b28-4fe7-8303-7361ceb4ab29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government submitted that in her application to the Court the applicant had failed to specify that she had received the first payment on 24 March 2010 and the last on 14 May 2010, by which the had ended. She had therefore failed to inform the Court of the course of her enforcement proceedings of which she should have been aware. Moreover, she had failed to inform the domestic courts of the same facts. This in the Government\u2019s view amounted to the abuse of the right of individual application. The Government also pointed out that, irrespective of the absence of a final decision of the domestic courts confirming that the enforcement proceedings had ended which had been anyway only of a declaratory nature, the enforcement proceedings had in total lasted for one year and six months, which was the period between the applicant\u2019s lodging of the application for enforcement and the final payment. That period, in the Government\u2019s view, had not been excessive and thus the applicant had not had victim status and, in any event, her application had been manifestly ill-founded."], "id": "9da71b4e-2333-4f78-9ec1-f298e2a5a3b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the second applicant was not the victim of the alleged violation. The judgment of 26 September 1994 had been made in favour of the first applicant alone and the second applicant had merely represented his interests in the . She could not claim, therefore, that her \u201cright to a court\u201d or her property rights had been violated."], "id": "04c99278-66f5-485a-a39f-436b4325041c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government claimed that the judgment of 31 January 2005 had not been enforced because of the applicants\u2019 failure to submit the required documents to the Gurjaani Public Registry. Accordingly, the delay in the was wholly attributable to the applicants. The Government further maintained that the Gurjaani Public Registry had never prevented the enforcement of the Gurjaani District Court decision of 31 January 2005. The sole purpose of the letter of 2 November 2005, according to the Government, had been to invite the applicants to produce a complete file necessary for registering the land. Hence, the applicants\u2019 own behaviour had been the principal cause of the delay in execution."], "id": "1764bdc6-52c1-4dc1-8b56-0e4b83c3cc28", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["214. The Government submitted that one of the applicant bank\u2019s main arguments in claiming that its property rights had been violated in the was that the enforcement to the benefit of Retag had been inadmissible under the domestic law. In this connection the Government pointed out that on 11 November 2003 the applicant bank had instituted civil proceedings before the Karlovac Commercial Court against Retag, asking the court to declare the enforcement inadmissible (see paragraph 113 above). In so doing the applicant bank had in essence raised the same complaints as in its application to the Court. Given that those proceedings were still pending and that the final judgment on the admissibility of the enforcement was of key significance for the determination of whether the applicant bank\u2019s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention were well-founded, the Government invited the Court to declare these complaints inadmissible as premature."], "id": "6f5c2754-7e9c-43ea-b0a7-6b7658932335", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 \u00a7 1 thereof, that the Makarska Municipal Court had not complied with the orders of the Split County Court and the Supreme Court to complete the within the specified time-limit. Therefore the remedies he had at his disposal were not effective. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "fdb1cf2e-82ea-4700-a811-63d2dc1d7e5e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government argued that the applicants had not exhausted the relevant domestic remedies. In the first place, they had not lodged an appeal against the enforcement order and had thus agreed to the sale of their house in the . Had they lodged an appeal against the enforcement order, they could have further lodged a constitutional complaint whereby they could have put forward all the complaints they had submitted before the Court."], "id": "77d4a934-29d3-461d-a62a-57e9659e1651", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant claimed 32,019 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of pecuniary damage for the alleged breaches of Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 10 of the Convention. That overall amount corresponded to the value of two awards made against the applicant (PLN 20,000), the court fees the applicant was ordered to pay by the Court of Appeal (PLN 1,500), and the fees and costs imposed in the in respect of the award for non-pecuniary damage made in favour of Mr S.L. (PLN 4,019). Furthermore, the applicant claimed the reimbursement of the legal fees he had incurred in the proceedings before the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal (PLN 1,000), the Constitutional Court (PLN 1,000) and in the Strasbourg proceedings (PLN 4,500)."], "id": "4a26f9e7-fb1c-4498-a500-8d803fd05f35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government maintained that the were conducted with due diligence, while the failure to enforce the judgment in question was primarily due to the debtor\u2019s indigence. They further argued that the period of non-execution should not include the subsequent insolvency proceedings, which were conducted fairly and expeditiously, having regard to their particular complexity and the delays attributable to the applicant company who pursued its security claim."], "id": "81e5f21c-f03e-46b9-bb66-3ddd34c5ddf0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["114. The Government submitted that the first applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, in so far as she had not asked a bailiff to enforce the judgment awarding child allowance to the second applicant. Consequently, she had not provided the State authorities with the opportunity to assist her in the enforcement of the said judgment. The enforcement mechanism put in place by domestic legislation had been both directly accessible to her and effective. They disagreed with the applicants\u2019 argument that they should have been exempted from exhausting the available domestic remedies on account of their particular situation and because the authorities had displayed a discriminatory attitude towards them. They contended that some of the victims in the domestic proceedings had opened before the authorities and that there was no evidence in the file that the enforcement authorities had displayed a discriminatory attitude towards them. Lastly, they submitted that the third applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation because she had not been awarded a child allowance by the domestic courts."], "id": "a11d590b-15da-4d1b-9769-bfbd376cee72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant contested the Government's argument concerning the complexity of the case stating that the former Yugoslav banking system had not had any influence to the case. He disagreed that he had created any delays in the proceedings by having recourse to the remedies available under domestic law. He also argued that the State had not referred to any national effective remedy concerning the length of the proceedings. As regards the conduct of the authorities, the applicant submitted that the higher courts had unreasonably remitted the case for re-examination instead of deciding it on the merits. He also disagreed that they had been active throughout the proceedings, referring in particular to the four-year interval before the trial court made its last decision. He stated that the concerning the bank's request for counter-enforcement had not affected the proceedings complained of."], "id": "81b620d1-daa5-43ba-a71e-fec03cba9c00", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government in their submissions disputed the assertion that the awards made by the domestic courts to the applicants constituted possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as they concerned payments for judicial benefits provided by the State. They further alleged that the claims in respect of the arrears granted did not even amount to legitimate expectations, as they had been directed against the wrong institution \u2013 the Ministry of Finance instead of the State Judicial Administration. The Government further referred to the difficult financial situation of the State (see Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281\u2011A, \u00a7\u00a7 27 and 30) and the technical complications encountered in the course of the . Moreover, they contended that the State had taken active steps to solve the problem, as it had made a budgetary allocation of UAH 1,067,200[7] for the payment of the various arrears. They further asserted that these judgments had been enforced in full and without undue delay, and that accordingly there had been no infringement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "da99931e-bf57-4ff8-a271-be50768b9b6c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["85. The applicants submitted that the Enforcement Act, which had entered into force on 15 October 2012 when the against them had still been pending, had not been applied in their case. The application of the Act would have benefited them since it provided that real estate could not be sold at public auction for less than half of its assessed value."], "id": "a1f86f41-4963-4ce2-bc99-cf9a5378cd21", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government maintained that the responsibility of the State in this situation was limited to the organisation and proper conduct of and that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been caused by the critical financial situation of the debtor company and the energy sector of the Ukrainian economy in general. The Government contended that the Bailiffs\u2019 Service performed all necessary actions and cannot be blamed for the delay. The regularity of the enforcement proceedings in the present case was confirmed by the domestic courts. The Government finally argued that the State could not be considered responsible for the debts of its enterprises."], "id": "db22fe8c-015a-47ca-acdd-7ef80817a291", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant complained that he had not been able to recover his car because of the bailiffs' inefficient conduct of the . The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Article 6 is cited above and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads as follows:"], "id": "1dcbefec-9c39-4374-aab8-df52b765e52b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government submitted in their initial observations that the judgment had been enforced in full on 9 July 2008. In their additional observations they cited 16 January 2009 as the date of the enforcement. They argued that it was through the applicant\u2019s own negligence that the judgment had not been enforced earlier. First, the Government submitted, with reference to the statement of the command of the respondent military unit, that the unit \u201chad not received a copy of the judgment for processing in accordance with the established procedure\u201d. Nonetheless, the applicant had not taken any steps to notify the respondent military unit of the award in his favour. Second, they submitted that he had failed to obtain a writ of execution from the court or to seek the bailiffs\u2019 service\u2019s assistance to accelerate the . Further, he did not lodge a claim for non-pecuniary damage with a court, and therefore failed to exhaust the domestic remedies. They invited the Court to strike the case out as an abuse of petition."], "id": "fbf956b6-24a9-4575-81d5-a3a1ba5a80e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "enforcement proceedings", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government submitted that contrary to the requirements of the domestic law (Section 133 of the 2004 Federal Budget Act and Section 109 of the 2005 Federal Budget Act) the applicant submitted the warrant of execution directly to the debtor, whereas he was supposed to submit it with the competent department of the Federal Treasury. Therefore, the applicant was responsible for the non-enforcement of the judgment up until 5 October 2005 when the were stayed pending the outcome of the supervisory review proceedings."], "id": "4b64c855-1690-4722-876b-e47ed5ac6e14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["190. The applicants further submitted that neither dispersal nor prosecution and conviction of the first to sixth applicants had been since: (i) the protest action had been peaceful; the protesters had not attacked the loggers, the MG staff or the police, which meant that the authorities were required to display a degree of tolerance; the applicants referred to the cases of Oya Ataman v. Turkey (no. 74552/01, \u00a7\u00a7 41 and 42, ECHR 2006\u2011XIV) and Bukta and Others v. Hungary (no. 25691/04, \u00a7 37, ECHR 2007\u2011III); (ii) the protest had taken place in a park and caused no disturbance to city life; and (iii) allowing private security guards to disperse a peaceful assembly could not be considered necessary in a democratic society and neither could the use of violence."], "id": "46fedd69-24de-496a-9cfe-b0cc2c3c96d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government submitted the interference was justified as and was proportionate to its objectives. The applicant had agreed to occupy the plot on the terms that neither he, his family nor guests would cause a nuisance and he had been warned by the Council that he was in breach. In the circumstances, the Council was entitled to revoke the licence. Similar terms would have applied to a secure housing tenant. Though the licence did not require the Council to give the applicant the opportunity to challenge the allegations of nuisance made against him, it was a public authority obliged to act lawfully, reasonably, fairly and for the proper purposes for which its powers were conferred. Its decisions were therefore amenable to judicial review and the applicant, who was legally represented, was able to challenge the decision in judicial review proceedings where the High Court found no evidence to doubt the reasonableness and procedural fairness of the Council\u2019s decision. The Council had also taken into account the needs of the applicant and his family in the decision-making process. If there had been no proper basis for the eviction or the applicant had mounted a substantial factual challenge to the asserted justification, the domestic courts would have been able, through their scrutiny, to provide a remedy against arbitrary action. There was however no substantial dispute as to the primary facts as the applicant did not appear to deny that his sons and guests were causing a nuisance. This procedure therefore provided the applicant with a series of important safeguards. In addition to the remedy of judicial review, occupiers had, since 2000, a right of action under the Human Rights Act 1998, pursuant to which the courts can consider directly claims of violation of the Convention (see, for example, Somerset County Council v. Isaacs, paragraphs 47-50 above)."], "id": "af739733-403d-4b11-bc17-11f201fbb5c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government maintained that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression was . In this regard, they submitted that, in the first two articles, the State was considered as waging a \u201cdirty war\u201d against the \u201coppressed\u201d Kurdish nation and that in the third article the Minister of Justice was designated as the person responsible for the inconveniences and problems in prisons. They further pointed out that the article considered the Minister to be responsible for the death of two prisoners who were on hunger strike. Finally, they submitted that the applicants were sentenced to an insignificant fine which was never enforced and that their condemnations were eventually nullified."], "id": "611dd858-e3b2-4cbc-a17b-069d007328c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicants argued that the order for their eviction issued by the Pore\u010d Municipal Court had amounted to an interference with their right to respect for their home, notwithstanding the fact that they had not yet been evicted. They accepted that the interference in question was in accordance with the law, but argued that it was not . They maintained that their house should have been exempted from the enforcement proceedings since it had been satisfying their basic housing needs."], "id": "0e271813-f3f7-4424-a5d1-bfec1b781fe4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they considered that such interference had been and had been justified by the need to ensure public safety and to prevent any obstruction by the applicant of the investigation of the criminal case against him."], "id": "77f07d39-75bf-4116-87c9-0625459ca317", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that the applicants, together with other members of the National Bolsheviks Party, had effected a forcible and unauthorised entry into the premises of the President\u2019s Administration, had held an unauthorised assembly there, had voiced unlawful demands for the President\u2019s resignation, had hampered the normal functioning of the President\u2019s Administration and had destroyed State property there. Their protest had not been peaceful and had amounted to a criminal offence of mass disorder. They had been therefore lawfully prosecuted for participation in mass disorder involving destruction of State property. Their arrest, detention and conviction had pursued the legitimate aim of investigating criminal offences and punishing those responsible and had been ."], "id": "64c927e7-6ee3-433a-b729-282122f56a1e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant argued that the interference with her freedom of expression had been disproportionate within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in view of the minor threat posed by the publication to the interests of the Lithuanian State or any ethnic groups living in Lithuania or the neighbouring countries. In this connection the applicant emphasised that \u201cLithuanian calendar\u201d had been edited and officially distributed by her for 6 years in the whole territory of Lithuania, attracting no great attention from the public or from State institutions. Similarly, the 2,000 edition of \u201cLithuanian calendar\u201d had been released in a very limited print run of 3,000 in the second half of the year 1999, and for the following five months had caused no significant interest or exaggerated reactions, up until the State authorities' intervention in January 2000 after they received a note from the embassy of the Russian Federation. The applicant likewise noted that the Prosecutor General had refused to start criminal proceedings against her as the publication had not had the elements of the criminal offence of instigation of ethnic or racial hatred. She also observed that the information published in \u201cLithuanian calendar 2000\u201d had already been made public in other historical documents. The applicant also relied on the fact that the publication had contained mainly the expression of her own opinions on and assessment of various historical events, and the State had presented no evidence proving the necessity of such a serious interference. As a result of the proceedings, she had not only received an administrative penalty in the form of a warning, but had also lost the main source of her income, in view of the confiscation and destruction of all the unsold items of \u201cLithuanian calendar 2000\u201d and her resultant inability to continue editing the publication she had created. The applicant further submitted that the authorities could have pursued means other than halting the distribution of the calendar, such as giving her the opportunity to make certain rectifications or announcements, if necessary, on the cover of the remaining, unsold, versions of the publication. Finally, the domestic courts' finding of a lack of intent on the part of the applicant, as well as the minor danger which the publication represented, were also to be taken into account in discarding the argument that the interference had been ."], "id": "723ea15e-ae8f-46ac-8299-b907f768c490", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant also complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on his right to freedom of expression had not been for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.'s pictures and the facts mentioned in the articles had not fallen within the protection of private life. She had not been an innocent bystander but had actively participated in the incident of 4 December 1996. A conviction was public information that could not fall within the scope of private life. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest. The applicant had only written the articles, and he had had no say in the manner in which they had been published. No intent had been shown. Moreover, the information in the articles had been in every respect correct. The courts had failed to strike a proper balance between the protection of private life and freedom of expression in the manner required by the Convention."], "id": "fdd1628e-54bb-4f53-a2a7-45d70542e60c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government did not deny that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life and correspondence. They believed, however, that the interference at issue was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and was . The interference had resulted from the interception of A.B.\u2019s telephone conversations, which had been authorised under section 7(5) of the Law on Operational Activities. In the Government\u2019s view this was sufficient to conclude that the criterion of lawfulness was met in the present case. Moreover, the lawfulness of the interception had subsequently been confirmed on several occasions by the prosecutor\u2019s office in response to the applicant\u2019s complaints (paragraphs 11-15 above). They claimed that it had also been verified by the relevant judge of the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court (in the context of the criminal proceedings). Lastly, they referred to the findings of the Constitutional Court confirming that the said provision had been sufficiently clear and precise as to exclude arbitrariness. Namely, the said provision contained an exhaustive list of offences and the necessary precondition for its application was a situation requiring immediate action. Furthermore, the Government submitted that the interference at issue had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing crime, given that it had been carried out in the framework of criminal proceedings in connection with aggravated bribery. In response to the applicant\u2019s argument, they further reiterated that owing to the rapid development of events from 27 to 30 December 2005 no measures other than the operational interception of telecommunications would have been efficient for gathering credible information about the details of and accomplices involved in the bribery scheme."], "id": "6dcea8d3-ea45-487d-85c0-84ef202b5921", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government agreed that during the trial, which lasted from 1 August 2001 until 6 April 2004, the applicant had been denied family visits. Only on the latter date, after his conviction, was the applicant allowed a visit by his parents. The Government agreed that such a restriction constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s family life. They observed, however, that the applicant had been suspected of particularly serious crimes, including storing firearms and murdering a police officer in an attempt to conceal another crime. In their opinion, the gravity of the accusations, and the need to prevent his absconding from justice, justified the restriction on family visits during the investigation and trial. The Government noted that such a restriction was clearly provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the discretion given to the relevant authority in allowing or denying such visits was in order to avoid the absconding of a suspect or an accused."], "id": "14b1ee84-a06b-4399-ba61-ac322e934d3f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicants argued that the refusal to register the Civic Committee had not been in accordance with the law, that it had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been . The applicants also alleged that their case concerned several aspects of the national legislation and administrative practice which run counter to the principles embodied in Article 11 of the Convention."], "id": "5a223d68-34e5-495f-bcf3-1ef64981aa8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government conceded that there was family life between the applicant and M. and that the impugned access restrictions, with the exception of those agreed, and the refusal to terminate the public care had amounted to interferences with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, the interferences had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been ."], "id": "82ec4cc3-0042-43a9-9bbf-5613d894693a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government disagreed. They accepted that the first applicant\u2019s psychiatric examination constituted interference with his private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. They argued, however, that this interference was justified under paragraph 2 of the provision at issue. In particular, the assessment had been carried out based on Mrs L.\u2019s complaints about the first applicant\u2019s deviant behaviour, which had posed a threat to her own safety and the safety of others. These complaints had not been unsubstantiated; in particular, in June 2000 the first applicant had injured Mrs L. Other villagers had also complained to various authorities about the first applicant\u2019s provocative conduct. The Government submitted in this regard copies of complaints concerning the first applicant\u2019s conduct signed by various individuals and dated 2000 \u2013 2003. In the light of this, the first applicant\u2019s psychiatric examination had pursued a legitimate aim \u2013 namely, protection of the rights of others. It had been and was conducted in accordance with the law. In particular, the relevant provision was section 11 of the Law of Ukraine \u201cOn Psychiatric Assistance\u201d, authorising forcible psychiatric assessments of persons manifesting real intention to commit acts putting others in danger. Lastly, the Government submitted that the lawfulness of the application of that provision in the first applicant\u2019s case had been confirmed by judicial authorities of two levels in the course of the contested proceedings."], "id": "8a199ee8-d8aa-4838-907c-ec58d10c9018", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government admitted that imposing a fine for contempt of court amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of speech. However, they argued that the interference had been in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim and had been . The decision to fine the applicant had been based on section 110 of the Civil Procedure Act and sought to maintain the authority of the judiciary."], "id": "f2a50c43-b803-4c06-891e-13702c4c66e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government admitted that there was an interference with the applicant's family life. However, they considered that such interference was justified. They maintained that the issue of allowing family visits was foreseen by the domestic law, namely Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The refusal to allow such family visits during the investigation was in the interests of public safety and was . They further noted that after the applicant's conviction he was allowed to see his mother and his wife on numerous occasions."], "id": "b5072d67-fc78-43c5-bf80-5a918757cb05", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant maintained that the publication of the Commission\u2019s decision on its website before it had become final had been unlawful and not . The removal of such a decision from the Commission\u2019s website if the administrative courts had set it aside would not have offset the adverse effects it had caused. In that connection, he submitted articles from newspapers and online portals after the Commission had posted its decision on its website and before it had been served on him. Lastly, he argued that the impugned publication had not pursued any legitimate aim."], "id": "c6f862d8-947c-40a5-8f2e-f0139be6ba7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicants maintained that their conviction for publishing these articles was not . In this regard, they pointed out that the first two articles concerned the author\u2019s assessment on how to peacefully solve the Kurdish problem and that the third article criticised the prison policies of the State and, in particular, that of the Minister of Justice at the time of the events."], "id": "86ed1919-ccd6-4096-90f0-518bed38ccec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["163. The applicants claimed that the interference had not been prescribed by law or . It had been established by the Presnenskiy District Court on 16 August 2002 that the Moscow Justice Department had not invoked the dissolution proceedings before the Golovinskiy District Court as a ground for refusing re-registration. Furthermore, the four criminal investigations between June 1996 and April 1998 had found no criminal activity on the part of the applicant community. In April 1999, after a detailed expert study, the Ministry of Justice had granted re-registration to the federal organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses, of which the applicant community had been a member. Likewise, 398 communities of Jehovah's Witnesses in other Russian regions had been granted registration or re-registration during the same period."], "id": "a3b5c573-e322-4f0b-91d1-a9f07febad61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["220. The applicant argued that, since the criminal proceedings against him had been politically motivated, such interference could not be considered as prescribed by law. As regards the dispersal of the demonstration, none of the concerns raised in the Armenian Ombudsman\u2019s report regarding the lawfulness of the police operation had been addressed either during the investigation or in the Government\u2019s observations. All the evidence provided by the police had been considered reliable and their actions, without a proper examination and assessment, had been considered lawful by the courts, which had failed to carry out an objective and thorough establishment of the facts. Neither the interference with the expression of his political opinions, nor the dispersal of the demonstration were . As regards the latter, a number of questions remained unanswered. In particular, the disproportionate manner in which the demonstration had been dispersed, resulting in more than one hundred persons injured; the failure of the police to communicate with the opposition leader when the latter proposed to listen to their demands; the reasons for choosing such an early hour to carry out such a large-scale police operation, moreover, assuming that it had been a search and seizure operation, it being prohibited under the rules of criminal procedure; the failure to video record a police operation involving such a large number of police officers, while hindering and restricting journalists from video recording those events; the reasons why all the participants in the sit-in had been dispersed, as well as why Freedom Square had remained closed for any gatherings by the opposition for the following 38 months, if the purpose of the police operation had only been to carry out a search and seizure of illegal weapons."], "id": "570acef6-580b-4672-a0cb-d78822e79846", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government acknowledged that those who used the telephone had an expectation of privacy in respect of the numbers which they dialled and that obtaining detailed billing information concerning that telephone constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8. The obtaining of the information was, however, in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of crime and/or the protection of the rights of others, as the investigation concerned a very serious crime, the applicants had guns for use in the intended robbery and, as B. was surveillance-conscious, conventional surveillance would not suffice. The only use of the information was to corroborate the times recorded by police officers in respect of the covert listening device in the flat. "], "id": "43931301-567f-4e2c-adea-d9ebf735b517", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant company complained that the judgments by which the Prosecutor General's actions were upheld had had the effect of infringing its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions as secured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicant argued that the interference was not provided by law since the guarantees provided by Article 6 of the Convention had been breached and that the interference was not . The Government disputed the applicant's contention and argued that the applicant company received back the price paid for the shares bought in 2000 and that the applicant company was allowed to keep the profits earned between 2000 and 2007. In the Government's opinion, it was the State's right to property that had been breached as a result of the unlawful sale of the shares in 2000 and the applicant company had profited from the unlawful use of twenty-seven carriages by the quarry."], "id": "ff5af70c-bf9a-408d-9da0-49819495fc6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government further maintained that the interference complained of had been within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 to achieve the said legitimate aims. The child\u2019s best interest had required the suspension of the applicant\u2019s access. In balancing the competing interests and reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal had relied on the conclusive and carefully reasoned opinion of a competent expert, who had heard the applicant, G.S. and F. several times. After having questioned F. thoroughly, the expert had concluded that ordering contacts between her and the applicant were not in F.\u2019s best interest. Under these circumstances, it had been reasonable for the expert not to confront F. with the applicant and not to explore their interaction. The court had also had regard to the minutes of the child\u2019s questioning at first instance, in the course of which the child had firmly expressed her will not to see her father."], "id": "80aa10d2-078c-44d2-80e7-284db36fc60d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government contested his argument. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression had been prescribed by law, and had pursued the legitimate aims of maintaining national security and territorial integrity and prevention of disorder. The Government further contended that the interference had been . They noted that in the article in question Abdullah \u00d6calan was referred to as \u201cthe ideological and political leader of the Kurdish movement\u201d and the HPG, the PJA and the KONGRA-GEL were described as \u201cfacilitators of the military, political and ideological development formed under the leadership of Abdullah \u00d6calan\u201d. According to the Government, the publication of a photograph of Abdullah \u00d6calan holding a weapon demonstrated that the purpose of the publication of the article was to advocate and propagate terrorism. The Government lastly noted that the PKK was considered to be a terrorist organisation by a number of states and international organisations, such as the United Nations, NATO and the United States of America, and thus represented a serious threat not only to the internal security of Turkey but also to the international public order."], "id": "3dcd4297-bc55-45a4-875e-0a87bf762ae0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government further submitted that the interference had been . They outlined the complex and extremely hostile relationship between the applicant and the children\u2019s mother, providing details of the pre-investigation inquiry carried out into her allegations against the applicant in connection with his visit to the school on 27 November 2012 (see paragraphs 15-16 above)."], "id": "59ab9dc9-09b9-4836-a5d9-201690dcec3f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant associations further maintained that the interference with their Convention rights was not justified by any of the legitimate aims set out in Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. There could never be a justification for judging religious groups\u2019 beliefs as contrasted to their actions. The Government had failed to submit any concrete facts which would allow the Court to verify the assumption that their movement was in any way dangerous or that urgent social needs necessitated the actions in question. Their movement could not be criticised for any activity which was illegal or contrary to public order and the existing legislation. Accordingly, their treatment by the political authorities had been persecutory and unjustified, and had not been ."], "id": "86e8f8b9-df90-438e-869f-79e73c22ff85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government argued at the outset that the applicant had merely reiterated his Article 6 complaint (see paragraph 45 below). In any event, any interference that might have occurred in the case had been prescribed by law: under the provisions of Article 98 \u00a7 12 of the CCP the prosecutor had had to inform the court about the measures taken, but had not been obliged to obtain confirmation of those measures. Imposing such an obligation on the authorities, as the applicant alleged was necessary, would go beyond the legal framework. In the case at hand, the prosecutor had informed the court about the order to seize the correspondence. Moreover, the procedure whereby the order had been issued by the prosecutor had respected the legal requirements: it had been urgent and based on a solid justification. Furthermore, the measures taken by the prosecutor had been for uncovering criminal activity regarding serious crimes of drug trafficking."], "id": "2b5a520b-4fae-462e-81ab-eef369e95966", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government admitted that imposing a fine for a disciplinary offence amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of speech. However, they argued that the interference had been in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim and been . In particular, the decision to fine the applicant had been based on section 37 (a) of the Act on Attorneys at Law and meant to maintain the authority of the judiciary."], "id": "bc988b6a-a995-49f2-b907-2990e3d06ec4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant company complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on its right to freedom of expression in its case had not been prescribed by law as the Penal Code provision applied had not defined adequately the scope of private life. Nor had the restrictions been for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. B. had not been an innocent bystander but had participated actively in the incident of 4 December 1996. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest, especially since the case had been very newsworthy. Moreover, the information in the articles had in every respect been correct."], "id": "89dd0de8-5cab-466b-9140-c51b6807fc18", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim, as the proceedings against him had become time-barred. They therefore argued that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression. Alternatively, they submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted pursuant to section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, and thus the interference, if any, had been prescribed by law. They further submitted that the domestic authorities had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public order and national security. The Government lastly submitted that the interference had been , given that the content of the book in question had promoted hatred, hostility, the use of arms, militancy and revenge."], "id": "bf0c0382-0549-4e99-a1e6-73d360f4b88b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government did not dispute the fact that the applicants' conviction for the offence of handling information protected by the secrecy of a judicial investigation or by a duty of professional confidence constituted interference with their right to freedom of expression. In their opinion, that interference was prescribed by law, namely by Articles 226-13 and 321-1 of the Criminal Code, which fulfilled the conditions of accessibility and foreseeability required by the Court (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, ECHR 1999\u2011I). The Government considered, however, that the interference constituted a measure that was for the protection of the reputation or rights of others and for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Without disputing the fact that the aim of the applicants' work had been to inform the general public about an affair of state that was of interest to public opinion, they considered that it prejudiced the presumption of innocence in respect of G.M. The publication of the book just a few days after the death of Fran\u00e7ois Mitterrand had given it a certain commercial and media impact, thereby increasing the prejudice sustained by G.M. Moreover, the affair had been a very sensitive one and the book had contained precise reproductions of a number of documents from the case file."], "id": "32c9cd15-f0ae-4b3c-a3a7-e1317568e584", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant said that a tap had been put on his telephone immediately after his office had been sealed, as evidenced by the disturbances on the line. He had had no way of confirming or dispelling his misgivings in this regard, as under Bulgarian law such information could not be released. He also submitted that if there had been such tapping, it had been unlawful, because he had been merely a witness and the authorities had not had sufficient material to entertain a reasonable suspicion against him. In view of this, and of the applicant\u2019s capacity as a lawyer, it had clearly not been to intercept his telephone communications. He concluded that these circumstances had amounted to a breach of Article 8."], "id": "02e2d0ba-0111-4d14-bb19-71c1fd1e538d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government acknowledged that the use of this device interfered with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private life. They submitted that it was justifiable under the second paragraph of Article 8 as being in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of crime and/or for the protection of the rights of others. They referred, inter alia, to the serious nature of the crime under investigation, the fact that B. was regarded as being surveillance-conscious, rendering conventional forms of surveillance insufficient, and that the conversations proved that an armed robbery was being planned. They recalled, however, that in Khan v. the United Kingdom (no. 35394/97, \u00a7\u00a7 26-28, ECHR 2000-V), the Court found that the Home Office Guidelines governing such devices did not satisfy the requirement of \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and recognised that the Court was liable to reach the same conclusion in the present case."], "id": "b2950035-75b3-471e-8ecb-0708d69dcb16", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government acknowledged that the impugned measures interfered with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life but submitted that they were \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and pursued the protection of health and morals of the children in question, namely to provide them with stable and safe living conditions and secure their development. They further submitted that the measures were . They pointed out that the national authorities had the benefit of contact with the persons concerned and that a parent was not entitled under Article 8 to have measures taken which would harm a child\u2019s health or development."], "id": "0d454d5e-525b-4206-b0db-15ad44b308ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted in the alternative that any interference with the applicant\u2019s right under Article 8 had been carried out on the basis of section 48(A)(5) of Law no. 657 on Civil Servants. They provided the Court with extracts of this provision containing the amendments of 2008 (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above). The Government also relied on section 39(1) of the Regulation on Private Tutoring Centres. They further contended that the applicant\u2019s dismissal had pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining national security, territorial integrity, public safety, public order and preventing crime, and that it had been in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "53e31629-49da-4307-b1d0-5e00d6f8c307", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the interference in question had been prescribed by law and had pursued a number of legitimate aims, namely the protection of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, public order and prevention of crime. They also claimed that the restriction had been because it had been carried out as a result of a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. They concluded that, in the exercise of their discretion, the prison authorities had decided not to allow the impugned letter to be sent outside."], "id": "aacf2890-4eb7-4e0a-b93f-fc82f147534c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["169. The Government argued that the decision to prevent the applicant from making a fresh application for full legal capacity to be restored to her had been in accordance with Article 186 \u00a7 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was in the interest of the applicant and the persons in her environment and was in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "60113b29-8dda-43ae-9960-0ec00091d50e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["187. The Government submitted that there had been an interference with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 and their freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention, but that the interference had been in accordance with the law, in particular Article 71 of the Criminal Code. They submitted that the interference had been in the interests of public safety. They also argued that it had been , particularly because the applicants\u2019 actions during the events of 9 March 2001 had gone beyond the range allowed to be committed by an individual in exercising his rights under the Convention, as they had been accompanied by riotous damage, destruction of property and resistance towards the authorities. Their rally had therefore not been of a peaceful character."], "id": "f0290e51-da9f-4597-8059-096e0091000b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government submitted that the interference was and proportionate to the aim pursued. It was aimed at preventing the applicant\u2019s unlawful actions and avoiding social disorder. The sanction imposed was at the lower end of the scale of penalties prescribed for the offence committed by the applicant. The Contracting Parties enjoyed a margin of appreciation as far as the necessity of an interference was concerned and the reasons given by the domestic authorities were relevant and sufficient."], "id": "40b04169-35a7-4692-906b-dbcd79c6ebf2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government conceded that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they argued that the interference in the form of the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to order the return of the applicant\u2019s son to the United States had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim, and had been . In particular, the decision had been based on Article 13 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Hague Convention and had sought to protect the rights of others, namely the applicant\u2019s son."], "id": "8a0f2ca4-be40-47cf-95ce-f5ba75f99abf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["120. The Government submitted that the interference complained of was . In the first place, to recognise the applicant Church the State would have had to give up its position of neutrality in religious matters, and in religious conflicts in particular, which would have been contrary to the Moldovan Constitution and Moldovan public policy. It was therefore in order to discharge its duty of neutrality that the Government had urged the applicant Church to settle its differences with the Metropolitan Church of Moldova first."], "id": "59b23003-d39f-4563-b5f8-4e754972df4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicants' conviction was not . There was no German law which prohibited linking criticism to a particular person. This case had to be seen against the background of the broad social debate on the laws ruling abortions, which must not be compromised one-sidedly by the Government for the purpose of preserving other concepts and notions. The Government could not rely on the Court's decision on the second applicant's previous complaint (compare Annen v. Germany (dec.), no. 2373/07 and 2396/07, 30 March 2010), as the instant case concerned criminal convictions which weighed more heavily than the convictions to desist which formed the subject matter of the aforementioned proceedings."], "id": "efc34780-e427-4a23-927a-978e9c707300", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that the applicants had made discriminatory speeches based on religious beliefs, encouraged violence, and had provoked hostility and hatred among different segments of Turkish society. Furthermore, certain segments of Turkish society were invited to make an armed rebellion. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the interference in the present case was and the sentences were proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."], "id": "e6fa219a-46de-4631-ae6c-485ed6a7b07a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression had been prescribed by law. They referred to the Advocacy Act and the Advocate's Code of Professional Conduct. It had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of the judiciary and had been . The penalty imposed on the applicant had not been severe. It had been proportionate to the disciplinary offence committed by the applicant."], "id": "c88bf560-7997-4c0a-a6e3-4351ad95e652", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government accepted that the police officers' entry into the front garden of the applicant's house constituted an interference with her right to respect for her home guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. However, the interference had been in \u201caccordance with the law\u201d. According to the Government, the interference had been based on section 13(19) of the Police Act of 18 December 1990, and in particular on provisions authorising the police to enter private houses without the consent of the owner and to inspect them in order to put an end to offences and to pursue persons suspected of having committed an offence. The Government also argued that the interference had pursued a legitimate aim and had been ."], "id": "33cc8184-5b11-48e3-9a50-af410ce0f9e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government submitted that the interference with the first applicant\u2019s rights was in accordance with the law and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government considered that deprivation of parental authority emanated from the issuance of the care order, which once in place transfers the exercise of powers with respect to care and custody to the Minister. It was therefore not the judgment of the Criminal Court that caused the interference. Thus, the Government considered the interference to have arisen from the issuance of the care order, which they submitted was in the best interests of the children, since at the time the first applicant had not been in a position to take proper care of her children. Moreover, her situation was subject to constant monitoring and review, which resulted in her having increased access to the children as approved by the Minister. This went to prove that all attempts were being made for an eventual reunification. In their view M.D. still enjoyed all remaining rights save for care and custody, which included visitation rights in accordance with her Article 8 rights."], "id": "c3095f52-e12d-4e6b-973b-ae20b86329f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant submitted that the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to order the return of his son to the United States had amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his family life. That interference had been unlawful, it had not aimed to protect the interests of the child, but solely those of the mother, and thus it had not been . In particular, as regards the requirement of lawfulness, the applicant argued that the domestic courts had construed the exception set out in Article 13 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Hague Convention too widely, an exception which must be interpreted strictly, and had misapplied that Article to the facts of the case."], "id": "54e76b20-4857-4cc0-8c32-bd0503f7c680", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicants complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the restrictions on their right to freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law and had not been for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The disclosure of B.'s pictures and the facts mentioned in the articles had not fallen within the protection of private life. She had not been an innocent bystander but had participated actively in the incident of 4 December 1996. The public had a right to know about issues of public interest and the information in the articles had in every respect been correct. The restrictions imposed on the applicants had been grossly disproportionate, especially in view of their obligation to pay very considerable damages."], "id": "e5defff2-f7fa-4dcd-92f9-636d80da4f26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant submitted that his trial, which had lasted for more than seven years and which had resulted in his being convicted under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713, had amounted to an interference with his right guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention. He also claimed that the interference in question had not been . In that respect, he submitted that the book in question was like an historical novel and that, read in its entirety, it did not incite violence."], "id": "1af2a2e6-d2bb-4825-a42c-a9cbf3a2a281", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicants furthermore maintained that physical force had been used against them by police, and that that force had not been and had in any event been disproportionate to whatever legitimate aim the Government had claimed to be pursuing. While reiterating the Court\u2019s reasoning in the case of Bukta and Others v. Hungary (no. 25691/04, \u00a7 37, ECHR 2007\u2011III), they submitted that the public authorities should have shown a certain degree of tolerance towards their peaceful gatherings at the University. Lastly, in their view, the imposition of administrative fines had only served to punish them for their having exercised their rights under Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention and had been intended to have a \u201cchilling effect\u201d upon anyone who might have been willing to protest against the Government\u2019s reforms in the educational sphere."], "id": "b989b10e-4f17-4a43-b90b-02f9c8cbf354", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government admitted that the practice of monitoring the applicant\u2019s letters constituted an interference with his right to respect for his correspondence. They maintained, however, that the interference had been in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing the applicant\u2019s absconding from justice and obstructing the investigation of the crime he had been charged with. They further submitted that the interference had been to achieve that aim. Lastly, they noted that as of 6 February 2003 the applicant\u2019s letters to the Ombudsman had not been subject to review."], "id": "a564dd9f-cfc4-4f19-82c7-a23c5e2fdcab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government accept that there has been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life as guaranteed by Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. However, the measure was justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2, being in accordance with the law - Section 176 of the Civil Code - and having pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of health or morals and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government further contend that the measure was within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 and that the Austrian authorities have not overstepped their margin of appreciation."], "id": "2e08a352-128f-404a-8e99-d495551db873", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["121. The applicants submitted that the refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was not . They asserted that all the arguments put forward by the Government were without foundation and unsubstantiated and that they did not correspond to a \u201cpressing social need\u201d. There was nothing in the file to show that the applicants had intended or carried on or sought to carry on activities capable of undermining Moldovan territorial integrity, national security or public order. "], "id": "dec92c00-7071-415e-a1a3-ed663e6eb39e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicant also argued that the occupation of his estate could not be deemed and was disproportionate. He submitted that the authorities had not made any attempts to resolve the problem of quartering their personnel in any alternative way, such as settling them in public buildings or tents, and that even assuming that there had been a pressing need for the federal forces to move onto his estate, the authorities could have rented his property, or paid him compensation for the temporary occupation, but had refused to do so."], "id": "772b335f-8ca2-4a8d-97c1-b0c2cdd77721", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants contested the argument. In particular they considered that the interference with their family life had not been in accordance with the law or . In their view, the authorities had not acted expeditiously for the return of the child and for the stay of the divorce proceedings, violating thus their obligations under Article 7 of the Hague Convention."], "id": "4c274e6d-7b52-47f0-b574-a6da84284f16", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant stated that by denying him access to the TEC\u2019s premises, and by refusing to provide him in good time with information about the progress of the electoral process, the authorities had interfered with his right to collect such information. He further submitted that this interference had not been lawful, had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been ."], "id": "941a07bb-32fc-4f2a-8189-2c8ecdf57706", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicants considered that the existence of other legislative techniques in bringing about the same or similar results but in a manner less intrusive of the rights of the accused (the drawing of adverse inferences from a failure to answer questions, or establishing a statutory presumption of fact that the registered owner was the driver unless he or she provided evidence to the contrary) confirmed that the existing regime was not strictly ."], "id": "2585b020-9753-4591-a583-45c23789e249", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["204. The Government argued that the impugned decisions clearly stated that the applicant was charged with having committed certain crimes and that his was sought with a view to prosecuting him on those charges. Moreover, the authorities explicitly stated that the issue of the applicant's criminal responsibility for the crimes for which his extradition was being sought was to be decided only by the courts of the requesting country."], "id": "90c8a2af-374b-4a59-a832-486728e36585", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant further maintained that there were no effective remedies that he was required to exhaust in order to challenge the GPO of Ukraine's decision to extradite him to Kazakhstan. In particular, the applicant stated that he had complained on various occasions to the domestic courts about the unreasonable length of his detention and its unlawfulness, the unlawful inactivity of the Governor of Kharkiv SIZO no. 27, who refused to release him, and about the decision itself. The proceedings concerning these complaints and their unfavourable outcome showed that there were no domestic remedies available to the applicant."], "id": "325bd069-6880-46cd-a308-d0dedce81da4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["147. The Government contended that the applicant\u2019s detention pending complied with the domestic legislation, in particular with the provisions of Article 466 \u00a7 1 of the CCP. Referring to Constitutional Court decisions no. 101-O of 4 April 2006 and no. 333-O-P of 1 March 2007 and to Ruling no. 22 of 29 October 2009 of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (see paragraphs 90-91 and 94-95 above), they argued that the relevant provisions had been clear and foreseeable and had enabled the applicant to estimate the length of his detention pending extradition."], "id": "ee5f992a-7b88-4d37-9281-4c891d508581", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant maintained his complaint. He pointed out that the Government\u2019s version that he had been ill-treated in Kazakhstan, before his , had been refused by the official statements from the administration of the remand prison certifying that on 23 February 2006 he had not had any evidence of ill-treatment at the time of his arrival in Moscow (see paragraphs 10 and 27 above). Furthermore, his allegations of ill-treatment had been confirmed by the medical examinations of 1 March and 1 June 2006 (see paragraphs 29, 26 and 39 above), his consistent complaints to the authorities (see paragraphs 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 42 and 47 above) and the domestic court\u2019s findings of 3 October 2007 (see paragraph 41 above). He stressed that the Government neither provided a satisfactory explanation as to the origins of his injuries nor carried out an effective investigation into his complaints. The applicant further stated, in particular, that the inquiries conducted had been neither timely nor thorough; the authorities had not questioned him nor taken any steps to identify his torturers. Finally, he submitted that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected by the police amounted to torture. In support of his allegations, the applicant referred to the documents submitted and the findings of the CPT of 13 March 2007 in respect of the human rights violations committed by the staff of the ORB-2 at the material time (see paragraph 61 above)."], "id": "52b0d808-4ab1-4767-b6ad-885f5fbe0c0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant complained under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that there was a real risk that he would be liable to capital punishment in the event of his to Kazakhstan. He alleged that the assurances given by the Government of Kazakhstan were insufficient as the moratorium imposed on capital punishment could be lifted at any time and the charges against him could be reclassified. This provision reads as follows:"], "id": "f95938e9-3248-4fba-b71a-7c7773f2ec5a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations that he risked ill-treatment in the event of his to Uzbekistan had been considered by the national authorities and dismissed on sufficient grounds. Referring to the decisions of the prosecution and immigration authorities and the domestic courts in the course of the extradition and expulsion proceedings, the Government asserted that his claims had been duly reviewed and found to be devoid of substance. In their opinion, the assurances presented to the Russian authorities by the Uzbekistani authorities were sufficient and compatible with the countries\u2019 international obligations and domestic legal developments. As regards the expulsion proceedings, the expulsion order did not specify that the applicant was to be taken to Uzbekistan, but merely stated that he was to be removed from the territory of the Russian Federation. The Government concluded that a risk of the applicant\u2019s treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention had not been convincingly established."], "id": "c3862c0a-0c8f-4305-8ce8-058c2c3fe1d7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegation of politically motivated persecution had been assessed by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the order, and rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office of Uzbekistan to the effect that the applicant would face no risk of ill-treatment if he were to be extradited to Uzbekistan and on the fact that the Russian authorities did not have any information confirming his allegation. Referring to the assurances from the Uzbek authorities, the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "7cb88861-8905-47e0-aecb-548781998ff4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicants alleged that they had not had a fair hearing in the criminal court that had ruled on the request for their , in that they had been unable to gain access to all the material in the case file or to put forward their arguments concerning the characterisation of the offences they were alleged to have committed."], "id": "d786def1-9fb2-49fd-ac1e-fd2773f2ba0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicant has further claimed that he would risk persecution in Rwanda because of the fact that he is a Hutu. The Court notes that none of the decisions by the ICTR and national jurisdictions refusing transfer or to Rwanda has been based, even in part, on such considerations. Nor has any evidence been submitted or found which gives reason to conclude that there is a general situation of persecution or ill-treatment of the Hutu population in Rwanda. Moreover, the applicant has not pointed to any particular personal circumstances which would indicate that he risks being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 due to his ethnicity."], "id": "110a76fd-4e56-44f8-81a5-a0c9ba48a859", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government stressed that, in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer Law and the repeated confirmations by the Rwandan authorities in the applicant\u2019s case, the applicant would not be tried in the gacaca courts. The documents from gacaca courts, introduced by the applicant late in the proceedings, concerned damages, and the applicant had not explained the connection, if any, between the acts mentioned in those documents and the criminal acts pertinent to the proceedings. In the Government\u2019s view, the documents submitted had no bearing on the present case."], "id": "2c680259-f6e8-4539-8cad-1363cf5d5cfb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["168. The Government further stated that the applicant could have complained to the courts about his detention under section 17 of the Custody Act, but they failed to elaborate on that assertion. In any event, the Court has already held that the Custody Act derives from the Code of Criminal Procedure and concerns persons suspected or accused of criminal offences in Russia, and there is no indication that this Act applied at the material time to persons detained pending . Hence, the Court is not certain that the remedy suggested by the Government bore any relation to the breaches alleged (see Muminov, cited above, \u00a7 115)."], "id": "04c5e3b3-d0bf-46ab-99a4-980d8897010d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["96. The Government contested that argument. They stated that in the event of the applicant's to Kazakhstan he would not be liable to capital punishment as the indictment in his case related to a criminal act under Article 96(1) of the Criminal Code and involved the offence of murder, not punishable by capital punishment. Furthermore, they stated that there had been a moratorium on capital punishment in Kazakhstan, that capital punishment was applied only in exceptional circumstances and that this sentence could not be enforced, even if one assumed that such a sentence would be passed in relation to the applicant."], "id": "6e05e16d-22a2-4485-996a-d1efb6bb480b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["135. The applicant sought the reimbursement of the costs incurred in the proceedings in Germany, amounting to EUR 4,827.11. He further claimed EUR 7,747.94 in respect of the proceedings before the Court. In particular, he submitted that the sum of EUR 3,500.16 (comprising EUR 3,033.88 for fees and EUR 466.28 for translations) had been incurred in connection with the Chamber proceedings, and that the subsequent proceedings before the Grand Chamber, including his lawyers' participation in the hearing on 12 October 2005, had cost EUR 4,247.78."], "id": "cda5698b-3591-4f61-8b05-5af3d7426bd1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["205. The applicant submitted that in stating that his actions were \u201cpunishable under the Russian criminal legislation\u201d the Russian authorities had declared him guilty before trial, which was further proved by the reply of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office of 30 December 2009, stating that it \u201chad granted their Tajikistani counterpart's request for the applicant's with a view to prosecuting him in connection with his participation in a prohibited religious organisation\u201d. In the applicant's opinion, the wording used by the Russian authorities was even capable of influencing the Tajik courts."], "id": "654c8d22-1ee5-4f5e-98e3-5029c7148aa8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["162. The Government contended that the applicant\u2019s complaint should be rejected as unsubstantiated as he had been able to obtain a review of his detention. In particular, they pointed out that in its decision of 18 March 2009 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court had examined the applicant\u2019s complaint. In addition, in their decisions of 2 February 2009 and 25 August 2009 the domestic courts had examined the applicant\u2019s complaints and acknowledged that his detention pending had been unlawful. The Government did not comment on the issue of the speediness of the judicial review of the applicant\u2019s complaints."], "id": "824243a1-cca3-4e75-9812-ef148f199c52", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["131. The applicants further noted that the Russian courts had denied the applicability of Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to detention pending and had ruled that Russian law did not establish any time-limits for such detention or any procedure for its extension. The applicants argued that the absence of such a procedure had rendered their detention arbitrary and unlawful."], "id": "8424901c-b4e8-404d-b9af-58f3672fc474", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["106. The applicants maintained that they had argued before the Russian authorities that there existed a real risk of their ill-treatment and political persecution in Uzbekistan. They had submitted reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and international NGOs, confirming that torture was widespread in detention facilities and that individuals charged in connection with the Andijan events were at an increased risk of ill-treatment. That information had not received proper assessment from the Russian authorities. They had rejected the applicants' arguments without giving any reasons except a reference to the assurances given by the Uzbek authorities. The applicants submitted that the Uzbek authorities had given the same assurances in the proceedings of four Uzbek nationals from Kyrgyzstan and that those assurances had proved to be ineffective (see paragraph 78 above). As the Uzbek authorities refused to give representatives of the international community access to the extradited individuals, it was not possible to monitor their compliance with the assurances. Given the administrative practice of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, the assurances by the Uzbek authorities were not reliable."], "id": "be9fe333-7df7-4662-8076-5d8c766f97e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government argued that the case was complicated as it concerned murder, involved two defendants both of which had to be extradited from different European countries, and the questioning of numerous witnesses. They contended that under the circumstances of the case, the authorities had acted with sufficient speediness and diligence. The proceedings were handled speedily at the court phase. They argued that the applicant should be held responsible for the delay until 1996, caused by his absconding and his from the Czech Republic."], "id": "bce4382f-45ce-4798-9b20-91331ac5734a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government pointed out that in normal circumstances they complied with the measures indicated by the Court. Their failure to do so in the instant case was owed to the fact that the applicant had requested the interim measure too late, and had not given the Spanish authorities time to take the necessary steps to avoid the . The application had been made on 6 August, whereas the applicant\u2019s transfer was scheduled for the next day. The Government considered that there was no violation of Article 34 where, as in the instant case, they were given less notice than could objectively be considered necessary and reasonable."], "id": "d63f7716-668a-4174-9b86-9b81c9ba35e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government argued that Article 3 was not to be construed in a way that would engage the extraditing State\u2019s responsibility indefinitely. The State\u2019s responsibility should end once the extradited person had been found guilty and had started to serve his or her sentence. It would be straining the language of Article 3 intolerably to hold that by surrendering a suspect in accordance with the terms of an agreement, the extraditing State had subjected him to the treatment or punishment he received after his conviction and sentence in the receiving State. Such a decision would interfere with rights under international treaties and conflict with the norms of international judicial process, as it would entail adjudication on the internal affairs of foreign States that were not Parties to the Convention. There was a risk that it would cause serious harm to the Contracting State by restricting its ability to cooperate in the fight against international terrorism and organised crime."], "id": "42541468-c5fa-4b4d-9894-93309d9a99a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["175. The applicant did not submit any claims for pecuniary damage. As regards non-pecuniary damage, he submitted that he had endured stress, frustration and anguish as a result of the high risk of being subjected to torture if extradited to Uzbekistan and of the eleven months of his unlawful detention pending in inadequate conditions. He left the determination of the amount of compensation to the Court."], "id": "af4c9679-92b3-4730-80e2-59670fd3814c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["155. The Government submitted that the Uzbek authorities had guaranteed that the applicants would not be prosecuted or punished for any offences committed before which were not mentioned in the extradition request, and that they would not be ill-treated in order to obtain confessions or sentenced to death. The Government had also received assurances that the applicants' rights of defence would be respected and that they would be provided with counsel."], "id": "40823587-be28-4630-bf0c-aab2e44d1b59", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["437. The applicants' representatives alleged that the extradited applicants learned of their before being driven to the airport. As the extradition orders of 2 October 2002 had not been served on them, they had been deprived of the possibility of bringing their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention before a court. In addition, the extradition orders were not served on the applicants' lawyers before the domestic courts. The latter learned by chance on 3 October 2002 that the extraditions were imminent."], "id": "02860841-ba83-4f67-bbe3-8de3f73f8894", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["107. The Government maintained that, as their decision was not based on guarantees made by Rwanda but, instead, on an assessment that the extradition of the applicant \u2013 regardless of guarantees \u2013 would be consistent with Article 6, the issue of monitoring commitments was not relevant. However, in the letter of 12 August 2009 (see \u00a7 24 above), the Rwandan Minister of Justice had confirmed that Swedish authorities were welcome to monitor and evaluate the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention or imprisonment in Rwanda as well as his trial. While not considering that Sweden had an obligation to do so under international law, the Government stated that, due to the circumstances of the case, Sweden was prepared, if necessary, to take measures to monitor the legal proceedings and the applicant\u2019s situation as a detainee."], "id": "6aac84eb-cab2-4e19-9314-ba77bd52bf91", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["149. The Government further submitted that the domestic authorities had been obliged to hold the applicant in custody because the Strasbourg Court had applied Rule 39 and indicated to them to suspend his . Referring to the Chahal case (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V), they stressed that paragraph 1 (f) of Article 5 of the Convention provided for a level of protection different from paragraph 1 (a)-(e), requiring only that extradition proceedings be pending. Hence, it was immaterial for that provision whether there existed sufficient grounds for holding the person in custody. Accordingly, the applicant's detention from 5 August 2008 onwards had been \u201clawful\u201d within the meaning of the above provision."], "id": "029ca70a-88ba-4ad6-acf9-8ff226e84b1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["156. The applicant further argued that the domestic provisions regulating detention pending were unclear and unforeseeable. In particular, the reply of the Prosecutor General's Office to the ombudsman acknowledged the lack of uniform judicial approach to the detention of persons pending extradition and clearly demonstrated that the domestic provisions did not satisfy the \u201cquality of the law\u201d requirement under the Convention. The uncertainty of the law was further demonstrated by the Prosecutor General's Office's statement that the maximum detention term of eighteen months, fixed by Article 109 of the CCrP, applied exclusively to persons detained pending extradition while the extradition check was in progress, and not to those persons in respect of whom the Prosecutor General's Office had already issued an extradition order. In the same vein, while the Government argued that Chapter 13 of the CCrP on preventive measures was to be applied to detention pending extradition, they did not take into acocunt the fact that his detention was in breach of the relevant provisions. The unsatisfactory quality of the law had made it impossible for the applicant to estimate the likely duration of his detention, which had in any event exceeded the maximum period of 18 months authorised by Article 109 of the CCrP."], "id": "69a1534e-eb76-4e99-80f2-f2a6a2669d8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["126. The Government disagreed with the applicant. They submitted that the detention and of the applicant had been lawful and not arbitrary, as they were authorised to detain him according to the 1993 Minsk Convention and the relevant provisions of the domestic law, including section 11 \u00a7 5 of the Militia Act (see paragraphs 63 - 66 above). They repeated their arguments in the case of Soldatenko v. Ukraine (\u00a7\u00a7 104 \u2013 106, cited above). They further alleged that Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1 (c) and (e) were not applicable to the present case as the applicant's detention had from the outset related to his extradition. The Government stated that the applicant remained in detention due to the Court's decision to suspend extradition and due to its examination of the case. Thus, they could not release the applicant and they could not extradite him."], "id": "4e94139e-09c6-436b-90a9-bbcb10afbd3d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant further argued that in examining his case the Russian authorities had disregarded his specific submissions concerning his religious and political persecution and relevant reports by independent NGOs, and had relied solely on \u201cofficial sources of information\u201d. The courts' conclusion that the applicant had voluntarily left Tajikistan was at variance with his consistent submissions that he had fled because of his persecution on religious grounds and the ill-treatment sustained in custody. Referring to other cases against Russia concerning expulsion and and pending before the Court, the applicant insisted that the Russian courts consistently adopted the same formalistic approach in dealing with such complaints, which showed that the remedies suggested by the Government were ineffective in practice."], "id": "08ae78f4-2714-442d-965a-f90aacd78dff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant pointed out that, in view of the Court\u2019s practice in the matter, if he had requested the interim measure before 6 August, his request would have been disallowed because the date of his had not yet been set. He was not convinced by the Government\u2019s argument that they had not had enough time, alleging that two or three hours\u2019 notice would have sufficed to take the necessary steps to prevent his extradition."], "id": "60798fd6-386d-49b3-bf1e-acfcf08fb5eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["133. The Government maintained that the applicants had been detained pending to Uzbekistan pursuant to a court order issued in accordance with Article 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their detention had therefore been lawful. The Government further noted that on 4 April 2006 the Constitutional Court had issued a decision in which it declared that the general provisions of Chapter 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were to apply to all forms and stages of criminal proceedings, including proceedings for extradition (see paragraph 85 above). The Supreme Court had noted in that respect that not only initial placement in custody, but also extensions of detention were to be ordered by a court on application by a prosecutor. However, no application for extension of detention had been made by the prosecutor in the applicants' case."], "id": "7bee41cf-5022-4f64-8190-afff60ce20b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["274. The applicant complained that his application for interim liberty was not an effective remedy, noting that the respondent State had been obliged to seek his from the Netherlands and that the application for interim release was made at the appeal stage, when he had already been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of twenty years. He pointed out that the court did not recognise the delay in his case as being unreasonable or in violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and contended that only by abandoning all attempts to secure a fair trial could he have achieved an early conclusion to the case."], "id": "a7c98f4e-a8f7-4c4d-bd4c-84b613423a52", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government contested the applicant\u2019s allegations. They argued that the detention in question had been ordered in compliance with the rules, as the Italian courts had found, and that its sole purpose had been for the applicant to be surrendered to the courts of the requesting State. They added that the applicant had not given his consent to the extradition, pointing out that consent would have accelerated the proceedings, and that the delay in the scheduling by the Court of Appeal of a hearing on the merits could be explained by the three applications for release that the applicant had filed within a period of three months. Lastly, they took the view that the proceedings in question, which had led the Italian authorities, both judicial and administrative, to authorise the extradition, had been conducted within the time-limits provided for by the rules of domestic and international law."], "id": "024e0c18-62e8-42ea-944a-0f5454313466", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicants\u2019 representatives stated that, despite requests to the authorities, they had been unable to contact their clients following the latter\u2019s . The applicants had consequently been deprived of the possibility of having further inquiries made in order to obtain evidence in support of their allegations under Article 3. The applicants\u2019 extradition had thus proved a real obstacle to the effective presentation of their application to the Court."], "id": "e6c1aa41-cb4d-41a5-bab6-8ac6767a044c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["329. The applicants' representatives also contended that the assurances provided by the Russian authorities to their Georgian counterparts had no value and that the undertakings given to the Court by the Russian Government were no more than signed pieces of paper. They pointed out that the CPT itself had stated in one of its statements that Russia was failing to respect the undertakings that it had signed (see paragraph 267 (e) above). In their opinion, the Georgian authorities had not ensured that the assurances provided had any real value. On the contrary, they had actively cooperated with their Russian counterparts to facilitate the extraditions. Thus, they had sent photographs of the applicants which were subsequently used to support the request, and had kept the Russian authorities informed of changes in the applicants' identities. Assisted in this way, the Russian authorities had \u201cupdated\u201d their extradition request, altering the applicants' names to reflect the changes in identification. The Georgian authorities had not taken the measure of either the political nature of the accusations made against the applicants by the Russian authorities or the latter's clear bias in the disputed extradition proceedings. They had not required any prima facie evidence of those accusations. The letters referred to by the Georgian Government (see paragraph 324 above) did not contain a guarantee that the applicants would not be sentenced to death, but simply an assurance that a moratorium was in force in Russia."], "id": "5fc10661-3ccf-4ee3-8670-5e14e3b3e276", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["107. The Government submitted that the costs had not been related to the substance of his complaints to the Court. Ms Orozalieva\u2019s fees in connection with the Strasbourg proceedings were not to be reimbursed because she had never been officially appointed as his representative before the Court. As to Ms Moskalenko\u2019s fees, the Government submitted that the applicant had failed to produce any documents showing that these amounts had actually been paid."], "id": "3fbdd83d-a4b9-4cdb-aefe-762e89c156eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicant contested this view. In particular, he submitted that he had complained about his unlawful detention and to the domestic courts. The applicant further stressed that the GPO of Ukraine decision of 27 September 2004 to extradite him had constituted a final decision for the purpose of exhaustion of domestic remedies. It was not amenable to appeal as to its lawfulness, as the domestic courts were allowed to review only the existence of the formal grounds for extradition and not the compliance of a decision to extradite with the obligations set out in Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In that respect, he referred in particular to Resolution no. 8 of the Plenary Supreme Court of 8 October 2004 on issues related to the application of legislation governing the procedure and length of detention (arrest) of persons awaiting extradition, which summarised the domestic courts' practice on extradition issues."], "id": "1d7f5c03-0406-40ac-b214-3faf5e625e22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["158. The applicants submitted that in his decisions to extradite the applicants the First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation had unambiguously stated that the applicants had \u201ccommitted\u201d certain criminal offences. The decision had been sent to the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan and had been included in the applicants' criminal files. The prosecutor's statements might influence the Uzbek courts and serve as evidence of the applicants' guilt. Therefore, their right to be presumed innocent had been violated."], "id": "a6307df3-597e-4a75-9d31-c92b50523923", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant further submitted that there existed the administrative practice of substituting expulsion for which was based on an unpublished order of the Moscow Region prosecutor, no. 86/81 of 3 July 2009, which provided that in every case of release of a detained individual because his extradition was impossible, it was mandatory to decide on his administrative expulsion from Russia. The applicant therefore maintained that his expulsion had been ordered to secure his rendition to the Uzbekistani authorities, that is to prevent him from being released and to secure either expulsion or extradition, as the case might be, and that his allegations of the risk of ill-treatment had not been thoroughly examined in the administrative expulsion proceedings."], "id": "091f2fae-45c7-41ec-a994-5eda4c8ad259", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicants further asked the Court not to limit its examination to the establishment of the Government's failure to assess properly the risk of ill-treatment before taking the decision. They argued that they had submitted sufficient information for the Court to rule that their extradition to Uzbekistan would be incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. As additional proof of an increased risk of ill-treatment, they had produced a list of their relatives and business partners who had been convicted to long terms of imprisonment in connection with the Andijan events. They also maintained that the Uzbek authorities knew about their application for asylum and their application before the Court, which had further intensified the risk of torture."], "id": "d147f4c3-6d1a-4a83-bb34-eb50951a2c10", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["117. The Government submitted that the applicant did not raise his complaint about the lack of legal representation for an initial period of 13 months before the domestic courts. The applicant\u2019s ex officio lawyer was informed of the bill of indictment on 16 March 2001 and he made no requests for additional time to study the case file. Upon , the applicant was promptly informed of the charges against him. He reserved the right to appoint a lawyer of his choosing. At the hearing on the validation of his arrest, he decided to represent himself."], "id": "cc21ea28-76cd-4f67-a96c-baa3e220ff2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["106. The applicant claimed an unspecified amount for the costs incurred in connection with the proceedings in Switzerland. Relying on documentary evidence, he further claimed 25,400 Russian roubles (RUR) for his representation before the domestic courts by Ms Moskalenko, and RUR 28,800 and RUR 28,925 for his representation in Strasbourg by Ms Moskalenko and Ms Orozalieva respectively. He further claimed the equivalent of USD 6,044.14 which he had spent on personal hygiene articles and food during his detention."], "id": "fc94bda4-02b2-45b7-9016-79d884ed0342", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["427. The Government do not dispute that the applicants' lawyers were denied access to the files. Having regard to the argument relied on in this connection by Mr Mskhiladze (see paragraph 177 above), the Court has no doubt that the employees of the Procurator-General's Office themselves needed to carry out a detailed examination of the documents submitted by the Russian authorities. However, this ground does not in itself justify refusing the applicants all access to documents which had direct repercussions on their rights and on which the exercise of the remedy set out in Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention was contingent. The Court does not accept the Government's argument that, since the right not to be extradited is not guaranteed by the Convention, it was not the task of the Procurator-General's Office to grant the applicants access to the case files concerning their extradition (see paragraph 395 above). It points out that, while Article 5 \u00a7 2 does not require that the case file in its entirety be made available to the person concerned, the latter must nonetheless receive sufficient information so as to be able to apply to a court for the review of lawfulness provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 4 (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley, cited above, \u00a7 40; and \u010conka, cited above, \u00a7 50)."], "id": "0932cd28-6395-44fb-8f7c-ab8fbc7062fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["150. The Government disagreed, stating that such an effective procedure existed in the Ukrainian domestic law. They referred to Articles 106, 165-2 and 382 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which specified the procedure for examining appeals against preventive measures. They further maintained that on 8 October 2004 the Plenary Supreme Court had adopted a practice recommendation concerning review of complaints concerning matters."], "id": "4c40bac5-b277-4d08-846e-c5ee974fac0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["388. The applicants' representatives claimed that their clients had never officially been detained with a view to their and that their placement in custody on 6 and 7 August 2002 was a disguised form of detention for the purpose of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention. Their transfer on those dates from the civilian hospital to prison (the prison infirmary in the case of Mr Margoshvili) was the result of a visit to Georgia on 6 August 2002 by the Russian Procurator-General, who had brought with him the request for the applicants' extradition (see paragraphs 58-60 and 62 above). Quite apart from the requirement of promptness set out in Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the applicants were not informed either during their transfer to prison or subsequently that they had been arrested with a view to being handed over to the Russian authorities. The applicants had thus been deprived of the possibility of challenging the lawfulness of that detention. Submitting the same complaints, Mr Khadjiev relied on Article 5 \u00a7 2 and Article 6 \u00a7 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 235 above). He also complained that he had been questioned without an interpreter at the civilian hospital and that he had not been informed of the accusations against him when he was brought before a judge on 6 August 2002 (see paragraph 58 above)."], "id": "e728c466-4e26-4d23-ab8c-937fc2cfaba0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant maintained that he had argued before the Russian courts that he faced a real risk of ill-treatment and political persecution in Uzbekistan. He had submitted reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and international NGOs confirming that torture was widespread in detention facilities and that this information had not received proper assessment by the Russian authorities. He pointed out that the courts had rejected his arguments without giving any reasons except a reference to the assurances given by the Uzbek authorities. Finally, he referred to a number of cases examined by the Court in which it had been established that to Uzbekistan of a person sought for political crimes would constitute a violation of Article 3."], "id": "0f763269-71ab-4499-b399-99e46983a774", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["134. The Government insisted that Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which established time-limits for detention during a criminal investigation, was not applicable to persons held in custody with a view to . There was no other legal provision that established time-limits for detention pending extradition. In the applicants' case, the custodial measure had been applied for the period which had been necessary for a decision on extradition to be taken. The applicants themselves had contributed to the prolongation of their detention by filing applications for refugee status and subsequently contesting the refusals before the Russian courts. During that entire period the applicants had enjoyed refugee status and their extradition had been prohibited by Russian law."], "id": "f6f671f6-7b85-4266-b685-96a2539a30c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["127. The applicant maintained that the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 1 did not dispense the State from fulfilling its international obligations regarding , since such a ground for detention was clearly provided for in Article 5 \u00a7 1(f), which only required the detention to be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by the domestic legislation. The applicant submitted that the Minsk Convention did not provide for such a procedure. He further stated that his detention, from the moment of his apprehension on 23 August 2004 until the present date, lacked a legal basis, had been groundless and in breach of the procedure prescribed by law. He stated that his detention until 16 September 2004 should fall within the ambit of Article 5 \u00a7 1(c) of the Convention and after that date \u2013 it should be examined under Article 5 \u00a7 1(f)."], "id": "a67c6372-38fe-4773-94cc-cd8eee60e708", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["155. The applicant initially complained under Article 5 \u00a7 5 that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation as regards the violation of his rights under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1(c), (e) and (f), 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention. In particular, he mentioned that domestic law made no provision for compensation for unlawful detention pending . Article 5 \u00a7 5 provides:"], "id": "4fcd96cb-d63e-4226-b8e9-b5ceb5d7191b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["130. The applicants submitted that Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure set the initial time-limit for detention at two months. As no extension of the applicants' detention had been ordered after the expiry of the two-month time-limit, the applicants' subsequent detention had been unlawful. The applicants referred in that respect to the Government's submissions in which it had been confirmed that the detention pending was to be extended following the procedure established by Russian law for the extension of detention during the investigation and that that procedure had not been respected in the applicants' case (see paragraph 133 below)."], "id": "7cb16953-894a-4bbe-be28-15ae9fd662ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["129. The applicant observed that he had been detained in Germany with a view to from 22 September to 22 November 1999, a period of sixty-two days. If the Italian authorities had attempted to contact him in Germany at his officially registered address, that deprivation of liberty would not have occurred. He submitted that redress for the damage and inconvenience caused by his detention should be afforded at a rate of 100 euros (EUR) per day, and accordingly claimed a total sum of EUR 6,200."], "id": "f79aab6f-716c-45a2-a6f8-e308145ead8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government submitted that land consolidation proceedings were complex by nature and involved a large number of parties in the instant case. The issuance of decrees on groundwater protection and of a regional development scheme concerning the of sand and gravel of 21 November 1990 and 11 July 1994, respectively, increased its complexity. Nevertheless, the Austrian authorities conducted them expeditiously, whereas the applicant made use of all remedies available."], "id": "d9cfa4e2-3440-4c0f-b809-8b8fa6e19b08", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government, the applicant and the third party further referred to their arguments with respect to the Government's objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In particular, the third party stated that there were no effective remedies to complain about contrary to Articles 2, 3 or 6 of the Convention. They maintained that the law at issue was not sufficiently accessible and precise, failing to avoid risks of arbitrariness. They referred in contrast to the experiences of Poland and the United Kingdom in this area, where the courts, as opposed to the prosecutor's office rule, on requests for extradition. They stated that the courts in the United Kingdom, acting under the Extradition Act 2003, assessed the following issues in assessing the requests for extradition: (a) the rule against double jeopardy; (b) extraneous considerations (whether a person was in fact extradited for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or whether if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions); (c) passage of time; (d) the person's age; (e) hostage-taking considerations; (f) specialty; (g) the person's earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from different territories; (h) human rights considerations arising from the 1998 Human Rights Act."], "id": "2c347f5b-53fd-4d16-a419-5cbd0e7dea5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant submitted that he had raised the issue of his risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if returned to Uzbekistan in the , expulsion and refugee-status proceedings, advancing a number of specific arguments, such as an increased risk of ill-treatment of persons who were, as was the applicant, accused of participation in a banned religious activity. The Russian courts failed to analyse the nature of the charges against the applicant, disregarded the link between the charges and the risk of ill-treatment and did not examine the information from various international organisation and from the Court\u2019s judgments. The applicant rejected the Government\u2019s argument that the decision on his administrative removal did not necessarily mean that he would be expelled to Uzbekistan. No other possibility had ever been discussed in the course of the administrative proceedings and, furthermore, there was no reason to believe that any other country would be willing to accept him. His placement in the detention facility foreclosed the possibility of his voluntary and independent departure from Russia and prevented him from choosing the country of destination."], "id": "a8c7aca8-87ca-4c20-9290-877e573a3d2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of public order", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["150. The Government did not contest that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 9 of the Convention. They maintained however that the measure was prescribed by law and served a legitimate aim, that is, the and the rights of others. It was also proportionate, taking into account that the applicant was a teacher of religion by profession, who could have exercised his religion without the church attendances in question."], "id": "57a19446-ccd1-4a81-8086-52d7598ea305", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of public order", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["131. The Government also relied on the as a ground for the applicant\u2019s detention. Indeed, the Court has previously accepted that, by reason of their particular gravity and the public reaction to them, certain offences may give rise to public disquiet capable of justifying pre-trial detention, at least for a certain time (see I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, \u00a7 104, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011VII, and Bouchet v. France, no. 33591/96, \u00a7 43, 20 March 2001). In exceptional circumstances \u2013 and subject, obviously, to there being sufficient evidence \u2013 this factor may therefore be taken into account for the purposes of the Convention. However, this ground can be regarded as relevant and sufficient only provided that it is based on facts capable of showing that the defendant\u2019s release would actually prejudice public order. In addition, detention will continue to be legitimate only if public order actually remains threatened; its continuation cannot be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Kemmache v. France, 27 November 1991, \u00a7 52, Series A no. 218, and Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, \u00a7 91, Series A no. 241-A)."], "id": "263e8853-7083-418d-8bd8-f8ecd48698ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Protection of Public Order", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government argued that Article 6 was not applicable to the present case. Firstly, the offence in question was set out in the Act, and not in the Penal Code. The proceedings were governed by the MOA, and not the Criminal Procedure Act. Secondly, the sanction prescribed for the offence in question was a fine of between EUR 625 and EUR 1,251 and the entry of the conviction in a register of administrative offences for a period of three years. The sanction was not of a punishing nature, but was aimed at preventing the applicant from reoffending. There was no possibility of imprisonment in the present case. Finally, the Government submitted that the offence in question was of a general nature and concerned an undefined group of people."], "id": "ce0d9eab-fc63-436b-9a22-7ad19496b2e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of public order", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government further submitted that the administrative courts\u2019 decisions finding that they lacked jurisdiction to examine the applicant\u2019s application had not infringed his right of access to a court for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention. Pointing out that the State had a certain margin of appreciation in this sphere, they asserted that the 1986 Law did not provide for any appeal against measures relating to the execution of sentences taken in accordance with the law. Once the ordinary courts had passed sentence, the Luxembourg legislature, which had not followed the French example of instituting a post-sentencing judge, sought to ensure that the implementation of that judicial decision was not controlled by the courts, and entrusted this task to the executive. This division of powers pursued a legitimate aim, namely the and the prevention of crime. In that connection the Government stated that, while the 1986 Law was aimed at the gradual reintegration of prisoners into society, the sentence was designed to protect society from an individual who was liable to commit further offences outside prison. There was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved, given that prisoners had the possibility of applying for several periods of prison leave. Lastly, the Government stressed that the 1986 Law provided for other measures benefiting prisoners in the context of the enforcement of sentences, such as the semi\u2011custodial regime."], "id": "b6c10377-4a4b-40b7-a218-58b301d69d64", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["149. The applicant complained that in the criminal proceedings against him he had not been afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence and have confidential meetings and discussions with his lawyers throughout his trial, that the domestic courts had failed to ensure that he could exercise his right to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the as applied to witnesses against him, and that the appeal hearings in the Supreme Court had been held in his absence. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "id": "8f4e1f4b-05a4-44fb-998b-2f02bab806c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant also complained that the trial court should not have convicted him on the basis of his pre-trial statements; the trial judge had arbitrarily rejected the testimonies by the defence witnesses, including the applicant's wife and Mr P and thus had failed to examine them under the as the prosecution witnesses, who merely attested the fact of the car inspection. He also contended that both the trial and appeal courts had wrongly refused to verify and to take into consideration other exculpatory evidence, including an invoice for the purchase of diesel."], "id": "87ad6bb1-719b-41c1-a487-9a760d751912", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant alleged that he had not been afforded effective legal representation and an opportunity to confer privately with counsel, his ability to actively participate in and follow the proceedings in the courtroom had been impaired by technical disruptions in the video transmission. He had sought to disprove before the appeal court the evidence of certain witnesses at his original trial, and had thereby raised the issue of his own credibility, so his personal appearance was particularly crucial in such circumstances. Finally, he had not had an opportunity to present his case under the as the prosecution: the prosecutor had been present in the courtroom, whereas the applicant had participated via a video link."], "id": "c70f84e4-8e04-4d3b-a468-cde977097bdc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant argued that the refusal of the Court of Appeal to hear G. as a witness had deprived him of his right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the as witnesses against him. G. had been of crucial importance to his case as the documents allegedly drawn up by him had been decisive in leading the Court of Appeal to conclude that there had been an intentional plan or conspiracy to commit the offences. G. had managed all the companies which had allegedly transferred assets abroad illegally and could have provided crucial information. G. had not even been heard in the pre-trial investigations, which had made it impossible to verify the content of the documents allegedly drawn up by him."], "id": "df60c54e-dd2c-4786-b9af-a2bff4065d61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant maintained that his conviction had been unfair since the domestic courts had refused to examine his cellmates as witnesses on his behalf under the as those for the prosecution, that is to say the prison officers who had conducted the search. He submitted that he had explained to the domestic courts why it had been important to have his cellmates\u2019 evidence heard. By rejecting his procedural application in decisions which had contained very superficial reasoning, the trial and the appellate courts had breached both domestic legislation (Article 18 and 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and the requirement contained in Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) of the Convention. Lastly, he also stressed that apart from the statements of the prison officers on the purported discovery of the knife in his bed, there had been no other direct and decisive piece of evidence to conclude that he had been guilty."], "id": "3968aa86-733e-4055-b2f3-8e459fe524a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair on account of his having been deprived of the opportunity to effectively present his defence. In particular, he contended that he had not been able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the as witnesses against him, and that the domestic courts had refused his requests to commission additional expert reports. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "872e8f18-6a60-4d79-b06a-dc34b782f92f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government contended that the applicant had been assisted by one or more chosen legal representatives during the proceedings. He had denied having committed the offence from the beginning of the investigation and had had the opportunity to examine witnesses and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the of witnesses against him."], "id": "549560ad-6ed3-4568-ba6a-c383830ad946", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government argued that, in the assessment of the relationship between the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and the obligation to withhold information pertaining to ongoing police operations from the parties to court proceedings, a difference should be made between the withholding of facts not affecting nor relating to the case and the withholding of facts affecting or relating to the case. The right of everyone \u201cto examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the as witnesses against him\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (d) cannot be considered to extend to the examination of witnesses in respect of facts which do not affect or relate to the case."], "id": "342a2a33-85b8-4877-895e-4c1a8fa6515d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant made several complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Convention that the proceedings against her were unfair. In particular, she submitted that (1) the principle of equality of arms was violated, because she was in an unequal position in comparison to the prosecution; (2) the court was biased; (3) it heard primarily witness testimonies which supported the police's version of events; (4) it failed to give adequate reasoning in its judgment and did not perform a thorough analysis of the presented evidence; (5) she was not informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against her; (6) she did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence as a result of the proceedings having been organised very quickly and in view of the fact that after her arrest she had been held in isolation at the police station; (7) she was not provided the opportunity to retain an attorney of her own choosing; and, (8) she was denied the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on her behalf under the as witnesses against her even though she indicted she could do this on several occasions during the court hearing of 8 September 1999."], "id": "bbafd0cf-b19c-4940-b668-3221847dd652", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant further complained that he had not received a fair hearing in the determination of the charges against him. In particular, he claimed that the administrative proceedings had fallen short of equality of arms: they had not been public, and the applicant had been unable to participate in them effectively or to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the as the witnesses against him. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "7732bc8c-27d6-49f0-a05a-054e1ffa8bc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair because he had been deprived of an opportunity to prove his defence and had not been able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the as witnesses against him, as provided in Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "a441c8e1-d8cf-4a04-9307-5091f85ba44d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["111. The Government added that the DPS also could not claim to have been the victim of a violation of its right to stand in elections, since it had taken part in the election under the as all the other parties and coalitions. By actively participating in the country\u2019s political life and the elections, the party had implicitly agreed to obey the rules on the apportionment of seats and not to take advantage of any irregularities occurring during the voting procedure. The impugned judgment of the Constitutional Court had noted and remedied just such irregularities, and that decision had led to the annulment of the election of candidates from other political parties. Thus the impugned measure had not been aimed exclusively at the DPS and had not been implemented disproportionately and tendentiously."], "id": "4755723a-4a14-4bd2-b3ec-0d4c707a6665", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair because he had been deprived of an opportunity to prove his defence and had not been able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the as witnesses against him, as provided in Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "5a84d74f-5366-4fe3-a116-e5b128f2b3f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted that the applicant had never applied to any Russian authority (whether prison authorities, prosecutor, ombudsman or courts) with complaints regarding the conditions of his detention in penal institution LIU-19 of the Republic of Mordoviya and had therefore not afforded them an opportunity to examine his complaints and, if appropriate, to offer redress. They therefore considered that he had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies and that his complaint should accordingly be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention. They furthermore submitted that HIV-positive inmates served their sentences in penal institution LIU-19 under the as other prisoners. The inmates working at the LIU-19 sewing workshop, including HIV-positive inmates, were each allotted a personal sewing machine. In order to prevent the risk of the spread of HIV infection, all the premises of LIU-19 were wiped daily with disinfectants, as well as treated with quartz lamps twice a day for one hour. Regular counselling was given to detainees by the administration of the facility regarding risky behaviour, modes of HIV transmission and personal hygiene. All HIV-negative inmates (including the applicant during his stay there) underwent laboratory tests for HIV twice a year. There had been no instances of HIV being contracted in LIU-19. The applicant himself had not contracted HIV during his detention at LIU-19 either. The Government concluded that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded."], "id": "bc09d158-be10-467c-b883-bd4927d4539a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant stated that she had attended only one session of the Court of Appeal while the public prosecutor had attended all four sessions. By allowing only the public prosecutor to attend the session at the final stage of the proceedings, the Court of Appeal had deprived her of the opportunity to present the case under the as those afforded to the public prosecutor."], "id": "b134fc89-24e9-4fe1-8f5d-a9aafc0b96eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["195. The applicant complained that the presiding judge had acted arbitrarily in deciding on the issues of admissibility of evidence and examination of witnesses, in breach of the principle of equality of arms, the guarantee to examine defence witnesses under the as prosecution witnesses, and, more generally, the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "id": "beace862-3a2b-4530-b1b3-6111703c919e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant also complained under Article 6 \u00a7 3(d) that he was refused the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the as witnesses against him, that the Court of Appeal refused him an oral hearing and subsequently the right to supplement his appeal after he had been denied a hearing and that the Court of Appeal ignored his written evidence."], "id": "0c939773-bf08-40ff-9a0b-be2eb5415bd2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government averred that the proceedings had been fair. The applicant had been granted access to court as his case had been examined by both the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court, which were both independent and impartial courts established by law. The Administrative Court had conducted the proceedings within a reasonable time and in accordance with the relevant procedural law. That court had addressed all the arguments presented by both the applicant and the Government of Croatia, and rendered a reasoned judgment based on the legislation in force. In particular, the Government argued that the principle of equality of arms had also been respected in the applicant\u2019s case and that he had had the opportunity to present his arguments to the Administrative Court under the as the opposing party."], "id": "3686998c-85f2-4d62-b4c7-4003116a84fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "same conditions", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant submitted that as he had not had the benefit of legal advice during his detention he had not been aware of any appeal procedure against conditions of detention, since bringing such complaints was not general practice. In any event, this was an ineffective remedy since any complaint was likely only to result in him being moved to a different cell with the . Furthermore, the existence of an appeal procedure in law did not absolve the authorities from their obligation to ensure adequate conditions of detention."], "id": "de7645c2-ac83-4e9a-85d5-ed650b4540fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "tribunal established by law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government stressed that in delivering the decision in the applicant company\u2019s case the Supreme Court, therefore, having applied the provisions of the Convention and the rule of law principle, had filled a formal gap in the legislation. It had acted as a whose task was to decide a dispute. Accordingly, that competence which the Supreme Court, as the highest judicial body, applied in this case could not be called specific as the Court called it in the case of Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine (cited above, \u00a7 26) since by acting in this very way the Supreme Court in corpore had ensured the right to a tribunal that was lawfully established, competent in this kind of case and had decided the dispute."], "id": "3a450d5e-8e86-4567-a1dc-57a37d5abfff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "tribunal established by law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["134. The applicant alleged a breach of Article 6 of the Convention on behalf of her son on the ground that he had not had a trial before an independent and impartial , in the event that the Government were to claim that the arrest and detention of her son were lawful and that he was guilty of an offence under domestic law. The relevant parts of Article 6 of the Convention provide as follows:"], "id": "288f3cb1-ac38-4071-bf98-5d24401da19a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "tribunal established by law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government stated that the Supreme Court had acknowledged, with reference to its judgments of 19 December 2017, that there had been flaws in the procedure in the appointment of A.E. However, the essence of the Supreme Court\u2019s reasoning had been that, in spite of these irregularities, A.E. had been appointed as a judge of the Court of Appeal and was invested with the judicial competences just as any other appointed judge of the Court of Appeal. This meant that under domestic law, as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court, the irregularities established by the court\u2019s judgment of 19 December 2017 had not meant that A.E. had not been legally appointed as a judge. The applicant had therefore enjoyed a fair trial before a within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Government argued that reasonable grounds existed for the Supreme Court\u2019s findings and its conclusion had not amounted to a flagrant breach of national law."], "id": "1495a02a-b20e-4fcd-85b2-8e72e4d3d3fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "tribunal established by law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the judgment of 16 October 2000 had not been issued by a because the lay judges had not been drawn by lot and had acted in that capacity outside the time-limit set in the domestic law. The relevant parts of Article 6 \u00a7 1 read as follows:"], "id": "f759b025-824a-4f80-bf7a-5458604bcdf2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "tribunal established by law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant maintained that she had been deprived of access to court to challenge her dismissal from the judiciary since the courts did not examine the lawfulness of the President\u2019s decree concerning her dismissal relying on Article 160 \u00a7 1 of the CCP which the Constitutional Court later found to be unconstitutional. The applicant argued that the Council of Justice with its composition at the material time could not be considered as an independent and impartial which would satisfy the criteria under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In particular, before the major judicial reforms following the Constitutional amendments of 2005, the Council of Justice was presided over by the President of Armenia, the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Justice and was therefore fully dependent on the executive."], "id": "fb5a30cc-4e48-408d-ab3a-2c371358178b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "tribunal established by law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant alleged that the length of his detention pending the trial before the Ankara Martial law Court had violated his rights protected by Articles 5 \u00a7 3 and 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. He maintained that the Martial Law Court was not an independent and impartial . He also alleged that his right to a fair trial had been breached since the Martial Law Court had convicted him on the basis of the statements he had made to the police under duress."], "id": "ff17ab8d-b607-44f8-a931-c5e660d0def4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "tribunal established by law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government further indicated that in accordance with Section 9 of the Lay Judges Act lay judges Ms D. and Mr S. had served in the City Court until the applicant\u2019s conviction on 30 April 2004. The Government noted that after 1 January 2004 the examination of the applicant\u2019s case continued with the participation of the above lay judges in accordance with Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia which provided for the principle of invariance of the court\u2019s composition throughout the trial. Besides, by 1 January 2004 almost all the witnesses in the applicant\u2019s case had been questioned, and the applicant had remained in custody for four years. Therefore, the interests of justice and the interests of the applicant himself called for the continuation of the proceedings by the same court. Otherwise a differently composed court would have been obliged to restart the trial from the very beginning. The Government concluded, therefore, that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention to have the criminal charge against him determined by a ."], "id": "ed6ccc35-ed90-417f-a696-d1f195fce7cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "tribunal established by law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant argued that the proceedings had been conducted by a court administrator who had not been authorised by law to conduct that type of very complex proceedings. Moreover, the value of the claim had been above the statutory threshold of HRK 50,000, above which the court administrator was not allowed to conduct proceedings, even if the court administrator at issue had been consulting a competent judge. The court administrator in the applicant\u2019s case had led the proceedings herself, regardless of the fact that the records of the hearings had been signed by a judge. Therefore, the applicant\u2019s case had not been heard by a ."], "id": "5d11de7a-fb86-4545-afc4-f1248f7fa149", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "tribunal established by law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant company complained that the judgment of 11 August 2005 had not been delivered by a since the rules concerning the formations of judges examining such applications had not been observed. It further complained that both this judgment and the supplementary judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 30 March 2006 had breached the principle of legal certainty as guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "ee83eed7-07cc-4d92-b008-e752ff2da620", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "tribunal established by law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["111. The Government submitted (paragraph 86 above) that the essence of the Supreme Court\u2019s reasoning had been that, in spite of these irregularities, A.E. had been legally appointed a judge of the Court of Appeal and was invested with the judicial competences just as any other appointed judge of the appellate tribunal. This meant that under domestic law, as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court, these irregularities, established in the court\u2019s judgments of 19 December 2017, had not resulted in A.E. not being legally appointed as a judge. The applicant had therefore enjoyed a fair trial before a within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The Government argued that reasonable grounds existed for the Supreme Court\u2019s findings and its conclusion had not amounted to a flagrant breach of national law."], "id": "ef76d4c3-7db4-4f04-b6cc-06097d0a5325", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "tribunal established by law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government maintained that there was no violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial in that his claims were considered in a public hearing by a competent . The reversal of the May 2001 judgment gave the City Court a power to review the case in its totality, including the assessment of evidence and determination of the amount of the award. The domestic court considered the case properly and gave a reasoned judgment."], "id": "3ada2ef8-bf67-4339-be06-a33fd47aa8b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "proved guilty according to law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant complained of the fact that the Tax Authority's decisions concerning additional taxes and tax surcharges had been enforced prior to a court determination of the disputes. In particular, he maintained that the tax assessment proceedings had not been determined within a reasonable time and that he had been unable to obtain a fair hearing in those pending proceedings. Moreover, he had been deprived of his right to be presumed innocent until . He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as is relevant to the complaint, provides:"], "id": "e03cda87-11d1-44ed-88a0-2c4e6bac4b69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "proved guilty according to law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants complained of the fact that the Tax Authority's decisions concerning additional taxes and tax surcharges had been enforced prior to a court determination of the disputes. In particular, they maintained that the tax assessment proceedings had not been determined within a reasonable time and they had been unable to obtain a fair hearing in those proceedings. Moreover, they had been deprived of their right to be presumed innocent until . They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as is relevant to the complaint, provides:"], "id": "5be32246-0d2d-428c-aa27-6daff982bbc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "proved guilty according to law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government argued that, having regard to the overall context of that decision, the Regional Court had referred to the existence of evidence pointing to a likelihood that the applicant had committed one of the offences in issue, and not to the question of his guilt or innocence. However, the Court emphasises that there is a fundamental distinction to be made between a statement that someone is merely suspected of having committed a crime and a clear judicial declaration, in the absence of a final conviction, that the individual has committed the crime in question (see Garycki, cited above, \u00a7 71 and Ne\u0161t\u00e1k v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, 89, 27 February 2007). Having regard to the explicit and unqualified character of the impugned statement, the Court finds that it amounted to a pronouncement on the applicant\u2019s guilt as regards one of the offences with which he had been charged before he was . The Court underlines that there can be no justification for a court of law to make a premature pronouncement of this kind."], "id": "eb2deeea-89bf-4241-a2a9-f6c0b9b769b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "proved guilty according to law", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant further complained that in the judicial decisions relating to his detention on remand and, in particular, in the Regional Court\u2019s decisions of 16 August and 11 October 2000 it had been taken as established that he had committed the offence imputed to him, that he had had a tendency to commit offences and that his motive had been the need to obtain money to settle his debt. As these conclusions had been reached before he had been , the applicant alleged a violation of his right to be presumed innocent. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention which reads as follows:"], "id": "4bb24458-e4ab-4c32-bf54-093d6206290c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["227. The Government did not accept that Article 5 could be relied in an case (the Court had doubted that it could be in Tomic v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 17837/03, 14 October 2003). Even if it could, no issue arose in the present case because the applicant would not be detained for a lengthy period before being brought before a court. SIAC had found that it was likely he would be brought before a \u201cjudicial authority\u201d within 48 hours, even if this were only a prosecutor with judicial status. The report of Mr Al-Khalili and Mr Najdawi confirmed that the Public Prosecutor was a judicial officer; they had also reported that the 48 hour period in which the police had to notify the legal authorities of any arrest had been reduced to 24 hours (see paragraphs 95 and 96 above). SIAC had also found that extensions of detention up to fifty days were unlikely to be sought (see paragraph 41 above). Both of SIAC\u2019s findings had been upheld by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. In the House of Lords, Lord Phillips had also found that 50 days\u2019 detention fell far short of a flagrant breach of Article 5 (see paragraph 58 above) and, although they did not accept that detention for fifty days was likely, the Government relied upon his conclusion."], "id": "01a99fbc-694d-42ab-b94e-ca978d69a915", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and officers. He maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a) and (d) of the Convention that this court had refused to hear his witnesses and under Article 6 \u00a7 2 that it had failed to postpone the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal case filed against him. Lastly, he claimed that his from the armed forces on account of his debts violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 4."], "id": "910da910-3948-44c0-83d5-cabbc78a2f22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicants complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that their lack of access to the documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court had infringed their right to adversarial proceedings, together with the principle of equality of arms. The second applicant, Mr Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m (application no. 46287/07), also complained that his from the military school on the basis of a secret security investigation, the results of which had not been disclosed to him, had been unfair."], "id": "92dceb89-203a-4ae5-9b53-b30bd02e3c9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant maintained that his wrongful conviction had given rise to his subsequent from Finland and to interference with his family life. The process as a whole had inflicted damage upon him. As to pecuniary damage, he claimed EUR 20,000 for unlawful deprivation of liberty, EUR 22,000 for loss of employment and EUR 1,500 for travel expenses from Gambia to Finland. As to non-pecuniary damage, he requested a formal acknowledgement from the State that he had been wrongfully convicted, imprisoned and expelled; immigration clearance for himself and his new family and dependants; suitable housing; language courses; and defrayment of the costs of any professional help that he may require in order to repair relations with his son in Finland."], "id": "4ad03a5b-b074-4086-823e-604da6465901", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant further complained that she had not received compensation from the Foundation under the second compensation scheme in respect of the fact that she had been expelled from her parents' house by the German occupying administration. As a result of the she and her family had suffered serious hardship, lost their home and property and had been exposed to physical and psychological suffering. They had experienced difficulties in finding accommodation afterwards and had been exposed to a long period of uncertainty and poverty. The expulsion had lacked any legal basis and had been carried out for the purposes of settling German nationals in the farms of their lawful Polish owners. She should have received compensation for that, but the Foundation had refused. Moreover, the Foundation's decision could not be reviewed by any other body."], "id": "fa60bdea-7592-49ca-9cc4-83ee432f766c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["151. The Government further submit that the applicant's from Latvia did not limit his access to court as he could rectify the deficiency of his complaint and continue the proceedings before the Central District Court of the City of Riga through his lawyer. In case the applicant's presence was considered mandatory by the court, it would have summoned him, according to Article 2395 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court's summons would have been a valid basis for issuing a visa to the applicant."], "id": "d4ee1d0c-3c3e-4a25-8fc2-aee11992338e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government further claimed that the use by the French authorities of specific flights to transport a number of aliens to their countries of origin was based on practical considerations and could not be analysed as a practice of collective within the meaning of that provision. The introduction of such flights had been made necessary by the difficulty, and even impossibility, of obtaining seats on scheduled flights towards certain destinations, especially to countries to which there were few scheduled services from French airports."], "id": "c8965cb1-727f-4ea8-9b61-b4ae3c768ae1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant claimed TRY 10,000 (approximately EUR 5,700) in respect of pecuniary damage on account of the educational expenses his father was asked to reimburse following his from the military academy. He also requested that the payment order of the \u0130zmir Civil Court in the judgment of 14 April 2008 be lifted. He further claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims."], "id": "c856e8b6-bd61-4efd-a0ba-8e882051d8ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants alleged a breached of Article 3 of the Convention on account of their forced from their village. They had mentally suffered as a result of the actions of the members of security forces, who had burned their family houses. Under Article 8 of the Convention, they complained about the destruction of their property. Furthermore, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they maintained that the destruction of their houses and their forced eviction from the village had violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The provisions of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention are set out above at paragraph 59, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "4215d171-4061-4be7-9b80-df682dc41e65", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant claimed 148,848.86 Turkish liras (TRY)[1] in respect of pecuniary damage: TRY 72,000[2] for the salaries to which he would have been entitled as a military officer, as well as TRY 76,848.86[3] for his educational expenses, including the expenses he was asked to reimburse following his from the naval academy. He also claimed TRY 50,000[4] for non\u2011pecuniary damage and TRY 4,500[5] for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts. The applicant only submitted two fee agreements signed with the lawyers representing him during the domestic proceedings in support of his claims."], "id": "58147adf-4d33-4f62-9406-907b47bfa375", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["163. The Government reiterate that the applicant came to Latvia on the basis of a visa, which was valid until 17 November 1997. After the expiry of the visa, the applicant did not try to obtain a residence permit but stayed in Latvia illegally until he was apprehended on 19 February 1998. As a result, upon his release on 19 August 2002, the applicant resided in Latvia illegally and the CMA, according to the Government, issued the order, pursuant to Article 38 of the Law on Entry and Residence in the Republic of Latvia of Foreign Citizens and Stateless Persons. Thus, according to the Government, the criterion of 'prescribed by law' was satisfied. Further, the law was officially published, easily accessible and its provisions were formulated sufficiently clearly and precisely."], "id": "0b0ca5f6-b775-4338-a927-36ef4689a59b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the composition of the Supreme Military Administrative Court. He maintained that the failure of the Ministry of Defence to inform him of the charges against him amounted to a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 2 of the Convention and that the terms and conditions of his from the military academy violated his rights under Article 6 \u00a7 2. He lastly complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the Supreme Military Administrative Court failed to state explicitly what means of redress against its decision were available."], "id": "e60d21cd-fdde-4069-abff-54aea259cce2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) as pecuniary damage for the loss of income he had been deprived of during the time he spent at the military academy and subsequent to his while he was looking for a job. He also claimed EUR 20,000 for non\u2011pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. The applicant did not submit any justification in support of his claims, all of which the Government contested."], "id": "d07f03f8-e75c-4e54-9000-17ecf111a875", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant submitted that he had raised the issue of his risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if returned to Uzbekistan in the extradition, and refugee-status proceedings, advancing a number of specific arguments, such as an increased risk of ill-treatment of persons who were, as was the applicant, accused of participation in a banned religious activity. The Russian courts failed to analyse the nature of the charges against the applicant, disregarded the link between the charges and the risk of ill-treatment and did not examine the information from various international organisation and from the Court\u2019s judgments. The applicant rejected the Government\u2019s argument that the decision on his administrative removal did not necessarily mean that he would be expelled to Uzbekistan. No other possibility had ever been discussed in the course of the administrative proceedings and, furthermore, there was no reason to believe that any other country would be willing to accept him. His placement in the detention facility foreclosed the possibility of his voluntary and independent departure from Russia and prevented him from choosing the country of destination."], "id": "4897017f-5d0f-4770-ac79-cbe821f395a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s allegations that he risked ill-treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan had been considered by the national authorities and dismissed on sufficient grounds. Referring to the decisions of the prosecution and immigration authorities and the domestic courts in the course of the extradition and proceedings, the Government asserted that his claims had been duly reviewed and found to be devoid of substance. In their opinion, the assurances presented to the Russian authorities by the Uzbekistani authorities were sufficient and compatible with the countries\u2019 international obligations and domestic legal developments. As regards the expulsion proceedings, the expulsion order did not specify that the applicant was to be taken to Uzbekistan, but merely stated that he was to be removed from the territory of the Russian Federation. The Government concluded that a risk of the applicant\u2019s treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention had not been convincingly established."], "id": "d2e2468f-e11e-46a9-904d-4f441ae7c4a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained under Articles 6 \u00a7 1 and 13 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal as the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been composed of military judges and that it had acted as a first and only instance court, which had also infringed his right to an effective remedy. He further maintained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 that he had been denied a public hearing due to the lack of reference to the principal public prosecutor\u2019s name in the court decisions. The applicant contended that his from the military academy had amounted to a punishment without a law, in violation of Article 7 of the Convention. Lastly, he maintained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been expelled from the military academy by reason of his father\u2019s affiliations with a certain trade union, which amounted to discrimination."], "id": "6155987f-d920-46fc-923e-44878371a067", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant claimed 204,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage: EUR 200,000 for the salaries and pension rights he would have been entitled to as a non-commissioned officer, as well as EUR 4,000 for the educational expenses his father was asked to reimburse following his from the military academy. He also claimed EUR 10,000 for non\u2011pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims."], "id": "c25aeaa8-1558-46b2-a527-57a57c96c4e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government emphasised the legislative guarantees and the supervision exercised by the administrative courts over decisions to expel illegal immigrants, which were always examined on the basis of detailed individual circumstances, and particularly in the light of the alleged risks of a violation of Article 3 in the event of return to the country of origin. Thus, the administrative courts would have no choice but to set aside orders based on nationality or ethnic origin."], "id": "2eaf91ac-3aa9-4382-bc6a-063a3d296c4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["148. The Government first of all suggest distinguishing two separate procedures \u2013 the as a result of conviction and the expulsion as a result of the breach of the administrative provisions regarding the entrance and stay of foreigners in Latvia. The Government state that in the present case the applicant was expelled as a result of the breach of the afore-mentioned administrative provisions."], "id": "e7b68b62-8f91-46a7-b16e-b51d573584f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["161. The Government is of the opinion that the order on the applicant's from Latvia has been issued \u201cin accordance with law\u201d. Moreover, the Government underline that whether the judgment of the Riga Regional Court had or had not come into force was of no legal relevance since the applicant was not expelled on the basis of the judgment."], "id": "ce3d232c-9aad-4f37-b4ac-15e583462819", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government submitted that Article 2 of the Convention did not apply in the circumstances of the present case. They maintained that the applicants were no longer victims of a violation of the aforementioned provision following the redress provided by the authorities, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. They further noted that in the case of D. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 30240/96, 2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011III), which concerned the attempted of an AIDS sufferer to St. Kitts where he would have been deprived of the medical treatment he was receiving in the United Kingdom, the Court had examined the complaints of the applicant under Article 3 of the Convention rather than Article 2."], "id": "94574b1f-e0e3-4ded-823d-2735a3ce1d67", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant further argued that in examining his case the Russian authorities had disregarded his specific submissions concerning his religious and political persecution and relevant reports by independent NGOs, and had relied solely on \u201cofficial sources of information\u201d. The courts' conclusion that the applicant had voluntarily left Tajikistan was at variance with his consistent submissions that he had fled because of his persecution on religious grounds and the ill-treatment sustained in custody. Referring to other cases against Russia concerning and extradition and pending before the Court, the applicant insisted that the Russian courts consistently adopted the same formalistic approach in dealing with such complaints, which showed that the remedies suggested by the Government were ineffective in practice."], "id": "1b584927-cdc6-4bde-9160-8a4eeff4f81e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant further submitted that there existed the administrative practice of substituting for extradition which was based on an unpublished order of the Moscow Region prosecutor, no. 86/81 of 3 July 2009, which provided that in every case of release of a detained individual because his extradition was impossible, it was mandatory to decide on his administrative expulsion from Russia. The applicant therefore maintained that his expulsion had been ordered to secure his rendition to the Uzbekistani authorities, that is to prevent him from being released and to secure either expulsion or extradition, as the case might be, and that his allegations of the risk of ill-treatment had not been thoroughly examined in the administrative expulsion proceedings."], "id": "f31b2525-c2f3-4aa9-a5cf-62a277eb6931", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "charged with a criminal offence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s statement had been given voluntarily and upon his request it had been audio recorded. He had not been coerced or threatened and he had been cautioned in accordance with the law. According to the Government, the applicant, a fifty\u2011five year old man who was not vulnerable, had understood the implication of the circumstances he found himself in as it had not been the first time he had been - he had previously been convicted on two separate occasions - yet he had chosen to make and sign the statements."], "id": "cb33c522-6e9c-4ac2-b02b-654490308c66", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "charged with a criminal offence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant submitted that, while not being formally in the compensation proceedings, he was nevertheless in effect subjected to an assumption of guilt by the courts in their consideration of his compensation claim. In this respect the facts of his case could not be distinguished from those at issue in the Sekanina v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993 (Series A no. 266-A) and the Asan Rushiti v. Austria judgment (no. 28389/95, 21.3.2000)."], "id": "da84a4fe-5a5f-4d62-ab7d-4217ec029b30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "charged with a criminal offence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government further submitted that the presumption of innocence did not apply to the instant proceedings, as the applicant had not been and the proceedings were not aimed at establishing the applicant\u2019s guilt. In deciding whether to suspend a sentence on probation in accordance with Article 57a \u00a7 1 of the Criminal Code, the execution of sentence chamber had to make its own prognosis on the danger posed by the convicted person."], "id": "a55bfa16-ea54-4cdf-8a9e-b79fe1942be7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "charged with a criminal offence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["121. The applicant\u2019s primary argument in connection with the present complaint is that the attachment order was unlawful because, at the material time, he had not been formally charged with any of the criminal offences which served as a ground for the attachment. The Court notes that, in the context of the present case, it is not called upon to decide in general whether attachment of a person\u2019s property for criminal proceedings prior to that person being formally could, in itself, be considered compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. What is necessary to determine is whether, in this specific case, such interference was permitted, and thus \u201clawful\u201d under the Azerbaijani law in force at the material time."], "id": "94af816a-a937-4288-ae78-638b2cd556ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "charged with a criminal offence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant complained of the breach of his right to respect for his family life and correspondence in that his minor sons had not been allowed to visit him in the remand centre after his arrest and that the correspondence between him and the children had been withheld, the authorities relying on the need to ensure the effective conduct of the proceedings. He submitted that under the applicable provisions of Polish law it was for the parent or legal guardian to decide whether their minor child could testify in court. In the applicant\u2019s case he had never been given an opportunity to give his opinion on that matter. It had simply been assumed that his sons should be interviewed by the prosecuting authorities, despite the fact that the applicant had had full parental powers. The law did not provide for any mechanism by which the interests of a parent could be reconciled with the need to conduct criminal proceedings against him by interviewing his children as witnesses. The applicant concluded that the restrictions on his contacts with his sons had therefore been unlawful and unjustified."], "id": "4ae7ec8e-d613-4bf4-bc9b-4e5e4f142fd0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "charged with a criminal offence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government referred to the Constitutional Court\u2019s case-law, whereby even though the only valid evidence on which courts can rely to convict a person is, in principle, that produced in his presence at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument, exceptions to that principle are possible in exceptional circumstances, for instance if it proves materially impossible for a witness to make a statement during the hearing owing to his or her mental state. In those cases, courts are allowed to rely on witnesses\u2019 statements made at earlier stages of the proceedings, provided, inter alia, that they are read out in court and the defendant is given an adequate opportunity to challenge them, as had happened in the present case. The Government further indicated that this exception was not applicable to cases of physical illnesses of witnesses, since the Constitutional Court had found in the criminal legislation more appropriate solutions for this situation, such as at-home interrogations or statements via video-conference."], "id": "2f891685-a74c-43f9-a453-4236a55e2228", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "charged with a criminal offence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government considered that the provision was not applicable. They noted that the finding of responsibility in the civil proceedings at issue did not concern a criminal charge under domestic law. Moreover, the outcome of the criminal proceedings was not decisive for the civil claim. The civil claim depended on a separate legal assessment based on criteria and evidentiary standards which differed from those applicable to criminal liability. In their view, the mere fact that an act may give rise to a civil claim which was also covered by the objective constitutive elements of a criminal offence did not provide a sufficient ground for regarding the proceedings as ones in which the applicant was being ."], "id": "b8b44db8-19fe-498d-ac5c-74c57cefbd86", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "charged with a criminal offence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant emphasised that the time taken in particular by the police and the Prosecutor exceeded what was reasonable, as the charges against the applicant were brought in 1994, even though, according to his knowledge, the main part of the investigation reports had already been completed by the spring of 1991. By the time when he was finally he was already under the impression that the police investigation would not result in any criminal proceedings against him. Therefore he had not found it necessary to request the police or the prosecutor to speed up their decision-making. However, during the court proceedings he repeatedly requested the courts to make their decisions without undue delay or, alternatively, to dismiss the charges in the event that they found it difficult to continue on the basis of the allegations submitted by the prosecutor."], "id": "835e6f8c-3dcc-44c5-a0d5-84c783942ced", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "charged with a criminal offence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant submitted that, while not being formally in the compensation proceedings, he had nevertheless in effect been subjected to an assumption of guilt by the courts in their consideration of his compensation claim. In this respect the facts of his case could not be distinguished from those in issue in Sekanina v. Austria (judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A) and Rushiti v. Austria (no. 28389/95, 21 March 2000)."], "id": "468dfa17-43fc-448b-b908-217982708245", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "charged with a criminal offence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant submitted that following the introduction of the present application with the Court, her family became the target of an intimidation campaign led by the Government. According to her, her husband was illegally and taken to a psychiatric hospital for a medical examination. She was allegedly contacted by Government representatives who demanded the withdrawal of her application from the Court."], "id": "0a24488c-0ba2-4f6c-a84a-c024014be016", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "charged with a criminal offence", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant argued that his right to a fair trial had been infringed in that he had not been informed of the accusations against him. He submitted that the defence conducted by his officially appointed lawyer could not be regarded as effective and adequate in view of the fact that, among the defendants whom the lawyer had represented, those who had been present had been acquitted and those who had not had been convicted. Furthermore, the applicant had not known that he was being represented by that lawyer. He had therefore had no reason to contact him or the Italian authorities. If he had known that he had been , he could have made a fully informed choice as to his legal counsel."], "id": "ba5d507c-f6ef-4e7f-96ce-a0a18f923f67", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "exclusion of public", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government noted that, according to Article 138 of the Military Court Organisation and Proceedings Law, hearings before military courts were public. However, the military court could hold hearings in camera if public morality and safety so required. In the instant case, since the applicant had been tried on charges of military espionage, was necessary for the purposes of national security."], "id": "df87dd4e-4a58-4bd0-8a60-0befdd3d7d96", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public judgment", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government contended that there existed no causal link between the pecuniary damages claimed by the applicant and the alleged breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. With reference to paragraph 71 of the Malhous v. the Czech Re cited above the Government further maintained that a possible finding of a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention would in itself constitute a sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage which the applicant may have suffered."], "id": "ea92c6ef-9ae0-48b2-b903-ac957471687b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public judgment", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["183. The Government argued that the procedure before the IPT offered as fair a procedure as could be achieved in the context of secret surveillance powers. In particular, a complainant did not have to overcome any evidential burden to apply to the IPT and any legal issues could be determined in a after an inter partes hearing. Further, the IPT had full powers to obtain any material it considered necessary from relevant bodies and could call upon the assistance of the Commissioner. It could appoint an advocate to assist it at closed hearings. Finally, in the event that the complainant was successful, a reasoned decision would be provided. The Government accordingly disputed that the very essence of the applicant's right to a fair trial had been impaired."], "id": "56677296-e5ca-4b58-bbca-4797857cbc10", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "insufficient means", "echr_article": "6", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government acknowledged that the authorities\u2019 failure to examine the applicant\u2019s request for the assistance of counsel in the appeal proceedings had not been justified. They also pointed out that Russian law and judicial practice did not and do not determine the matter of free legal representation on the basis of any means test (\u201c to pay for legal assistance\u201d) or \u201cthe interests of justice\u201d. The only condition for such representation was the absence of a waiver by the defendant of legal representation. They further explained that at the relevant time most Russian courts considered that representation in appeal proceedings was not required under Russian law. Lastly, they indicated that the authorities had acted with due diligence because despite the applicant\u2019s refusal he had been provided with counsel during the preliminary investigation and at the trial."], "id": "bab0ebb8-e445-4010-91d3-eee1069491f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government\u2019s response in Strasbourg was ingenious. They insisted before the Court on the need to admit under the Convention not only the unlimited retrospective preventive detention of offenders with \u201cmental disorder\u201d (psychische St\u00f6rung), but even the pre-crime detention of allegedly dangerous people for preventive purposes. The tactic paid off. Just two years after Schwabe and M. G.,[104] the Court backtracked, in Ostendorf,[105] from its previous position, conceding that the obligation to keep the peace by not committing a can be considered as sufficiently \u201cspecific and concrete\u201d for the purposes of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Convention \u201cif the place and time of the imminent commission of the offence and its potential victim(s) have been sufficiently specified\u201d[106]. In that same year, the Court delivered judgment in Bergmann,[107] reviewing M. The present judgment confirms the Court\u2019s conceding stance."], "id": "4b5c2a91-0393-4dff-b8bb-169f91a30af0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["198. The Government were of the view that this conclusion by the Court was erroneous. Firstly, it was not true that confiscation was necessarily connected to a as, pursuant to Article 30 \u00a7 8 of the Construction Code, it could be ordered by an administrative authority before a conviction became final, and it could also be imposed on a company, which could not be prosecuted for a criminal offence by virtue of the societas delinquere non potest principle."], "id": "57604187-fe50-4493-8517-16289453f23a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government were of the opinion that Article 161 of the Criminal Code defined the misuse of official position precisely and specifically. Although the description of offences related to official position was inevitably characterised by a certain degree of abstraction, there existed a body of settled case-law which was published and accessible and the applicant had been able to foresee that his acts would constitute a . On the basis of the case-law it must have been clear to the applicant that Article 161 was also applicable in cases of moral damage, that the danger of causing damage was sufficient to constitute an element of the offence and that the knowledge of the authorities about the misuse of the official position would not rule out the liability of an official. The Government concluded that the law and the case-law relating to its application had been sufficiently accessible and foreseeable."], "id": "373b3de8-db32-4b80-943f-1c2aaed112e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government rejected that argument, observing that Article 7 of the Convention did no more than prohibit any retrospective application of criminal law in relation to \u201cthe time the was committed\u201d. They observed that the provisions of the Criminal Code which established penalties for the offences of which the applicant was convicted had not been amended after 2 September 1999, the date when they were committed. They noted in particular that the offences concerned were punishable by life imprisonment with daytime isolation and that the penalty imposed by the national courts had not exceeded that limit."], "id": "3d756b32-9192-4d27-9489-30945e91a3d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["191. The Government further explained that the specific criteria for classifying the applicant\u2019s preventive detention as a penalty were no longer met after his transfer to the Straubing preventive detention centre. As regards the question whether the measure concerned was imposed following conviction for a , the Government noted that, other than in the Bergmann case where that applicant\u2019s preventive detention order had been made in the sentencing court\u2019s judgment and been prolonged subsequently, the order for the applicant\u2019s preventive detention in the present case had been made in 2012, many years after his conviction in 1999 \u2013 which had not entailed a preventive detention order \u2013 in separate proceedings. The connection between the applicant\u2019s criminal conviction and his preventive detention was therefore not as close as in the Bergmann case."], "id": "95058577-fb47-4278-ac65-2c86b7d0e4af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained that a criminal penalty had been imposed on him even though he had not been convicted of any offence. He observed that under Italian law, criminal prosecutions could not be brought if the in question was time-barred. In the present case, according to the applicant, the offence had been time-barred as far back as August 2001. However, the criminal proceedings had continued until 2008 for the sole purpose of imposing a penalty."], "id": "1418dcdf-12f1-43f0-a686-fb3c96278554", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government also referred to Constitutional Court decision no. 53/1993 in which it was stated that common Article 3 was part of customary international law, and that acts in breach thereof were to be regarded as crimes against humanity. Consequently, the offence of which the applicant had been convicted constituted a under international law. The Constitutional Court had held that international law alone was a sufficient ground for the punishment of such acts, and its rules would be devoid of any effect if the punishability of war crimes and crimes against humanity were subject to incorporation into domestic law."], "id": "335597ba-2161-4ca0-92c2-ce252d79fde4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["115. The Government argued that in the latter case, it had been decisive that there was no substantial difference between the execution of a term of imprisonment and that of preventive detention and that there had been insufficient measures to prepare persons in preventive detention for a life without offences (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 127 and 129). These elements had also been addressed in the Federal Constitutional Court\u2019s leading judgment of 4 May 2011. Further factors which had been relevant for the Court to classify preventive detention as a \u201cpenalty\u201d for the purposes of Article 7 \u00a7 1, such as the fact that it was imposed by a criminal court following conviction for a and the severity of the measure (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 128, 131-132), were less significant and did not justify considering preventive detention as a penalty."], "id": "127d5ebd-69c4-49c7-b694-9f2c12d38f75", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant further maintained that the case-law of the Court was clear on the point that the concept of \u201cvictim\u201d under Article 34 of the Convention should be interpreted broadly. The Government\u2019s argument that he had not been sentenced to punishment was unfounded, as his conviction of a had entailed various other legal consequences. Also, given the political nature of the proceedings, the severity of the sentence was not the key issue. Rather, the important elements were that the case had been brought against him and that he had been convicted for a punishable offence. In this respect, the applicant referred to the case of L\u00fcdi v Switzerland (no. 12433/86, 15 June 1992)."], "id": "a1149d78-0964-483d-91ea-cf8a3f68bc1e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (a) of the Convention about the alleged failure to particularise the offence until judgment was given and to inform her promptly of the nature and cause of the contempt application. Under Article 7 she complained that she was found guilty of a on account of an act which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when it was committed."], "id": "43381e2e-baf6-4dbb-b2f5-3fa1f1cb4e22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["3. The applicant\u2019s liquidator\u2019s licence was revoked in 2011 as a consequence of his conviction in 2010 for criminal offences that had been committed in 2003 and 2004 (see paragraph 9 of the judgment). The revocation was based on sections 108 and 109 of the Financial Operations Act, which had entered into force on 1 October 2008, and in accordance with which the Minister of Justice \u201cmust revoke\u201d a licence if the person \u201chas been convicted ... of a publicly prosecutable committed with intent\u201d (see paragraph 29). It transpires from the transitory provisions that liquidator licences issued under the Bankruptcy Act were to be considered as equivalent to licences issued under the Financial Operations Act (see paragraph 32)."], "id": "35d6d691-0cc7-4794-9340-3fed44ae1121", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants argued that neither the provision in question, Chapter 27, section 3(a), of the Penal Code, nor the preparatory works had mentioned that the provision would apply to the publication of an accused or convicted person's name. On the contrary, the operative part of a judgment, the legal provisions applied and the name of the convicted person had always been public information according to Finnish law. Citing a convicted person's name in a newspaper had not traditionally been an offence in Finland until 2001 and 2002, when the Supreme Court had come to a different conclusion. However, it did not follow from either the provisions or the preparatory works that publication of a convicted person's name was a and it had even been mentioned in the government bill (HE 184/1999) that the general nature of Chapter 27, section 3(a), of the Penal Code might be problematic from the point of view of the legality principle. In Finnish criminal law the use of a legal analogy to the detriment of an accused was prohibited. As the articles in question had been published in January and March 1997 the applicants could not have been able to foresee what the Appeal Court would decide more than six years later. Nor could they have anticipated that the Supreme Court would start assessing these cases differently in 2002."], "id": "08eb7c48-8803-4a5d-b004-195f44233397", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government further maintained that the applicant had voluntarily taken an obligation to re-export the impugned vehicle within a year, by signing a customs declaration. In the Government\u2019s opinion the declaration signed by the applicant had a contractual nature as it determined the relevant obligation and the liability in case of non-execution of the obligation. They considered that this case concerned neither the violation of a universal principle of law, nor the punishment for its violation. This case raised the issue of the violation of a contractual obligation, and thus the application of a penalty stipulated in the contract. The aim of this penalty was not the punishment of the person who had breached the terms for the import of the goods and other items, but compensation for the amount of the non-paid customs duties for the goods imported into the territory of Ukraine. Thus, the Government maintained that the non-performance of the obligation voluntarily undertaken by the applicant could not be qualified as a within the meaning of the Convention. Thus, Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in its criminal part was not applicable in this case."], "id": "3b34f5fe-079c-474f-aa6e-33c1cfa4512a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "criminal offence", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant complained that the Criminal Code had been applied retroactively in his case, pointing out that he had been convicted of a continuous offence of abusing a person living under the same roof which, according to the courts, encompassed his conduct even before that offence had been introduced into the law. He also alleged that the courts had not duly examined whether his actions prior to that date would have amounted to a under the old law. He relied in that regard on Article 7 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "e3151ae2-9066-408b-bc65-fd399b9524fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["126. The applicant submitted that when he had been sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment on 10 March 1989 by the Limassol Assize Court, under the Prison Regulations applicable at the time, \u201clife imprisonment\u201d had been tantamount to imprisonment for a period of twenty years. As a result of the repeal of the Regulations, the amendment of the relevant legislative provisions and the retroactive application of the provisions thus amended, he had been subjected to an unforeseeable prolongation of his term of imprisonment from a definite twenty-year sentence to an indeterminate term for the remainder of his life, with no prospect of remission, and to a change in the conditions of his detention. Thus, a had been imposed than that applicable at the time he had committed the offence of which he had been convicted, in breach of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "e25e771a-0f68-4273-a310-9a84b89687e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant further complained that the retrospective extension of his first preventive detention from a maximum period of ten years to an unlimited period of time due to the amendment in 1998 of Article 67d \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Criminal Code, read in conjunction with section 1a \u00a7 3 of the Introductory Act to the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 24-25), breached his right not to have a imposed on him than the one applicable at the time of his offence. He relied on Article 7 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "8b404893-91c2-44ac-ab54-b517af1df772", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant argued that preventive detention had to be classified as a penalty. By the abolition of the maximum duration of ten years of his preventive detention, which was applicable at the time of his offence, a had therefore been imposed on him retrospectively, in breach of Article 7 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Moreover, the duration of preventive detention was insufficiently defined."], "id": "c4068bb7-f289-4bad-b6ad-9a3d5b9e0670", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["172. The applicant further complained that his \u201cretrospectively\u201d ordered preventive detention, executed on the basis of the Regensburg Regional Court\u2019s judgment of 3 August 2012 from 20 June 2013 onwards in the Straubing preventive detention centre, had also breached his right not to have a imposed than the one applicable at the time of his offence in June 1997. He relied on Article 7 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "136b1f25-ee5b-4cd8-a6b4-c5737817fb30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government contested that argument. They argued that the applicant should have been able to foresee that he risked the annulment of his driving licence as the measure was clearly prescribed both in the old law and in the new law and there was no time-limit for the authorities to apply that measure. Therefore, they disagreed with the applicant\u2019s claims that a had been imposed on him because of the application of the new law."], "id": "78af924e-6950-44cd-a6dc-f929abb3c8b3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government therefore concluded that the requirement of a sufficiently clear and foreseeable legal basis had been satisfied, that the new criminal law had not been applied retroactively and that the applicant had not been given a than under the old law. In this regard, they assumed that, had the concept of a continuous offence as understood by the Czech courts been abandoned and the applicant\u2019s actions before and after 1 June 2004 been assessed separately, the applicant\u2019s possible sentence would have been either the same or more severe than the one actually imposed. Indeed, in that event the applicant would have been tried for multiple offences punishable by a concurrent sentence which would have been defined on the basis of the provision concerning the most serious offence, that is to say, Article 215a of the Criminal Code. Moreover, the existence of multiple criminal offences and the duration of the conduct in question would have constituted aggravating circumstances."], "id": "9c97303d-147c-4367-9c05-0c75715cd340", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["128. The applicant observed that when Legislative Decree no. 341 came into force and when it was converted into statute law, he was in prison. He was therefore not aware of the possibility of withdrawing his request for adoption of the summary procedure, which related to the exercise of a personal right of the defendant. The possibility had not been mentioned in the prosecution's appeal on points of law. As he was not familiar with the finer points of judicial proceedings, he had not had the real possibility of reconsidering his procedural choices. The assertion in the Hermi v. Italy judgment ([GC], no. 18114/02, \u00a7 92, ECHR 2006-...), to the effect that the State could not be required to spell out in detail, at each step in the procedure, the defendant's rights and entitlements, were not relevant in the present case, which concerned the retrospective application of a ."], "id": "ad55944d-76b3-4076-9b32-1463e09a1b9e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant further complained in both applications to the Court that the retrospective extension of his preventive detention from a maximum period of ten years to an unlimited period of time breached his right not to have a imposed on him than the one applicable at the time of his offence. He relied on Article 7 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "b0144247-0bb8-43b8-8bb2-a3000481c190", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant submitted that preventive detention was to be classified as a penalty. The retrospective extension of his first period of preventive detention from a maximum duration of ten years to an unlimited period of time owing to the amendment in 1998 of Article 67d \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 of the Criminal Code, read in conjunction with section 1a \u00a7 3 of the Introductory Act to the Criminal Code (see paragraph 27 above), had therefore violated his right not to have a imposed than the one applicable at the time of his offence guaranteed by Article 7 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "00d319c8-8402-4e88-a917-ccf397ee6cf7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["95. The applicant claims that his retrospectively ordered preventive detention, executed on the basis of the Regensburg Regional Court\u2019s judgment of 3 August 2012 from 20 June 2013 onwards in the Straubing Prison preventive detention centre, breached and still breaches his right not to have a imposed than the one applicable at the time of his offence in June 1997."], "id": "fdbe4974-70b5-4e20-a7c2-815f9989ab60", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant submitted that under the legal provisions applicable at the time of his offence, ten years had been the maximum duration of the preventive detention, a penalty, ordered against him. The retrospective extension of his preventive detention beyond 27 March 2006, when he had served ten years, to an unlimited period of time therefore violated his right not to have a imposed on him than the one applicable at the time of his offence."], "id": "7595e5ec-b2ec-45d2-8eb7-8938fc68d6ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicant submitted that Article 7 of the Convention guaranteed not only the non-retrospectiveness of the criminal law but also the principle \u2013 set forth explicitly in Article 15 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by Article 49 of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental rights and by Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights (see paragraphs 35-37 above) \u2013 that, in the event of a difference between the law in force at the time of the commission of an offence and later laws, the law to be applied was the law more favourable to the accused. That meant that Article 7 was breached whenever courts imposed a than the one prescribed by the law in force at any time between the commission of the offence and the delivery of judgment. The applicant referred on that point to the dissenting opinion of Judge Popovi\u0107 annexed to the Achour v. France judgment ([GC], no 67335/01, ECHR 2006-..)."], "id": "e328e598-b558-48bb-bb0b-dcd4a1442021", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["106. The applicant further complained that the retrospective extension of his preventive detention from a maximum period of ten years to an unlimited period of time violated his right not to have a imposed on him than the one applicable at the time of his offence. He relied on Article 7 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads:"], "id": "e652c9bb-ba5e-468f-a19b-ef15d38672bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government submitted in reply that the institutional therapeutic measure had been ordered following a review of the judgment to the applicant\u2019s detriment. In such circumstances, Article 65 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code referred to the rules applicable to the reopening of proceedings, namely \u2013 prior to the entry into force of the unified Code of Criminal Procedure on 1 January 2011 \u2013 the relevant provisions of the cantonal Codes of Criminal Procedure. They inferred from this that paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (1), of the transitional provisions of the 13 December 2002 amendment to the Criminal Code, in conjunction with Article 65 \u00a7 2 of the same Code, \u201cthus provided for the retrospective application of a specific ground for reopening proceedings\u201d. The case of a review to the convicted person\u2019s detriment was governed by Article 189 \u00a7 1 (e) of the former Code of Criminal Procedure of the Canton of Basle Urban. In accordance with that provision, criminal proceedings that had been concluded by means of an \u201cenforceable\u201d judgment were to be reopened where, among other situations, circumstances or evidence unknown to the trial court appeared likely to result in an acquitted person\u2019s conviction or to give rise to a more severe punishment for a convicted person. The Government further submitted that the substantive law in force at the time had provided for institutional therapeutic measures, in particular under Article 43 \u00a7 1, second sub-paragraph, of the former Criminal Code, and noted that that provision allowed the indefinite detention of a convicted person who, \u201con account of his mental state\u201d, \u201cpose[d] a severe threat to public safety\u201d, on condition that \u201csuch a measure [was] necessary to prevent a danger to others\u201d. Accordingly, by deciding to impose an institutional therapeutic measure, the Court of Appeal had not ordered a than the one that would already have been possible and acceptable at the time of the criminal courts\u2019 decisions. In conclusion, there had been no violation of Article 7 of the Convention, regardless of whether such a measure, like the indefinite detention provided for in Article 65 \u00a7 2 of the Criminal Code, constituted a \u201cpenalty\u201d within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "ce4b365d-bc42-4fc5-b655-aa5d222ffc2f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant argued that a had been imposed on him retrospectively, contrary to the second sentence of Article 7 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, by virtue of the order made for his continued preventive detention. Relying, in particular, on the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of M. v. Germany (cited above), he submitted that preventive detention in the manner in which it was executed in Schwalmstadt and Weiterstadt prisons constituted a \u201cpenalty\u201d within the meaning of that provision."], "id": "cfd9a049-0e1f-4f10-8510-02f8d9b1b8c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["187. The Government took the view that, since the applicant\u2019s transfer to the Straubing preventive detention centre on 20 June 2013, the preventive detention order of 3 August 2012 did not impose a on him than the one which was applicable at the time of his offence and therefore complied with Article 7 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "fa8d0b08-f4c0-49cd-8f9f-2713624747a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "heavier penalty", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant further submitted that a had been imposed on him than the one that was applicable at the time of his offence. When he had committed his offences and at the time of his conviction in 1987, a retrospective order of preventive detention had not been possible. Such orders had only been authorised subsequently, by the Retrospective Preventive Detention Act of 23 July 2004 by which Article 66b had been inserted into the Criminal Code. He was thus remanded in preventive detention for an indefinite duration retrospectively, on the basis of a legal provision which entered into force seventeen years after his conviction."], "id": "7bfd5436-34c8-40d2-a956-71e5bc1981ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "retroactivity", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government maintained that the applicant had interpreted the domestic law incorrectly. They noted that after the decision of the Constitutional Court of 29 December 1999 no new law had been created. They stated that the criminal law could only be changed by the Verkhovna Rada and that the provisions for aggravated murder had not lost their alternative character. They considered that the period after 29 December 1999 had been given to the Verkhovna Rada in order to bring the 1960 Criminal Code into line with the decision of 29 December 1999. They referred to the decision of the Constitutional Court of 26 January 2011 (cited above) in support of their argument. They maintained that the 1960 Criminal Code had only changed and become a new law after the introduction of amendments by the Verkhovna Rada which had come into force on 29 March 2000. The Government concluded that the fact that the domestic courts had sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment had not violated the principle of of the more lenient version of the 1960 Criminal Code that pertained from 29 December 1999 to 29 March 2000 as no such version of the Criminal Code had existed."], "id": "dbfc8c7c-0189-4205-aa31-f1c0e2fa04f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "retroactivity", "echr_article": "7", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government maintained that the 2003 Criminal Code was more lenient to the applicants than the 1976 Criminal Code, given the absence of the death penalty (they referred to Karmo v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 76965/01, 9 February 2006). That was indeed the opinion of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the present case (see paragraph 15 above). They further argued that even if the 2003 Code was not more lenient to the applicants, it was still justified to apply it in this case, for the following reasons. First, the Government claimed that Article 7 \u00a7 2 of the Convention provided an exception to the rule of non- of crimes and punishments set out in Article 7 \u00a7 1 (they referred to Naletili\u0107 v. Croatia (dec.), no. 51891/99, ECHR 2000\u2011V). In other words, if an act was criminal at the time when it was committed both under \u201cthe general principles of law recognised by civilised nations\u201d and under national law, then a penalty even heavier than that which was applicable under national law might be imposed. It was clear that the acts committed by the present applicants were criminal under \u201cthe general principles of law recognised by civilised nations\u201d. As a result, the rule of non-retroactivity of punishments did not apply and, in the Government\u2019s opinion, any penalty could have been imposed on the applicants. Secondly, the Government submitted that the interests of justice required that the principle of non-retroactivity be set aside in this case (they referred in this connection to S.W., cited above; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz, cited above; and a duty under international humanitarian law to punish war crimes adequately). The rigidity of the principle of non-retroactivity, it was argued, had to be softened in certain historical situations so that this principle would not be to the detriment of the principle of equity."], "id": "b9cb3150-e481-47f7-a583-f9a756b494c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government acknowledged that the judgment of 21 January 2010 could be regarded as an with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life. However, the State had set up an adequate legal and procedural framework for the protection of the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his reputation and it remained to be determined whether the courts had struck a fair balance between the applicant\u2019s private interests and those of the general public."], "id": "a2e86a22-2ddd-4814-ba3b-ae9e48327429", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant considered that she was justified in alleging a serious with her maternal rights and obligations, given firstly that the decision against her had been based on discriminatory grounds, and secondly that the father's home had been named as the children's habitual residence despite his conduct. She emphasised that he had abandoned his family and that he had subsequently refused to return the children to their mother's home, in violation of a judgment by the family-affairs judge."], "id": "1735b366-d7b4-47cd-b91c-4654f8a5b55e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government dismissed the applicants\u2019 allegations, taking the view that the impugned was necessary and proportionate. In this connection, they indicated that the applicants were members of the terrorist organisation PKK and that they had previously spoken Turkish with their relatives on the telephone, but later on had requested to conduct their conversations in Kurdish. The Government explained that the Kurdish language had different dialects and that, at the time of the applicants\u2019 requests, there were no Kurdish speaking personnel in the prison. The prison authorities had asked the applicants, in accordance with Rule 88/2 (p) of the Rules then in force, for the names and addresses of the individuals with whom they wished to speak in order to seek information on them. In the Government\u2019s submission, those prisoners who had good intentions would give such information and, once the investigation had been carried out, permission to use Kurdish was granted for those who did not speak Turkish. However, some prisoners with bad intentions had requested permission to use Kurdish without giving the requisite information. The Government argued that those prisoners had thus made it impossible to obtain any information about their relatives. Moreover, the relatives of some prisoners could not be traced at the addresses given. Accordingly, the prisoners in question had not fulfilled their obligations in order to conduct their telephone conversations in a language other than Turkish. Furthermore, the applicants had not been subjected to any discrimination, as the legislation applied to them was applicable to all prisoners ."], "id": "8f078e5a-cffe-4456-b32a-a48c269c07dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicants contended that this was not in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. They submitted that the provision of Article 45 of the Ministry of Interior Act on the ground of which they were dismissed left unlimited discretionary power to the Ministry to terminate the employment of police officers solely on the basis of the initiation of criminal proceedings. The applicants also claimed that this discretionary power was not consistently applied. They further maintained that the law in question had no provision regulating the renewal of employment upon acquittal in criminal proceedings. They essentially argued that the law was not foreseeable enough and that, for these reasons, it did not satisfy the requirement of lawfulness from Article 8 of the Convention. The applicants further argued that the definitive termination of their employment solely on the basis of the initiation of criminal proceedings was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."], "id": "aa26d3a0-64bf-47c0-aff3-eee11de19b84", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["163. The applicant contended that there had been with his private life as a result of his dismissal from the post of judge of the Supreme Court. That interference had not been lawful, as the grounds for liability for \u201cbreach of oath\u201d had been drafted too vaguely; domestic law had not provided for any limitation periods that were applicable to the dismissal proceedings and had thus not provided adequate safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness; moreover, it had not set out an appropriate scale of sanctions for disciplinary liability ensuring its application on a proportionate basis. For those reasons, it had not been compatible with the requirements of the \u201cquality of law\u201d. The applicant further asserted that the interference in question had not been necessary in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "4b419c29-baca-4e72-803e-52f1f568f584", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government acknowledged that those who used the telephone had an expectation of privacy in respect of the numbers which they dialled and that obtaining detailed billing information concerning that telephone constituted an with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8. The obtaining of the information was, however, necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of crime and/or the protection of the rights of others, as the investigation concerned a very serious crime, the applicants had guns for use in the intended robbery and, as B. was surveillance-conscious, conventional surveillance would not suffice. The only use of the information was to corroborate the times recorded by police officers in respect of the covert listening device in the flat. "], "id": "0ac42041-69c1-4e99-b1b8-c9be48bbc3aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government firstly maintained that the institution of the proceedings in issue could not be seen as an with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her private life. The legal consequences of divesting a person of his or her legal capacity came into play only after the decision to that effect became final. In the proceedings in issue a complete psychiatric assessment of the applicant\u2019s mental health would be carried out. In these proceedings the applicant was represented by a guardian ad litem whose competences were prescribed by law."], "id": "d5cb90a8-d4e6-4f67-85e3-bbbd7b63af55", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government claimed that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was not applicable to the present case. They referred to the Court\u2019s case-law, which stated that that Article did not concern the regulation of civil-law rights between parties under private law. The domestic courts\u2019 decisions according to the rules of private law cannot be seen as an unjustified State with the property rights of one of the parties. They relied on the judgment Zhukovskiye v. Russia (no. 23166/04, 13 January 2011) and two cases cited therein, Kucha\u0159 and \u0160tis v. Czech Republic ((dec.), no. 37527/97, 21 October 1998), and S.\u00d6., A.K., Ar.K. and Y.S.P.E.H.V. v. Turkey ((dec.) 31138/96, 14 September 1999)) and claimed that the subject matter of the present case was precisely a private-law dispute because it related to the contract between the applicant and V. They alleged that the State had not been involved in the sale and purchase contract and had not compelled the parties to conclude it. It was therefore up to the parties to bear the consequences of the transaction. The Government therefore requested that the Court dismiss this complaint as inadmissible ratione materiae."], "id": "bea91c35-c654-471a-adbe-705b2df396cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government submitted that any resulting from the retention of the applicants\u2019 fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles was justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2. It was in accordance with the law as expressly provided for, and governed by section 64 of PACE, which set out detailed powers and restrictions on the taking of fingerprints and samples and clearly stated that they would be retained by the authorities regardless of the outcome of the proceedings in respect of which they were taken. The exercise of the discretion to retain fingerprints and samples was also, in any event, subject to the normal principles of law regulating discretionary power and to judicial review."], "id": "35c6c8c3-6cff-4a0d-9eac-204d18de0973", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["92. The Government admitted that certain letters from the applicant to the Secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights and to the Registry of the Court had been intercepted and forwarded from the detention centre to the prosecutor's office competent to deal with the applicant's case. The envelopes of these letters were stamped \u201csubject to censorship\u201d (\u201cocenzurowano\u201d). However, no with the contents of the letters by the prison guards or by the prosecutor had been established. Under domestic law in fore at the relevant time the correspondence of detained persons had automatically been subjected to screening by the authorities conducting criminal proceedings. The prosecutor had had a margin of discretion in deciding whether to intercept, open and read the correspondence of the detainee. The Government maintained that in the present case the stamp on the envelope of the letters to the Convention organs could not be regarded as sufficient proof that these letters had been so intercepted, opened and read. "], "id": "1d677b9d-a41b-48d2-9940-67984bba4a60", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant maintained that there had been an with his right to respect for his private life and his correspondence. He did not dispute the existence of a statutory basis for the interference, but referred to section 7(4) of the Law on Operational Activities, according to which a judge\u2019s authorisation could be issued for a period of only three months. He was not aware of any extensions of that authorisation, and an interception which had continued for more than one year had therefore been in breach of domestic law."], "id": "a3b56d66-01c8-4524-8cc5-f15975aad201", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicants argued that the with their property rights could not be justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The policies of the \u201cTRNC\u201d could not furnish a legitimate aim since the establishment of the \u201cTRNC\u201d had been an illegitimate act condemned by the UN Security Council. For the same reason, the interference could not be found to be in accordance with the law and the general principles of international law. Nor had it been proportionate. The need to rehouse displaced Turkish Cypriots could not justify the complete negation of the applicants' property rights. This conclusion was reinforced by the existence of evidence that much of the property taken from Greek Cypriots had been used to house settlers from mainland Turkey. In particular, the applicants' properties had not been used to house displaced Turkish Cypriots from the south, as since 1974 Famagusta had become a ghost town."], "id": "c3b84210-5538-466a-82dc-15d6cbc38607", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government pointed out that, while Article 8 did in principle apply to cases concerning aliens, an alien\u2019s family life had to be reconciled with the State\u2019s prerogatives in immigration cases. The Court had consistently affirmed in its case-law the principle that the State Parties to the Convention were entitled to control the entry of non-nationals into their territory and that that prerogative, which could result in with the alien\u2019s family life, had to be exercised in conformity with the second paragraph of Article 8. In the Government\u2019s submission, keeping an alien in detention after he or she had attempted to enter the national territory without complying with the relevant conditions and had asked to be given refugee status while the application for asylum was considered could not in itself be considered to constitute a violation of his or her family life. Detention enabled the State to issue a deportation order that would be enforceable in practice in the event of the request for asylum being turned down. The Government accepted that it was legitimate to enquire whether these principles ought to be moderated when the immigrant concerned was a young child. However, they nevertheless considered that in the instant case there had been no infringement of the second applicant\u2019s family life for several reasons:"], "id": "cbd34b12-2fd9-4a70-aef0-73f71d92c0a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government disagreed. They accepted that the first applicant\u2019s psychiatric examination constituted with his private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. They argued, however, that this interference was justified under paragraph 2 of the provision at issue. In particular, the assessment had been carried out based on Mrs L.\u2019s complaints about the first applicant\u2019s deviant behaviour, which had posed a threat to her own safety and the safety of others. These complaints had not been unsubstantiated; in particular, in June 2000 the first applicant had injured Mrs L. Other villagers had also complained to various authorities about the first applicant\u2019s provocative conduct. The Government submitted in this regard copies of complaints concerning the first applicant\u2019s conduct signed by various individuals and dated 2000 \u2013 2003. In the light of this, the first applicant\u2019s psychiatric examination had pursued a legitimate aim \u2013 namely, protection of the rights of others. It had been necessary in a democratic society and was conducted in accordance with the law. In particular, the relevant provision was section 11 of the Law of Ukraine \u201cOn Psychiatric Assistance\u201d, authorising forcible psychiatric assessments of persons manifesting real intention to commit acts putting others in danger. Lastly, the Government submitted that the lawfulness of the application of that provision in the first applicant\u2019s case had been confirmed by judicial authorities of two levels in the course of the contested proceedings."], "id": "c3db6b32-7420-441d-8ade-3ac3f7985159", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["121. The applicant maintained that the respondent State had failed to comply with its obligation under the procedural limb of Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation into her sterilisation. A criminal investigation into the case should have been started at the initiative of the authorities after they had been informed about the . The general investigation into the sterilisation of Roma women which the Government had initiated could not be considered effective in respect of the applicant\u2019s own case. Similarly, the civil proceedings brought by the applicant had not complied with the requirements of Article 3. In particular, the applicant had been placed in a difficult position as the courts had been bound to examine the case only in the light of the parties\u2019 submissions, and the burden of proof had lain on the latter. Those proceedings had not led to the identification and punishment of those responsible."], "id": "44145768-56fe-47b6-aa91-449283b74bca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicant next contended that the with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the temporary occupation of his estate by the consolidated police units had not been justified. He argued that the Government's reference to \u201ca situation of war or public emergency which threatens the life of the nation\u201d was unconvincing as a state of emergency had never been declared either nationwide or within the area of the counter-terrorist operation and that in any event the Russian authorities had never availed themselves of their right under Article 15 of the Convention to derogate from their obligations under the Convention."], "id": "8a3c725b-c89c-4c45-91d5-8dca2d7ea307", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["103. The Government submitted that any with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8 of the Convention had been lawful and necessary. The refusals to allow them to use the experimental product had been reasoned, made by an independent authority, and based on legal provisions which were fully in line with European Union law. It could therefore be presumed that they were compliant with the Convention. Those provisions, which took into account the need to strike a balance between the public interest and personal autonomy, sought to protect the health and life of those concerned by preventing abuses and the risks accompanying the use of untested products. For that purpose they had laid down certain conditions, which in the applicants\u2019 cases had not been met. That regulatory arrangement could not be described as a blanket prohibition on the \u201ccompassionate use\u201d of unauthorised medicinal products."], "id": "16c4dfa0-b9ec-4d5f-887a-af8b08feb560", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["102. The applicant contended that his detention constituted an unjustifiable with his private and family life, his physical and moral integrity and with his honour, good name and reputation. He referred to restrictions consequent on his detention and, in particular, to the lack of a lawful basis for his detention, to his being handcuffed for his court appearances during his detention and to his position as a minor (without charge or conviction) in a penal institution."], "id": "578f4887-a425-4661-99d2-bf8aeab48bc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["119. The Government did not call into question the applicants' ownership of the property in issue, nor dispute the argument that the persons referred to had entered the house against the applicants' will. The Court is therefore satisfied that the actions of the aforementioned men constituted an with the applicants' right to respect for their home secured by Article 8 of the Convention and their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court further notes the absence of any justification on the part of the State for its agents' actions in that regard. It accordingly finds that there has been a violation of the applicants' right to respect for their home under Article 8 of the Convention and their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "d216ba80-39cb-437b-8080-50013c0fe1d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["320. The Government noted that the Ukrainian law in force at the material time allowed the authorities to review letters addressed to the European Court of Human Rights. Following changes introduced to Article 113 of the Code on the Enforcement of Sentences and Order no. 275 of the Prison Department (see paragraph 118 above), correspondence sent to the European Court of Human Rights can no longer be reviewed. Nevertheless, the Government stated that although the procedure was not in conformity with the Convention and its case-law, there was no evidence of the authorities' with the applicants' correspondence."], "id": "e1215356-2aee-4ea6-86cf-bc8a64c48ca0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants maintained that video surveillance of their cells at all times had constituted a severe with their right to respect for their private life. They acknowledged that they had been notified by the administrations of their penal institutions about such practice. The first applicant confirmed that he had signed a written document to that effect, but argued that it had been a pure formality, as CCTV monitoring was used regardless of whether a detainee had signed such a document, or had refused to do so. The applicants also insisted that the fact that they had been aware of the permanent video surveillance and the fact that it had been carried out by female guards had exacerbated the humiliation and anxiety they had suffered on account of such an intrusive measure."], "id": "08113743-35fc-46d5-96a4-651ba7315d1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government conceded that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they argued that the interference in the form of the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to order the return of the applicant\u2019s son to the United States had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim, and had been necessary in a democratic society. In particular, the decision had been based on Article 13 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Hague Convention and had sought to protect the rights of others, namely the applicant\u2019s son."], "id": "ca460c1c-7c39-479e-9c88-95a143c255bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["181. The applicant companies rely on the relative anonymity of the natural persons whose names and data featured in the newspaper and were accessible via the SMS service, as well as the sheer amount of data published, to downplay any with their privacy rights, suggesting that the more they published the less they interfered with privacy given what they described as a \u201cblending in\u201d factor (see paragraph 103 above). However, even assuming that such a factor could operate to attenuate or diminish the degree of interference resulting from the impugned publication, it fails to take into account the personal nature of the data and the fact that it was provided to the competent tax authorities for one purpose but accessed by the applicant companies for another. It also ignores the fact that the manner and extent of the publication meant that, in one way or another, the resulting publication extended to the entire adult population, uncovered as beneficiaries of a certain income if included in the list but also of not being in receipt of such an income if excluded because of the threshold salaries involved (see also paragraph 157 above). It is the mass collection, processing and dissemination of data which data protection legislation such as that at issue before the domestic courts is intended to address."], "id": "e4395ca5-2bae-473b-a79e-f2ead8267e75", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicants argued, in particular, that the in question had not been lawful, as the domestic courts had failed to establish that the first applicant had posed any danger to the second applicant, that being a prerequisite for restricting parental authority under Article 73 \u00a7 2 of the Russian Family Code. The applicants submitted that the domestic courts had held instead that it would be \u201cundesirable\u201d to give custody of the girl to her father, which was not a legitimate ground for restriction under that Article."], "id": "c303645d-e256-40e0-98d9-b2404aa45e48", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant accepted that the judgments of the domestic courts had been based on the law in force at the material time. He stressed, however, that the Government had not advanced any reasons to show that the law in question had pursued a legitimate aim and that the had been necessary in a democratic society. The applicant submitted that the interference had not been necessary and was not justified for the following reasons."], "id": "5ef4e0c1-a8b8-4042-b79b-690b3f3c70e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["161. The applicants did not dispute that the was provided for by Articles 3 and 7 of the Order of 14 April 2010, as codified in Articles L. 232-5 and L. 232-15 of the Sports Code. However, they considered in general terms that decisions of the AFLD were not \u201claws\u201d as they were taken by an institution that was not empowered to lay down accessible and precise rules."], "id": "1db3cf7e-6691-49d0-a6c7-2db48b13f138", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["119. The applicants acknowledged that the was provided for by the Order of 14 April 2010, which had the status of law within the meaning of the Court\u2019s case-law, but disputed the assertion that decision no. 54 could be classified in this way. The purpose of their application was to challenge the constraints laid down by law and not those determined by the AFLD itself, which were liable to be changed simply by means of a decision. They cited as an example the daily time slot, which was laid down solely by a decision of the AFLD. Given the non-binding nature of the UNESCO Convention the Agency could, by means of a similar decision, require athletes to be available for a three-hour period."], "id": "30f351f8-31c5-4abd-8ed7-8ac3ee9e35c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government observed that detention entailed inherent limitations on private and family life. They did not contest that the second applicant\u2019s inability to receive an MP3 player from J.G. had interfered with his right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention. However, the Government was of the view that that had been in accordance with the law (see paragraphs 24 and 27 above) and had pursued the legitimate aim of motivating inmates to work, to communicate with their relatives and to enhance their social ties, as well as the aim of preventing the possession of items acquired by criminal means."], "id": "6429b06a-4b75-4473-a64f-6dc67fd3d5b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["171. The Government recalled that in March 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court had found that no family life within the meaning of Article 8 had existed between the applicant and E. Any with such family life on account of the applicant\u2019s expulsion order and the enforcement thereof was, and would be, grounded on the Aliens Act and further a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2."], "id": "724a36d4-124d-45ab-a272-53f5bb4c2d28", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government pointed out in that regard that introducing automatic deletion or anonymisation of reports after a certain period of time would not solve the issue raised by the present applications. In their view, the answer to the question whether any given report should be made anonymous on grounds of the right to protection of personality depended on a number of concrete circumstances specific to each report and on the degree of with the competing rights at stake. Such an examination could only be carried out by qualified persons who were competent to perform the necessary balancing exercise."], "id": "f4c8141f-c7cd-4afe-9e92-c43d5a109329", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["152. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention and that there had been no with his rights. He had not complained that his communications had been intercepted. The gist of his complaint before the domestic courts and the Court was that communications service providers had installed special equipment enabling the authorities to perform operational-search activities. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the case of Orange Slovensko, a. s. v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 43983/02, 24 October 2006) confirmed that installation of interception equipment, or even its financing, by private companies was not in itself contrary to the Convention."], "id": "7cb41ce1-7b58-4294-b024-64be4d36b8b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the expulsion order was \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime. As to the question of whether the was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d, the Government emphasised that the Danish courts had struck a fair balance between the opposing interests and carefully assessed the applicant\u2019s personal circumstances in accordance with Article 8 and the Court\u2019s case-law, including Maslov v. Austria, cited above. In making an overall assessment, they had attached significant weight to the two robberies committed, one in a private home and one a bank robbery, and to the circumstance that the applicant had prior convictions for robberies, including two convictions after he had attained the age of 18 (see also Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VI). Having regard to the subsidiarity principle, the Court should therefore be reluctant to disregard the outcome of the assessment made by the national courts."], "id": "f329efc7-1dbb-443d-9902-955e7de22af9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["133. The Government argued that the restrictions in question were necessary and proportionate in order to tackle new doping methods. Some prohibited substances such as growth hormones and EPO had a very short life and became impossible to detect after a few days or even a few hours, and there were numerous means of avoiding detection. There was broad international consensus on the necessity of unannounced tests and how they should be conducted, as evidenced by the undertakings given by States in ratifying the UNESCO Convention and the fact that 660 bodies representing all the actors involved in anti-doping (with the exception of the professional sports leagues in the United States), as well as the AFLD, abided by the WADC (see paragraph 68 above). The Government concluded from this that States had a wide discretion with regard to the complained of."], "id": "8b2a08bf-3985-4be5-a322-ad590d474ed7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicants accepted that any informed assessment of whether an with Article 8 rights was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d would be accorded a margin of appreciation, the width of that margin depending on the context. However, they submitted that in the present case the margin should be narrow, because deprivation of sleep by exposure to excessive noise, like the infliction of inhuman or degrading treatment, was a matter which could and should be judged by similar standards in similar Contracting States. "], "id": "194a3e46-56b9-4bf8-b297-86cf5aacd663", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government agreed that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her private life. However, they argued that the interference was provided for by law, namely by Article 8 of Law No. 982 on access to information (see paragraph 20 above), had pursued a legitimate aim, and had been necessary in a democratic society. The Government stressed that, in their view, the present case very much resembled the case of M.S. v. Sweden (27 August 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011IV) and asked the Court to adopt a similar approach to it."], "id": "1bf3d95a-75a1-402d-8b84-f3de9ffd8456", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government in their preliminary objections referred to the applicant\u2019s right to request the court to examine his case in private. The Court observes that the domestic law does not provide that there should necessarily be a party\u2019s request for an in camera hearing of the case; the trial court can order it of its own motion (paragraph 32 above). The law does, however, oblige the authorities to take all possible measures to protect the private life of the individuals from unnecessary (paragraph 29 above)."], "id": "11748f94-35a0-43f7-bd76-776fa6589a13", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government maintained the position that there had been no by a public authority. The police had merely indicated to Mrs S. a way of obtaining evidence against the applicant, and had provided technical assistance. At the decisive moments Mrs S. had acted of her own free will. She had not performed any actions that, in the context of a criminal investigation, were reserved for the police or the criminal justice authorities. There had been nothing to prevent her from using a cassette tape recorder to record her telephone conversations with the applicant."], "id": "9e058a0b-a49a-4086-b160-d690815c9b1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government claimed at the outset that the initial removal of L. from Ukraine was not wrongful for the purposes of the Hague Convention, given that the applicant herself had authorised L.\u2019s travel for the period between 30 July 2010 and 28 February 2011. They next submitted that the with the applicant\u2019s family life on account of her son\u2019s retention in Georgia had a legal basis, namely Article 13 \u00a7 b of the Hague Convention. It had also served the legitimate aim of protecting the child\u2019s best interests. Specifically, they maintained, in line with the reasoning of the first-instance court and the Supreme Court, that if returned to Ukraine L. would be exposed to psychological harm. The Government stressed that the domestic courts had relied on all the evidence adduced in the case, including two social welfare reports produced by the relevant authorities in respect of the child\u2019s general situation and emotional state of mind, and evidence given by a psychologist concerning the boy\u2019s psychological condition. In view of these reports they maintained that L.\u2019s separation from his father would further aggravate his psychological trauma and hence was not in the child\u2019s best interests."], "id": "b3e4ca25-ea9f-4bef-b39b-b82409073396", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government, in their memorandum of 9 July 2003, submitted that the applicant had not been a victim of the alleged violation. They claimed that the applicant had lived in the contested flat without any legal title. She had not been the spouse of the tenant of the flat and she had had no legal entitlement to continuation of the tenancy after his death. Therefore, in the Government\u2019s opinion, there was no with her rights under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "49cf0934-f771-4746-abb5-f505a6f8e341", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government emphasised that it was not in dispute that from 1980 until 1991 the applicant had worked as a driver in the KGB. Furthermore, the with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life was in accordance with law and it was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government pointed out that for the transfer from a totalitarian regime to a democratic system, Estonia took various measures which, in aggregate, had to ensure the development and security of the democratic system. Criminal liability for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed under the totalitarian regime was established and an obligation to take an oath of conscience was introduced for those seeking the highest offices in the country. The Disclosure Act dealt with the persons who had not committed any crimes but had been employed by or collaborated with the intelligence or counterintelligence authorities of the States which had occupied Estonia. It was found that such persons had to come to terms with their past and not to try to forget, conceal or be silent about it. There was also a significant public interest in the publicity of information relating to the past; this had to guarantee transparency and clarity as well as overall internal peace in the society. Obtaining complete information about the members and agents of the security and intelligence authorities which had operated on the territory of Estonia was also important for the protection of independence and security of the Republic of Estonia. Estonia was lacking the relevant information; such information, including the lists of persons who had worked in the KGB, was in the hands of foreign States. There could be attempts to recruit former staff of the security authorities and make them perform security or intelligence tasks, or they could be subject to blackmailing. Such situation was dangerous and damaging for Estonia. The Government referred to recent cases where former employees or collaborators of the KGB had provided a foreign country with state secrets leading to their conviction of treason."], "id": "218675fe-70b5-41d7-971a-338ec48b823b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that, to the extent that the drafting of the report was to be regarded as an with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 of the Convention, it had been in accordance with the domestic legislation in force at the material time. Furthermore, it had been necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety and the prevention of disorder."], "id": "9871a5f0-4a74-4b37-9205-782c5977f04f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government acknowledged that the use of closed overalls amounted to an with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private life. The interference had a basis in national law, especially in Section 9d of the Act on Execution of Sentences and in other orders and rules in force at the relevant time, and it pursued the legitimate aims of public safety, prevention of disorder or crime and protection of health and rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "32d9497a-d66c-4b5d-a777-7ef4a2336df5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant contended that the decisions of the Romanian courts dealing with his request for the return of his child and the position of the Romanian Ministry throughout the proceedings, initiated at his request under the Hague Convention, constituted an with his right to respect for his family life. The authorities made it impossible for him to have his child returned to the family\u2019s common residence and to exercise his parental rights according to Hungarian law."], "id": "cd2e1144-babf-460c-8ba1-fdc98688b79b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government, by their own admission, had recognised that the applicant did not have any procedural status as regards her husband's complaint, as criminal proceedings had never been instituted. This, she argued, would have made it all the more difficult for her to have gained knowledge or possession of a copy of the contested police decision any earlier. Moreover, the Constitutional Court, when rejecting her complaint as out of time, had taken the date of the issuance of the police decision, namely 3 July 2000, as the key date. This ran counter to the provision in section 53 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act which stipulated that the time\u2011limit was to be counted from the date on which the plaintiff learned or could have learned about the contested measure or other complained of."], "id": "e52dbbf2-0cdc-4db0-bb4e-4bd2b6ee3b0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies by not complaining about the privacy of his meeting with his lawyer and by complaining about the with correspondence to the wrong court (the investigating judge, who did not have authority to deal with such matters) instead of the common courts. They added that the applicant\u2019s correspondence had not been interfered with. The few letters which he had submitted as evidence, bearing the stamp of the prison authorities, had been sent without an envelope by the sender. They were addressed to the prison authorities and a copy was to be given to the applicant. As to the meeting of 30 July 2007, it had taken place in a special room where privacy had been ensured. Since the applicant had already been convicted by that time, the meeting could not have referred to any issues concerning detention pending trial, and thus Article 5 \u00a7 4 did not apply. This distinguishes the present case from the cases of Castravet v. Moldova (no. 23393/05, \u00a7\u00a7 45-61, 13 March 2007); Istratii and Others v. Moldova (nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, \u00a7\u00a7 85-101, 27 March 2007); and Modarca v. Moldova (no. 14437/05, \u00a7\u00a7 83-99, 10 May 2007), where the Court has found violations of Article 5 \u00a7 4."], "id": "580c18b0-b452-450c-9fb6-a7388814317d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government contended, as they did at the admissibility stage, that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention as they had not sought redress by means of an action under Article 11 et seq. of the Civil Code as regards the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention. In the Government's view, that remedy was effective within the meaning of the Court's case-law as it gave the applicants the opportunity to have the unjustified with their personal rights stopped and also to obtain financial compensation for any non-pecuniary damage which they may have suffered. That remedy was thus also capable of remedying the negative consequences of the protracted length of the proceedings complained of."], "id": "acd32a1d-d590-4cd2-a1bc-e8691f59d167", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that it had not been confirmed that the impugned letter was indeed intercepted, and if so, whether it was intercepted and opened by the authorities. They referred to the fact that the notice on the envelope which indicated that the letter had been opened and read was not signed. Should the Court accept that this was indeed the case, the Government decline to take a stand as to whether this amounted to an with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "93355cb6-ddec-421b-9b4d-dd089d66e1ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government stressed the important role of digital archives for the collective memory, as they helped to document contemporary history by preserving printed materials and information published only in digital form. In their view, imposing an ongoing obligation on the media to verify their digital archives in order to make reports anonymous would constitute excessive . Contrary to the applicants\u2019 claims, such an obligation would require considerable efforts on the part of the media in terms of both personnel and technical resources, especially since the quantity of digital archives was increasing constantly."], "id": "4a533f27-7621-44f6-a373-36d4b9de94f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["202. The applicant alleged that the pastor who attempted to visit him was denied access in June and September 2009. This was confirmed by the pastor in a letter to the Court (see paragraph 45 above). The two respondent Governments have not made any submissions on this point. The Court sees no reason to doubt the description of the facts provided by the applicant and the pastor and accepts that there was with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of religion."], "id": "364ba6f0-20b0-4cbd-b5c9-1abf7ea3af87", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicants disagreed. They pointed out that they had lived as a family in Bulgaria and that there was no doubt that the first applicant\u2019s expulsion represented an with their right to family life. They argued that the measures against the first applicant had been arbitrary, since the allegations against him had remained unproven and had been unsupported by any evidence. Moreover, according to the applicants it was doubtful whether some of the actions alleged on the first applicant could indeed be seen as impinging upon the national security of Bulgaria. Lastly, the Supreme Administrative Court had applied a formalistic approach, failing to verify the executive\u2019s allegations against the first applicant, and had failed to respond in a meaningful manner to his arguments related to his right to family life."], "id": "16e6afb6-51ed-4a04-bab7-dc7507d98591", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicants argued that the approach taken by the domestic courts as regards the protection of their child\u2019s personality was dangerous. In particular, they argued that if the perception by an individual of a potential with his image and, a fortiori, his personality were to be a prerequisite for his judicial protection, then the dignity and integrity of certain categories of persons could be at risk."], "id": "d01a902d-9ab3-40f4-a8c8-56030d3cee46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government further held that if the Court were to find that there had been an with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their family life, it was evident that the expulsion orders against the first, second and fourth applicants were in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They further argued that the regulation in the Aliens Act served the legitimate aim of protecting the economic well-being of Sweden and preventing disorder."], "id": "10474cdd-158f-4538-ae89-d16080061444", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government emphasised that even supposing that there had been , the German legal system guaranteed sufficient protection. They observed that the present application did not concern the applicant\u2019s right to seek an injunction against the advertisement (Unterlassungsansruch), which the Regional Court had recognised and which had therefore not been the subject of the impugned proceedings. The question was not whether but how the German courts should have intervened. On that point the Government took the view that the possibility provided for in German law of applying for an injunction provided adequate protection against advertising. The applicant had not in fact made any attempt to seek protection against the advertisement, but rather had hoped to derive a pecuniary advantage, even though Article 8 of the Convention did not provide for any such compensation."], "id": "3bdc7859-b199-4b1b-a469-29045882da73", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["143. The applicant submitted that the ban imposed by the public authorities on wearing the Islamic headscarf clearly constituted with her right to education, which had resulted in her being refused access to oncology examinations on 12 March 1998, prevented from enrolling with the university\u2019s administrative department on 20 March 1998, and refused access to a lecture on neurology on 16 April 1998 and a written examination on public health on 10 June 1998."], "id": "6b58d9e7-662e-443b-a7b0-53e41dcefe9b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant said that she defended the rights of the child. In France it was possible to act as if the mother did not exist, whereas in most countries in the world birth automatically created parental ties between the mother and the child she had brought into the world. By a legal fiction and because she had expressly sought confidentiality, the applicant's mother was deemed never to have given birth. The applicant described how difficult it was for her to live without knowing her original identity and complained not only of the arbitrary in her life as an ordinary citizen caused by the system used to preserve confidentiality, but also of culpable failure on the part of the domestic authorities through their refusal to disclose the requested information even though it was available in the file."], "id": "ee8db177-4d51-45f7-9773-506eae3ef747", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["823. The Government maintained that there had been no with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8 of the Convention. The Government emphasised that any limitation of the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8 was related to their criminal conviction and was inherent in the very concept of criminal punishment. The Government described the geographical position of the Krasnokamensk colony (where the first applicant had been sent) and the Kharp colony (where the second applicant had been sent) and transport routes linking them to Moscow, where the applicants\u2019 families lived. They concluded that there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 private lives on account of their placement in those particular penal colonies."], "id": "e3f44f11-aa89-4a64-bcd0-0dc11179c78e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["138. The applicant maintained that her inclusion in the testing pool from 2008 onwards constituted serious and repeated with her private life. In practice, the unannounced tests took place at her home or at her temporary lodgings when she was travelling, as this was the only fixed point where she could definitely be located. This requirement had had an impact on all her family, and therefore also amounted to interference with family life."], "id": "7b7e6a52-b2ca-4a34-bd89-9b641a8c8f54", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["157. The Government concluded, in view of the above, that the present case was different from Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria (no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007) where the Court had refused to apply the \u201creasonable likelihood\u201d test because of the absence of any safeguards against unlawful interception in Bulgaria. Given that Russian law provided for adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse in the sphere of interception of communications, including available remedies, in the Government\u2019s opinion the applicant could not claim an as a result of the mere existence of legislation permitting secret surveillance. In the absence of a \u201creasonable likelihood\u201d that his telephone communications had been intercepted, he could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "4ab0eee6-cb55-499d-b6c2-e2278e64acf1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government considered that the with the applicant companies' rights did not appear disproportionate, regard being had to the scale of the operations conducted simultaneously in order to prevent the disappearance or concealment of evidence whose production had been necessary for the prosecution of offences. They also relied on the margin of appreciation left to States in assessing the need for interference. It was accepted that the entitlement to interfere was more far-reaching where business premises or professional activities were concerned. In the instant case, the right of inspection had been exercised on juristic persons' business premises, which were not always at the official address of their registered office, and had not been accompanied by \u201cintrusive\u201d measures such as searches or coercion. In any event, the Government submitted that the applicant companies could not claim to have sustained any obvious damage as a result of the interference, as they had not alleged a violation of their right until many years after the impugned measures had been taken."], "id": "ca91e0e0-01f5-4df1-9b5e-52d6a899903b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government made the following observations on the merits of Ms Polyakova\u2019s and Mr Yeliashvili\u2019s applications. Article 81 of the CES provided for a convict to be transferred to another penal facility on health or safety grounds, for administrative reasons in the event of reorganisation or liquidation of the facility in which he or she had been detained, and \u201cin other exceptional circumstances\u201d. The CES did not provide for an exhaustive list of such exceptional circumstances, because it would be unfeasible to envision all possible life situations in which it could be necessary to transfer a convict to another facility. The Government concluded that an alleged with the right to respect for private and/or family life could serve as grounds for a convict\u2019s transfer to another facility. They did not provide any examples from the practice of the domestic courts to illustrate their submissions."], "id": "b34a693d-b881-450a-80a6-41d1c3a4d01f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government noted that the impugned took place on two occasions between 24 November 2004 and 31 January 2005 when the applicant was in detention on remand. The Government referred to the amendments introduced to the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences on 24 July 2003, but did not point to a concrete basis in the domestic law that would justify such interference."], "id": "b86d998f-66ff-4285-9769-f6921f0e6ade", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicants further submitted that the Supreme Court had been unfair in finding that they had accepted the with their rights by having chosen to settle in the building that had been built in 1952, after the launch of the plant\u2019s industrial activities in 1939. They argued that the building had been constructed during Soviet times when any construction of that type fell within the exclusive competence of the State and, in any event, they had only learnt about the danger emanating from the plant after they had moved into the building."], "id": "5b76a714-b7da-499c-84da-d358f242bc6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government, acknowledging that the measures complained of had constituted an with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life, maintained that the restriction and subsequent prohibition of contact with his daughter had had a basis in national law, namely section 106 of the MFR Act, and that they had been aimed at protecting S.\u2019s best interests. The Government pointed to the requirement to give due weight to the wishes of a child who was capable of understanding the meaning and implications of the proceedings, observing that S. had consistently refused to accept having contact with the applicant, a strength of feeling which, despite the intensive involvement of a number of specialists and two social work centres in the case, had only deepened with time. In this regard, the Government noted the findings of a number of psychologists, according to which S. had been evaluated as mature for her age and resolute in her thinking and expression. Two experts had assessed her rejection of the applicant as genuine and not the result of external manipulation; they had noted that the level of conflict between the applicant and S. was so severe that she could not have, at the time, re-established an emotional connection with her father. On the other hand, the applicant had showed no willingness to adjust his attitude and had considered contact to be his exclusive right and not also that of his daughter. Having regard to these considerations and the conclusions of the expert panels, the Government maintained that the restriction and subsequent prohibition of contact had been necessary and justified by relevant and sufficient reasons."], "id": "20bd2c66-f19d-4323-896a-f8534d3ac656", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government submitted that the applicant did not have the status of a victim and that there had been no with his right to respect for his private life or his correspondence, because, as evident from the letter of the National Security Agency, he had not been subjected to secret surveillance. His supposition that he had been subjected to such surveillance, formed wrongly on the basis of random incidents, was erroneous. A perusal of his applications and requests showed that he had mistakenly interpreted certain facts. By law, the class of persons who could be subjected to surveillance was quite limited, as were the authorities which could request such surveillance. In that connection, it was not to be overlooked that in 2008\u201109 the Special Surveillance Means Act 1997 and the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act 1988 had been amended, reinforcing the relevant safeguards. The law now provided for judicial authorisation of secret surveillance and for written notification of those concerned in cases of unlawful surveillance. Moreover, the 1988 Act provided for State liability in cases of unlawful surveillance."], "id": "a9a581c7-f1b7-4857-8dda-fd15dc3cdab3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that the limitation on the number of prison visits had been based on section 18 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act and had been proportionate to the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder and crime because the applicant had been held in custody on account of the gravity of the charges against him and his capacity for obstructing the establishment of the truth. Glass partitions were fitted in accordance with the Rules of Internal Order in Remand Prisons and served to prevent any objects from being passed between detainees and visitors and also to protect visitors from spontaneous dangerous acts on the part of detainees, as well as for the reasons of hygiene, to stifle the spread of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. In the Government\u2019s view, removal of partitions would require a greater number of supervising officers and a closer monitoring of detainees and visitors. This would probably reduce the privacy available to them and bring about a more serious with their right to respect for family life."], "id": "76556119-9ca2-42c9-9d1b-71da87d1848e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant went on to argue that the above arguments also showed that there had been an with his Article 8 rights. That interference had not complied with the requirements of the second paragraph of that provision, as interpreted by the Court in relation to secret surveillance. The applicant drew attention to the Court\u2019s findings in Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev (cited above), and laid particular emphasis on the Court\u2019s finding that under Bulgarian law it was not possible to obtain any information about the use of special means of surveillance. In the applicant\u2019s view, that impossibility was in breach of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court, the Access to Public Information Act 2000, and the laws governing protection of personal data. The national courts\u2019 rulings in the three cases brought by him had disregarded those provisions, thus doing away with an important safeguard against the unlawful use of secret surveillance. It was also necessary to point out that in Bulgaria there were no public reports on the overall operation of the system of secret surveillance, and that legal challenges aiming to obtain access to classified reports or statistical information about it had been unsuccessful. At the same time, the Bulgarian public had become aware, from scandals in the press, of a number of abuses of special means of surveillance on the part of the authorities."], "id": "6c6866ae-80e2-4259-966b-b230156118af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted that there had been no with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8. They pointed out that after the child\u2019s birth the applicant had decided not to assume responsibility for the burial of the body, even though he had been well aware of the hospital\u2019s procedure in such cases. The applicant had thus waived his right to bury his stillborn child and to know details of where the body was laid to rest. The hospital had never promised the applicant or his wife that it would bury the child\u2019s body in a particular manner, and no circumstances had existed which could have prompted the hospital to believe that the applicant or his wife would ever have wanted to visit the child\u2019s grave. The applicant had thus tacitly accepted that the hospital take care of the child\u2019s body in accordance with established procedure. The applicant and his wife had been left with sufficient time to think about whether they wished to take care of the body so they could not blame the hospital for their own failures, especially since no provision of the relevant domestic law obliged the hospital to take care of the child\u2019s body in a manner the applicant considered appropriate. Lastly, the Government pointed out that the decisions of the domestic authorities in the applicant\u2019s case had been based on the relevant domestic law and had not been unfair."], "id": "00a4d224-0643-41ed-9996-6240f0dc1e3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants complained that the freeing order was a disproportionate with their rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention because the domestic authorities failed to keep their assessment of their family situation under review and because the reasons given by the trial judge were neither relevant nor sufficient. The applicants also argued that, procedurally, it was improper for a freeing order to have been made in advance of an adoption order. If the freeing order had been refused, the applicants would have been able to participate at the adoption order hearing."], "id": "c7d66726-48d8-447a-a3a9-db8bcd44cfec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants stated that the main objective of the measure in question had been to impose the 72-hour rule on them. The authorities had thus twisted the real purpose of Article 76a of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to settle a conflict of opinion between parents and doctors, which could not be deemed to be in conformity with the law. Accordingly, the second applicant\u2019s return to the hospital had been ordered unnecessarily and without the conditions of Article 76a having been met since he had been in good health and in no danger. Doctor D.\u2019s note appeared too vague in that respect and could not be regarded as prima facie credible. The applicants argued that had there been an imminent danger in the present case, the doctor could have acted without the court\u2019s authorisation. As that had not been the case, the court should have taken a critical view of the doctor\u2019s observation in order to prevent unjustified and unnecessary in their rights. In their submission, the measure of 26 October 2007 had been based on a general supposition and the court had not examined whether there was any actual risk to the life or health of the second applicant. Furthermore, neither the first applicant nor her partner had in any way been involved in the decision-making process."], "id": "40100643-e1dc-48ce-a4ff-c4bb80e3d7b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant organisation contested that argument. It had relied in its appeal to the Federal Supreme Court on its right to freedom of expression and reiterated that any with B.K.\u2019s personality rights had been justified. Referring to its essential role as a public watchdog, the applicant organisation complained that the High Court\u2019s decision had prevented it from fulfilling its task of informing the public according to its statutory purpose and its publicly acknowledged standing. In general, it had contended before the Federal Supreme Court that there had been a breach of its right to pursue its information activities and thus a violation of its right to freedom of expression."], "id": "547f9d55-e90f-4032-b0db-ce8849cb4393", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government further submitted that the in issue had been necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2. Citing the Court\u2019s case-law (in particular, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, and Odi\u00e8vre, cited above), they observed that, in striking a fair balance between competing interests, the Court afforded States a certain margin of appreciation and that, in assessing whether or not they had overstepped that margin, it took particular care to ensure that the child\u2019s best interests were preserved. In the instant case the Government submitted that, in such a delicate situation as the abandonment of a child by a mother who wished the birth to be registered anonymously, the French legislation attempted to square the various interests at stake: those of the child, the mother and the adoptive family."], "id": "82199f00-1900-4c8d-90c4-4864b39c06f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government contended that Article 8 was not applicable on account of a lack of significant with the applicant\u2019s private life. They submitted that the measure complained of had not significantly affected the development of the applicant\u2019s social identity, or his ability to develop relationships with the outside world (contrast Bigaeva v. Greece (no. 26713/05, \u00a723, 28 May 2009, and Sidabras and D\u017eiautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, \u00a7 48, ECHR 2004\u2011VIII). Furthermore, the Bar\u2019s refusal to register the applicant as a lawyer came shortly after the entrance exam, and the applicant was free to choose between two different liberal professions, so the measure by no means banned him from becoming a lawyer."], "id": "303eeed0-6c83-467b-b326-b7f452dff707", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government accepted that the inspection and copying of the applicant\u2019s materials had constituted \u201c by a public authority\u201d with the applicant\u2019s \u201cprivate life\u201d. However, they denied that there had been any reading or copying of the applicant\u2019s \u201ccorrespondence\u201d. The photographs taken by the applicant and which had given rise to the copying procedure could not pass for such \u201ccorrespondence\u201d within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The customs officers had not read any personal correspondence and had not copied any email, Facebook or Skype passwords. The applicant had failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence of any \u201cinterference\u201d in that regard."], "id": "83ec0280-3de1-438a-8120-995982cae52f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant did not contest the lawfulness of the with his right to respect for his private life, but considered it unjustified. He first of all complained that the means used to achieve the aim of the measure were disproportionate. In his view, the provisions of Article 1 of the 1987 Decree on the aim of the measure were overly extensive in terms of scope and too vague in terms of definition. The authorities accordingly had excessive latitude, with sweeping, undifferentiated powers vis-\u00e0-vis the retention of data. He complained of a genuine risk of abuse on account of misconduct extending to other databases as well."], "id": "bba3c4ca-0248-4f84-afc7-3ef690852801", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant emphasised that the Austrian authorities, when examining the decision to lift his asylum status and to expel him, in respect of a possible with his right to respect for family life overlooked the fact that his wife and the two children, born in 2004 and 2007, had independent asylum status in Austria. In those asylum decisions, the Independent Asylum Panel explicitly stated that the applicant\u2019s wife had a well-founded fear of independent persecution if she returned to the Russian Federation. It followed that the applicant\u2019s wife and children could not reasonably be expected to follow the applicant to the Russian Federation to maintain family life; in fact, an expulsion of the applicant to the Russian Federation would render any effective family relations impossible."], "id": "5059de54-3f68-4f8c-a6d4-468742af8f57", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the decision rendered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal did not constitute an with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for family life. In this connection, the Government pointed out that at the time of the second applicant\u2019s removal, the first applicant had not had sole custody rights and the two spouses had not lived together since 23 January 2008, when a restraining order was issued against the first applicant. Furthermore, the Government pointed out that the first applicant had breached the restraining order."], "id": "f15635ba-17d9-4dbb-a1c8-edcff03814ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant company, on the other hand, submitted that it had been forced to cooperate and that by its very nature a search constituted with its right to inviolability of its private address (\u201chome\u201d). In the instant case the search had been disproportionate because it had had to be justified by aims other than ascertaining the identity of the author of the article, who had been readily identifiable. Even if such identification really had been the aim of the search, the latter had been disproportionate because the courts had had other means of obtaining this information, such as writing to the editor-in-chief for confirmation of the journalist\u2019s authorship."], "id": "3ebdc3c9-c2b1-43db-b22b-c625e75d3d44", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government stressed that, since the applicant\u2019s stay in Norway had been unlawful, the impugned expulsion did not constitute an with her right to respect for her family life for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention. The question was rather whether the Norwegian authorities \u201cwere under a duty to allow the .., applicant to reside\u201d in Norway, \u201cthus enabling [her] to maintain and develop family life\u201d in that country (see, Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, \u00a7 38, ECHR 2006\u2011I). In other words, the case should be regarded as \u201cone involving an allegation of failure on the part of the respondent State to comply with a positive obligation\u201d (ibid.)."], "id": "0bebdfbf-08aa-4d1d-bd5b-4ca5de035a9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant argued that the customs officials\u2019 actions had amounted to \u201c by a public authority\u201d with both his \u201cprivate life\u201d and his \u201ccorrespondence\u201d within the autonomous meanings arising from Article 8 of the Convention. That \u201cinterference\u201d had been unlawful because there had been no criminal investigation in respect of him and no court order, in breach of Article 23 of the Constitution, Article 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 8 of the Operational-Search Activities Act of 1995 (see paragraphs 25, 40 and 41 above). The domestic courts had failed to make any substantive findings on the matter of legality and had carried out no proportionality assessment in respect of the impugned \u201cinterference\u201d. It could not be reasonably accepted that the contested measures had been lawfully authorised by the Customs Code (namely Article 372) since that only concerned an \u201cinspection\u201d of \u201cvehicles, cargo and goods\u201d (see paragraph 28 above). The situation complained of had not fallen in any of the above categories. In particular, the electronic data on the applicant\u2019s laptop was not \u201cgoods\u201d within the ordinary meaning of that term under the Civil Code or the Customs Code."], "id": "b8e0d669-de01-4de2-bd51-c2353e750696", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants pointed out that unlike the child in R.K. and A.K., O.D. had serious health concerns from before birth which were unrelated to any child protection concerns. He therefore showed symptoms other than the unexplained fractures, such as an inability to gain weight. The Government's attempt to justify the with their right to respect for their family life by reference to these pre-existing medical conditions was inappropriate."], "id": "5d8b2396-cd35-4722-a86b-6f745f508fb9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant considered that F.\u2019s interest did not justify the with his right of access. In fact, the suspension of access exposed his child to danger for her health and well-being. The courts, relying on F.\u2019s statements, had ignored findings of modern psychology according to which a child did not have an independent will. In his view, F.\u2019s wishes had been manipulated in the course of the lengthy proceedings and a wrong image construed by her mother. Moreover, the delay in the proceedings and the failure to enforce the initial decisions ordering access had contributed to alienating F. from him."], "id": "e5a6e434-b111-42fe-82d2-525b25d5d31f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicants argued that it was well established from previous case-law that aircraft noise was capable of infringing the Article 8 rights of those sufficiently affected by it and that national authorities owed a positive duty to take steps to ensure the effective protection of these rights. Relying on earlier environmental cases and also child-care and other cases under Article 8, they submitted that the duty could be breached in circumstances where, having regard to the margin of appreciation, the Court considered that the State had struck the wrong substantive balance between the interest it pursued and the individual's effective enjoyment of the Article 8 right, or where there had been a procedural failing, such as the failure to disclose information to an individual affected by environmental nuisance or a failure to base a decision-making process on the relevant considerations or to give relevant and sufficient reasons for an with a fundamental right."], "id": "531af876-e764-4689-b2b2-7252bc9bfa5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant described in detail the relevant legal framework and on this basis alleged that the entirety of his mail whilst in detention, including that with his lawyers, had been monitored, not only before December 2000 and April 2006, but also after that. The legal basis for the until April 2006 had been defective and had been set aside by the national courts. The ensuing legal framework had remained unclear and was thus insufficient for the purposes of the Convention. Furthermore, the interference had not been necessary in a democratic society, as correspondence with lawyers was as a rule privileged."], "id": "dd66c89e-0d24-48f0-8328-911fd29f1057", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant contested the Government's assertion that the High Court had assessed the proportionality of the . He also rejected their contention that he courted attention on 20 August 1995. He further disputed their questioning of his motivation by their reference to his voluntary media appearances in 1996: his image had already been published and broadcast without his consent and he was identified by those who knew him. He then correctly pursued any remedies available, which procedures were public, and he could not be criticised for speaking about his predicament to responsible media. He faced the classic dilemma of one whose privacy has been interfered with: seeking a remedy and defending one's position by speaking out inevitably led to further publicity."], "id": "ea87851a-24b7-4a73-a074-6889e220b7a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government have not submitted any evidence which would indicate either that there was no reason for Dr W. to consult a dermatologist earlier than she did, or that even if she had, Schamberg's disease could not have been diagnosed any earlier. The Court is therefore satisfied that while there were relevant and sufficient reasons for the authorities to suspect abuse at the time the second applicant was admitted to hospital, the delay in consulting a dermatologist extended the with the applicants' right to respect for their family life and was not proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the second applicant from harm."], "id": "e636c033-bf86-40fe-9c9b-860cb951a952", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s right to correspondence had been restricted in accordance with Article 91 \u00a7 2 of the Penal Code. However, the scope of the right as guaranteed by this provision had not been violated. The Government averred that all the applicant\u2019s letters to the law-enforcement agencies, the Ombudsman, bar associations, his counsel and the Court had been sent to the addressees. The Government enclosed extracts of postal registers kept at Lgov remand prison IZ-46/2, remand prison IZ-46/1, Kursk Region, and correctional colony no. 11, Khabarovsk Region, pertaining to the applicant\u2019s correspondence. They also submitted that during his placement in remand prison IZ-46/1 the applicant had received a letter and two postal packets. The Government contended that there had been no with the applicant\u2019s correspondence."], "id": "3593942c-00ec-4c1a-befa-030e255265fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants maintained that the first and second applicants had had a relationship since the spring of 2001 and had been married since 2 February 2003. On 20 September 2006 a child had been born from their union, the third applicant. In the event of the first applicant's being expelled to Nigeria it would not be possible for the second and third applicants to follow him to settle there. The expulsion of the father would lead to the family being split, which would have particularly adverse consequences for the wife and the child and would amount to a disproportionate with the applicants' right to respect for private and family life."], "id": "c26f6012-9577-47e0-97f3-0cfebe011659", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government maintained that the had been in accordance with the law. They relied on the conclusions reached by the Senate of the Supreme Court to the effect that the MADEKKI was authorised to check the quality of health care not only in situations where it had received a complaint from a patient. The Senate was of the opinion that a provider of health care services, \u201cwith the aim of protecting public interests, is also entitled to request the assessment of the quality of medical care\u201d in order that, should any irregularities be found, they might be eliminated and their recurrence with respect to other patients avoided in the future."], "id": "eaba7705-9407-49bc-bda9-c440406d1786", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government did not contest that there had been an with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for private life. They nevertheless submitted that the interference had been lawful and had pursued a legitimate aim. Notably, the contested interception of the applicants\u2019 telephone conversations had been carried out in accordance with the Law on Operational Activities. Referring to the document provided by the Supreme Court (see paragraph 7 above), the Government contended that the interception of phone conversations had been duly authorised by a specially designated judge of the Supreme Court, as provided for by section 17 of the above law."], "id": "c40939b6-cd3f-4101-bed7-f35f7f65253d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["116. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The with the applicant's rights was not prescribed by law and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "1345b87f-f244-4deb-839d-2d31f3e22db2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant pointed out that the disciplinary sanction was imposed on the basis of Article 18 of the 1946 decree. That provision had been criticised for being of general application and its constitutionality had even been disputed before the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, the applicant maintained, it did not qualify as a law within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 11 and the had not therefore been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d. Furthermore, on the basis of the legislation in force and the case-law at the material time on the said Article 18, the applicant was entitled to believe that his membership of the Freemasons was not incompatible with the law."], "id": "020eb34e-a51f-4613-afde-5daae6577d98", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant further pointed out that the data on the content of communication had been obtained without the Slovenian authorities\u2019 involvement. The Slovenian authorities would have needed a court order for obtaining such data, but had avoided that otherwise necessary step by requesting the subscriber information on the basis of section 149b(3) of the CPA. As regards the letter, the applicant alleged that at the time when the Slovenian police had obtained the data connecting his IP address to his identity, the law regulating access to such data had not been clear (lex certa) and therefore the lawfulness required by the second paragraph of Article 8 had not been met. In particular, at the time of the (August 2006), the domestic law provisions regarding this issue had been contradictory. The second paragraph of Article 37 of the Constitution required a court order for interference with the right to privacy of communication. The ECA provided that traffic data should be kept secret and that communication could be intercepted only on the basis of an order by a competent authority. In the domestic legal system that could only be a court order or, theoretically, a prosecution order. Anyhow, under section 107 it was possible only to \u201cintercept\u201d data and not to hand over certain retained data. Moreover, the providers were under an obligation to delete retained data pursuant to section 104 as soon as they no longer needed them for billing purposes. On the other hand, section 149b(1) and (3) of the CPA provided for different conditions of accessing data and it was unclear what the distinction in application between the two was. As a result of that uncertainty in the domestic legislation, one could not say that the legal protection against arbitrary interference by public authorities with the right to privacy was sufficient."], "id": "84c769f8-2864-44ea-a462-13651894c55d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government refrained from expressing their opinion on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 8. They argued, however, that only two out of five letters had apparently been opened as only two letters had been stamped. As regards the remaining three, the Government submitted that the stamp \u201ccensored\u201d cannot prove that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his correspondence in breach of Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "807bc3f3-10f5-42e9-b709-4e512a7a9acd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government considered that no with the first applicant\u2019s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had occurred, in so far as Romanian law established a duty on the parents to provide for their underage children. Lastly, they recalled that the second applicant, through her legal guardian, had not requested the exequatur for the enforcement in Israel of the judgment of 18 September 2002."], "id": "03f3dbad-bc19-44e9-9569-b818f3aa7686", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["110. The applicant also maintained that the police units had not only occupied his estate but had also damaged it and that this with his Convention rights had not been justified either. He argued that section 21 of the Law on Suppression of Terrorism was neither precise nor foreseeable, as, in particular, it was unclear whether the wording \u201cother legally protected interests\u201d referred to terrorists and any other individuals (see paragraph 100 above). The applicant further insisted that no active warfare had been conducted in the Nadterechny District, and therefore the damaging of his property had not been connected to the struggle against terrorism. He also stated that that the nature of the damage inflicted on his estate, as reflected in the evaluation reports, indicated that his estate had been wrecked as a result of irresponsible treatment by the police units who had occupied it rather than as a result of any pressing need. The applicant thus argued that the damaging of his property had not pursued any legitimate aim."], "id": "8275710f-faf6-42ac-9fbe-a8382ccb4487", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government submitted that that there had been no with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life. Although removed from his office, the applicant had not lost his job in the civil service, but had been transferred to another post. In their view, his reputation could not have been harmed by the decision on removal, or the subsequent judgements of the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. Indeed, there was nothing to indicate that the applicant\u2019s removal from office had any effect on his private life. Lastly, the Government emphasised that the applicant had held the post of Head of the State Administration Office for only a little more than two months, which was a relatively short period of time to build a professional reputation in a service of that kind."], "id": "a128e8e7-2c4d-4fb4-8db0-f48f6f7f1271", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government insisted that the with the applicant company\u2019s rights had been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d. They referred to the domestic legislation and case-law summarised in paragraphs 32 to 36, 38 and 39 of the Chamber judgment, as well as the Court\u2019s relevant case-law as summarised in the Chamber judgment. The Government also pointed out that there was no Estonian case-law on the basis of which Delfi \u2013 which encouraged the posting of comments on the articles selected and published by it \u2013 could have presumed that the owner of an Internet portal as a new media publication was not liable for the damage caused by comments posted on its articles, which formed an integral part of the news and which only Delfi could administer. Further, by the time the domestic judgments had been handed down in Delfi, it was more than clear that Internet media had a wide influence over the public and that, in order to protect the private life of others, liability rules had to apply to new media as well."], "id": "73a006e9-0bbb-428d-940a-bc3d32f42ddb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicants submitted that they had victim status and that there had therefore been with their rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. Even though they did not all possess licences to practise issued by the Ministry of Justice, they all represented applicants before the European Court of Human Rights. They were all members of the Lawyers for Human Rights organisation, which was considered by the Government as a subversive organisation acting against the interests of the State. The Lawyers for Human Rights organisation represented many persons who met the criteria for the application of the interception measures referred to by the Government both in domestic proceedings and in proceedings before the Court. The applicants gave the example of such persons as P. Popovici, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, P. Stici and M. Ursu, who were accused of having killed the son of the Speaker of the Parliament, and C. Becciev and E. Duca, both accused of very serious crimes. They also referred to many persons who had disputes with the leaders of the ruling Communist Party as well as two persons who had brought proceedings against the Secret Services of Moldova. The applicants submitted that, even though not all the members of their organisation worked on serious cases, all members used the telephones of the organisation and therefore risked interception."], "id": "dbcc9aaa-0039-4914-82ab-7f8f9cf27e36", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant was ordered to vacate the flat in question by the national courts under Croatian laws regulating ownership, which allow an owner to seek repossession of his or her property when the possessor has no legal grounds for possession. The Court, noting that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 17, \u00a7 57), is thus satisfied that the national courts' decisions ordering the applicant's eviction were in accordance with domestic law and in particular the relevant legislation related to the disposal of the housing stock (see \u00a7\u00a7 17-19). The in question therefore pursued the legitimate aim of the economic well-being of the country."], "id": "1a340dc2-a023-45a5-adf8-43b84313e50d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government accepted that there had been with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 of the Convention. However, they considered that such interference had been lawful and justified. In particular, the secret surveillance orders had been based on Article 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had been issued and supervised by an investigating judge pursuant to reasoned and substantiated requests from the competent State Attorney\u2019s Office, which the investigating judge had accepted as such. Moreover, such interference had pursued the legitimate aim of investigating and prosecuting the crime of currency counterfeiting and had been proportionate to the circumstances and the gravity of the offence at issue and the applicant\u2019s criminal activity."], "id": "44cc985b-8d6b-4351-98a8-4d2f20f1edfc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government asked the Court to dismiss the claims in respect of pecuniary damage on the ground that they concerned an economic aspect of employment and not the right to guaranteed by Article 8. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, the applicant\u2019s allegation that he had been stigmatised and discriminated against was unfounded since, shortly after being dismissed, he had found another job. If the Court were to conclude that there had been a violation of the Convention, that finding would be sufficient just satisfaction."], "id": "21420065-c611-4ed3-b4dc-e02a5943719e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["157. The applicant considered that the State had failed to provide him with access to information in violation of his rights under Article 8. The Court observes that, in addition to the primarily negative undertakings in Article 8 of the Convention, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective . In determining whether or not such a positive obligation exists, it will have regard to the fair balance that has to be struck"], "id": "dc3cb955-322e-4eb8-aefe-d9a15f923c43", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["189. The Government referred several times in their written submissions to the fact that the applicant herself disclosed details of the caution to her prospective employer, and that the details she disclosed were merely confirmed by the Criminal Records Office. The Court observes that the posts for which the applicant applied were subject to vetting. In this context she was asked for details of her conviction and caution history and provided them as requested. The Court notes and agrees with the comments of Lords Hope and Neuberger in R (L), to the effect that the fact that disclosure follows upon a request by the data subject or with her consent is no answer to concerns regarding the compatibility of disclosure with Article 8 of the Convention. Individuals have no real choice if an employer in their chosen profession insists, and is entitled to do so, on disclosure: as Lord Hope noted, consent to a request for criminal record data is conditional on the right to being respected (see paragraph 106 above). The applicant\u2019s agreement to disclosure does not deprive her of the protection afforded by the Convention (see paragraph 110 above)."], "id": "16b009bf-ae35-418c-89ad-e152ca5b7106", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["5. The applicant himself did not invoke Article 8. It was this Court which invoked it. The Chamber legitimately mentions, in paragraph 18, that the applicant initially invoked other Articles (see \u00a7 4 above), but also that he \u201ccontended ... that his dismissal had ruined his career and reputation as well as his social and professional relationships\u201d. The Chamber also mentions that \u201cfollowing the disjoinder ... of the present complaint from the initial application\u201d, the applicant \u201calso invoked Article 8 ... and explicitly argued that the termination of his mandate had violated his right to , including the development of relationships of a professional nature\u201d (ibid.). What the Chamber does not state is that the applicant \u201calso invoked Article 8\u201d following not only the \u201cdisjoinder of the present complaint from the initial application\u201d but also the communication of this complaint to the respondent Government (and to the applicant) by the Court, not under the Articles initially invoked by the applicant, but under Article 8 \u2013 to be precise, under its first paragraph. The applicant \u201calso invoked Article 8\u201d because it had already been invoked by the Court."], "id": "cdc05e67-935f-4698-8484-48912a969822", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government explained that German law did not only provide for injunctions in the event of a violation of the right to , but also granted pecuniary compensation in some cases. In the instant case the Federal Court of Justice had considered whether there were any reasons for granting the applicant a notional licence and, after weighing up the competing interests, had concluded that the interference had not been sufficiently serious to justify such action and that the company\u2019s freedom of expression prevailed. The Federal Court of Justice had noted that even statements made for a commercial purpose were protected by freedom of expression as guaranteed under the Basic Law, that contributions with the purpose of entertainment could also help shape public opinion, that the interference had not been particularly serious because it had been neither offensive nor scornful, and that the advertisement had not led to any identification between the applicant and the product advertised."], "id": "dd71d350-956f-4b4e-9b33-46dd73ca7df0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant submitted that filming of him in the police station violated his right to . He disputed that the custody area could be regarded as a public area or that the camera was running as a matter of routine. It had been run at a different speed to produce a sharper, clearer image of the applicant. He was only in the police station because he had been brought there by the police, and if anything persons in custody required greater protection than the public. He denied that he knew of the camera or that he was aware that he was being filmed. Even if he saw the camera, he could not have known that it was to be used unlawfully for identification purposes. Furthermore, the purpose of the recording was to obtain evidence to prosecute the applicant."], "id": "bc65bb14-c639-411b-94dc-746316451c73", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant asserted in particular that the Federal Court of Justice had dismissed his claim primarily because the company\u2019s freedom of expression enjoyed a higher degree of legal protection than his right to . This meant, in his submission, that it had failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise between the interests at stake. The Government submitted that the Federal Court had conducted such a balancing exercise when deciding whether there were any grounds for awarding the applicant the notional licence which he had sought."], "id": "4e33bae4-ffd8-442f-8551-1bb19be0de6c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government contested the applicability of Article 8 in the present case. Referring to the case of Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC] no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012), they did not dispute that the right to protection of reputation fell within the notion of \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8. However, they submitted that the applicability of Article 8 to such cases required that the attack on a person\u2019s reputation had to attain a certain level of seriousness and be in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to . They argued that in the present case, however, the attack on the applicant\u2019s reputation had not fulfilled the \u201ccertain level of seriousness\u201d requirement established in the Court\u2019s case-law."], "id": "cfae5fd2-b5ca-4a05-906d-5a25c7f9647c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["125. The applicant considered that the duty should be triggered where any aspect of private life was engaged. It would therefore not be limited to the intended disclosure of intimate or sexual details of private life. As such, the duty would be a relatively broad one. Notwithstanding the concerns expressed by the Government and the interveners (see paragraphs 89, 94, 97 and 101 above) the Court considers that the concept of \u201cprivate life\u201d is sufficiently well understood for newspapers and reporters to be able to identify when a publication could infringe the right to . Specific considerations would arise, for example in the context of photographs of crowds, but suitable provisions could be included in any law. The Court is further of the view that a satisfactory definition of those who would be subject to the requirement could be found. It would appear possible, for example, to provide for a duty which would apply to those within the purview of the Editors\u2019 Code."], "id": "b9f727c9-fef9-4acb-b9ec-f0ce48047f74", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government have argued that the publication at issue did not affect the second applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 seriously enough for that provision to be applicable. The Court reiterates, however, that in the article the second applicant had been named as a person holding public office and repeatedly breaking the law. It has already been accepted in the Convention organs\u2019 case-law that a person\u2019s right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as being part of the right to . The Court therefore considered that a person\u2019s reputation, even if that person was criticised in the context of a public debate, formed part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity and therefore also fell within the scope of his or her \u201cprivate life\u201d (see Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, \u00a7 35, 15 November 2007, with further references). The Court explained its approach to such cases in its judgment in A. v. Norway (no. 28070/06, \u00a7 64, 9 April 2009), holding that in order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of gravity and in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see Mikolajov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no. 4479/03, \u00a7 55, 18 January 2011; Roberts and Roberts v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 38681/08, \u00a7\u00a7 40-41, 5 July 2011). Having regard to the accusations in respect of the second applicant, the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. Article 8 of the Convention thus applies. The Court also finds that the second applicant\u2019s complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. The complaint must therefore be declared admissible."], "id": "2e18923a-de51-4d17-a0fe-eb122683b460", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant submitted, firstly, that even though the paternity proceedings had been aimed at the dissolution of existing family ties, the determination of his legal relations with his child undoubtedly concerned his private life (Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 21 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 13, \u00a7 33). The State had a positive obligation under Article 8 to secure even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (Botta v. Italy, judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I, p. 422, \u00a7 33). In particular, the child had the right under Article 8 to establish a legal relationship with his natural father (Mikuli\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, \u00a7\u00a7 64-66, ECHR 2002\u2011I) and the husband had the right to contest paternity in order to establish that he was not the biological father. In the applicant\u2019s opinion, Article 8 guaranteed the right to dissolve a family tie which was not the result of a biological bond. He concluded on the basis of the Kroon judgment that biological and social reality should prevail over legal presumptions and the quest for legal certainty of relations, so that any presumption of paternity had to be effectively capable of being rebutted and not amount to a de facto rule (Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297\u2011C, \u00a7 40). The right to contest paternity was accepted in all Contracting States, including the Russian Federation. The applicant contended that the decisions of the domestic courts to declare his action disclaiming paternity time-barred constituted an interference with his right to respect for his private and family life."], "id": "1a685613-6341-4ed1-b779-997679a83c37", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government explained that German law did not only provide for injunctions in the event of a violation of the right to , but also granted pecuniary compensation in some cases. In the instant case the Federal Court of Justice had considered whether there were any reasons for granting the applicant a notional licence and, after weighing up the competing interests, had concluded that the interference had not been sufficiently serious to justify such action and that the company\u2019s freedom of expression prevailed. The Federal Court of Justice had noted that even statements made for a commercial purpose were protected by freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Basic Law, that contributions with the purpose of entertainment could also help shape public opinion, that the interference had not been particularly serious because it had been neither offensive nor scornful, and that the advertisement had not led to any identification of the applicant with the product advertised."], "id": "7a0243c0-0e9d-47d1-90c1-b77e1d7a55a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government accepted that, taken as a whole, the applicant\u2019s examination pursuant to Schedule 7 of TACT gave rise to an interference with the right guaranteed to her under Article 8 of the Convention. In the present case, in addition to being stopped and questioned, the applicant and her luggage were searched. In Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, no. 4158/05, \u00a7 63, ECHR 2010 (extracts) the Court held that the use of \u201ccoercive powers\u201d to require an individual to submit to a \u201cdetailed search of his person, his clothing and his personal belongings\u201d amounted to a clear interference with the right to . While the Court expressly recognised the potential distinction between the \u201cstop and search powers\u201d under section 44 of TACT and \u201cthe search to which passengers uncomplainingly submit at airports or at the entrance of a public building\u201d (see Gillan and Quinton, cited above, \u00a7 64), Schedule 7 powers were clearly wider that the immigration powers to which travellers might reasonably expect to be subjected. In view both of this fact, and of the Government\u2019s concession, the Court would accept that there was an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "ba35d1f1-9063-46a5-8807-d94cca2853ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant was still a minor when, on 9 August 2005, she applied to be reunited with her family in Denmark. She had reached the age of majority when the refusal to reinstate her residence permit became final on 19 January 2008, when leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused. The Court has accepted in a number of cases concerning young adults who had not yet founded a family of their own that their relationship with their parents and other close family members also constituted \u201cfamily life\u201d. Furthermore, Article 8 also protects the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual\u2019s social identity, it must be accepted that the totality of social ties between settled migrants and the community in which they are living constitutes part of the concept of \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8. Regardless of the existence or otherwise of a \u201cfamily life\u201d, the expulsion of a settled migrant therefore constitutes an interference with his or her right to . It will depend on the circumstances of the particular case whether it is appropriate for the Court to focus on the \u201cfamily life\u201d rather than the \u201cprivate life\u201d aspect (Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, \u00a7\u00a7 62-63, 23 June 2008."], "id": "cb83bbe6-ff4f-423d-a14d-67c9e558b274", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government inferred from the fact that the complaint fell to be examined from the standpoint of positive obligations that \u201cit [was] unnecessary to examine whether the interference [had been] in accordance with the law\u201d. The refusal of the applicants\u2019 requests had pursued a legitimate aim as it had been guided by the French principle of the inalienability of civil status, according to which the decision to amend a birth certificate could not be a matter for the individual\u2019s choice alone, even though that choice fell within the sphere of . It was because the reliability and consistency of French civil-status records were at stake, and in the interests of the necessary structural role of sexual identity within the country\u2019s social and legal arrangements, that a change of gender in civil-status documents could be permitted only when the irreversible nature of the gender reassignment process had been objectively established."], "id": "1a1fd615-d454-49ba-bcff-520e0bfbbd9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government did not contest that there had been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to . They nevertheless submitted that the interference had been lawful and had pursued a legitimate aim. Notably, the contested interception of the applicants\u2019 telephone conversations had been carried out in accordance with the Law on Operational Activities. Referring to the document provided by the Supreme Court (see paragraph 7 above), the Government contended that the interception of phone conversations had been duly authorised by a specially designated judge of the Supreme Court, as provided for by section 17 of the above law."], "id": "d5f16cd6-698d-4387-9516-bab7fff9aaec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as they failed to institute civil proceedings before the ordinary judge in civil matters, against the HE Chamber (Eccelentissima Camera) of the Republic of San Marino (in charge of the patrimony of the State), challenging the seizure in their respect and requesting compensation for any resulting damage. They highlighted that in the San Marino domestic legal system, the ordinary judge in civil matters was the only judge having jurisdiction to assess disputes concerning the right to and correspondence as well as that of property."], "id": "a9176050-1568-4597-9592-e73cb3426194", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government further argued that any positive obligation could be satisfied if a civil, administrative or disciplinary remedy was available. The prosecution of those allegedly responsible was not required under Article 8. Dr L. had received an administrative punishment from the MADEKKI for failing to ensure that the applicant had the AFP test. This administrative sanction was adequate to satisfy any positive obligation to ensure effective ."], "id": "940328f4-90dd-488a-8b68-a8231f8291b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant submitted in reply that the right to also covered the right to one\u2019s surname and forename (referring to, among other authorities, Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, ECHR 2004\u2011VI; Mentzen v. Latvia (dec.), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004\u2011XII; and Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280\u2011B). Article 8 of the Convention was thus indisputably applicable to the present case."], "id": "10a8b64e-ca90-4cdf-b866-e84ce679f93c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government maintained, on the contrary, that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the Convention. Article 8 of the Convention did not safeguard aspirations, yet to be fulfilled, to found a family. Refusing to grant a person prior administrative approval for a possible adoption was not a decision that interfered with a person's private life and so it did not fall within the scope of Article 8. While should also comprise \u201cto a certain degree the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings\u201d (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, p. 33-34, \u00a7 29), the right to adopt was not included as such among the rights guaranteed by the Convention (see Di Lazzaro v. Italy, no. 31924/96, Commission decision of 10 July 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-B, p. 134)."], "id": "8ad7993f-07a9-4b0e-8eae-adf5f3111c35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government further submitted that instead of using the above effective remedy, Mr Zubkov and Mr Ippolitov (applications nos. 29431/05 and 7070/06) had chosen to raise the issue of covert surveillance in the criminal proceedings against them by contesting the admissibility of the audio and video recordings as evidence. The Government considered that contesting the admissibility of evidence in the framework of criminal proceedings could not be regarded as an effective remedy in respect of a complaint under Article 8. The aim of such a remedy was to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence from the list of evidence examined during the trial. It could therefore provide appropriate redress for a complaint under Article 6, but not for a complaint under Article 8. Indeed, the purpose of the criminal proceedings was to establish whether the defendant was innocent or guilty of the criminal charges levelled against him or her, rather than to attribute responsibility for the alleged violations of his or her right to , home or correspondence. The remedy used by Mr Gorbunov (application no. 5402/07) had also been ineffective because he had appealed against the refusal to give him a copy of the judicial authorisation, rather than against the actions of the State officials who had intercepted his communications."], "id": "ed109ea6-22a4-48e1-a67d-fe9793f1f137", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government accepted that the right to respect for the honour and dignity of a deceased relative was an element of the right to guaranteed by Article 8. They went on to say that the decisive factor was whether the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 and the journalist\u2019s right to freedom of expression. They asserted, however, that, given that the article in question was presented in the form of the journalist\u2019s interview with a film director and producer, it reflected and reported the film makers\u2019 perception of certain events and a description of characters created by them. Furthermore, the article did not mention the name of the applicant\u2019s father and made no allegations of his having collaborated with the Gestapo. Consequently, the Ukrainian courts had not breached the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 as there was no dissemination of untruthful information."], "id": "1b9ee9d7-d925-4e4c-a096-cce3f2d16514", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicants submitted that the retention of their fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles interfered with their right to as they were crucially linked to their individual identity and concerned a type of personal information that they were entitled to keep within their control. They pointed out that the initial taking of such bioinformation had consistently been held to engage Article 8 and submitted that their retention was more controversial given the wealth of private information that became permanently available to others and thus came out of the control of the person concerned. They stressed, in particular, the social stigma and psychological implications provoked by such retention in the case of children, which made the interference with the right to private life all the more pressing in respect of the first applicant."], "id": "337da75e-3fae-47ef-b3e3-18d741bb013e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government contested that claim and submitted that the refusal to authorise gender reassignment surgery on the ground that the statutory conditions were not satisfied could not be said to constitute interference with the exercise of the right to within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. In addressing the issue whether the right of transgender persons to effective respect for their private life gave rise to a positive obligation for the State, regard had to be had to the \u201cfair balance which [had] to be struck between the general interest and the interests of the individual.\u201d In its judgments in Rees v. the United Kingdom (17 October 1986, Series A no. 106), and Cossey v. the United Kingdom (27 September 1990, Series A no. 184), the Court had taken into account, among other considerations, the fact that \u201c[t]he requirement of striking a fair balance could not give rise to any direct obligation on the respondent State to alter the very basis of its system\u201d, in order to conclude that no such obligation existed for the respondent State."], "id": "c84815f1-0246-4226-ad4d-02453c20677b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant relied on the judgments in Van K\u00fcck v. Germany (no. 35968/97, \u00a7 69, ECHR 2003\u2011VII), Pretty v. the United Kingdom (no. 2346/02, \u00a7 61, ECHR 2002\u2011III), Mikuli\u0107 v. Croatia (no. 53176/99, \u00a7 54, ECHR 2002\u2011I), and Bensaid v. the United Kingdom (no. 44599/98, \u00a7 47, ECHR 2001\u2011I). He submitted that the right to know one\u2019s parentage lay at the heart of the right to ."], "id": "756c8405-4586-4d07-a544-587544754f8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicants considered that the right to did admittedly have to be upheld, but that it was not absolute, especially when it clashed with the right to freedom of expression and information, and the rights of the other people concerned by the publication. They criticised the domestic courts for failing to balance the Prince\u2019s rights against other rights which, they submitted, were of equal value: the rights of the mother, which they considered to be no less legitimate in a democratic society; the child\u2019s right to be officially recognised; and the magazine\u2019s right to impart information of public interest which was no longer confidential at the date of publication."], "id": "4e302e3c-d324-4d38-bfbd-ec6b00d4def1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government accepted that fingerprints, DNA profiles and samples were \u201cpersonal data\u201d within the meaning of the Data Protection Act in the hands of those who can identify the individual. They considered, however, that the mere retention of fingerprints, DNA profiles and samples for the limited use permitted under section 64 of PACE did not fall within the ambit of the right to under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Unlike the initial taking of this data, their retention did not interfere with the physical and psychological integrity of the persons; nor did it breach their right to personal development, to establish and develop relationships with other human beings or the right to self-determination."], "id": "d8cad44e-c924-4fea-80fd-4dc5bf5208e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government argue that in certain circumstances a particularly intrusive search may amount to an interference with an individual's Article 8 rights, as may a search which involves perusing an address book or diary or correspondence, but that a superficial search which does not involve the discovery of such items does not do so. The Court is unable to accept this view. Irrespective of whether in any particular case correspondence or diaries or other private documents are discovered and read or other intimate items are revealed in the search, the Court considers that the use of the coercive powers conferred by the legislation to require an individual to submit to a detailed search of his person, his clothing and his personal belongings amounts to a clear interference with the right to . Although the search is undertaken in a public place, this does not mean that Article 8 is inapplicable. Indeed, in the Court's view, the public nature of the search may, in certain cases, compound the seriousness of the interference because of an element of humiliation and embarrassment. Items such as bags, wallets, notebooks and diaries may, moreover, contain personal information which the owner may feel uncomfortable about having exposed to the view of his companions or the wider public."], "id": "b77810f8-ceb4-4530-9d44-0ecec37d1543", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicants further complained that the Federal Court of Justice had failed to recognise the specific dangers of the Internet era, as demonstrated by its reference to the Lebach judgment, delivered by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1973. In their submission, the report at issue in the Lebach case had undoubtedly reached a significant level of dissemination as it had been shown on one of the three public channels existing at the time. However, a television programme was forgotten after a certain period of time, whereas Internet search engines allowed information on a specific event to be obtained at any time free of charge, rapidly, from anywhere and on a continuous basis. Dissemination on the Internet therefore amounted to a lasting breach of the right to ."], "id": "03afd36d-a50a-4cba-adb9-68a726146583", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government argued that the alleged interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life was not attributable to the State. Unlike in similar cases decided by the Court (Sciacca v. Italy, no. 50774/99, ECHR 2005\u2011I, and Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, 23 October 2008), here the applicant\u2019s private data had not been released to the press by State authorities. On the contrary, the R\u012bga Regional Court had explicitly prohibited the publication of such data, yet R\u012bgas Balss had published the applicant\u2019s photo, his name and other data in defiance of that prohibition. In so far as the State\u2019s positive obligation to adopt measures designed to secure in the sphere of relations between private parties was concerned, the respondent Government submitted that Latvia had complied with this obligation for the following reasons."], "id": "a416b45e-ee46-4e35-b519-ce6c4811939b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants further submitted, with regard to the necessity of the impugned interference, that any exception to a fundamental freedom must be interpreted restrictively, and that exceptions to freedom of expression could not therefore be punished disproportionately. They alleged that the right to was not absolute, and argued that the decisions by the domestic courts in the present case did not correspond to a pressing social need, in that the courts had not carried out a thorough balancing exercise in respect of the conflicting rights in issue or taken account of the criteria established in the Court\u2019s case-law."], "id": "3b667384-59b2-4be4-b1c0-8980c8f50c73", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government acknowledged that the collection and disclosure of the applicant\u2019s financial information had constituted a relatively minor interference with his right to . They pointed out that the information in question had consisted entirely of financial data and had not revealed any private or intimate details of the applicant\u2019s life. The Government further submitted that only a fraction of the original information had been included in the case file, and that only a limited number of people, in essence the defence lawyers of the co\u2011accused, had had access to the case file. Moreover, the Regional Court had further restricted access to the bank account information to people who could provide reasons proving sufficient interest."], "id": "8f901b7c-60ac-45ed-94cd-835e6362a7cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant pointed out that she was systematically and intentionally followed and filmed by professionals specifically trained for this purpose, which, coupled with the storage and selection of the video material, constituted a serious interference with her right to . The impact of the surveillance on her private life was evident in that the insurance company used those images in order to significantly reduce the amount of benefits she was entitled to receive."], "id": "35dc4fd7-4480-4c48-aabd-4d5033322a7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government observed that detention entailed inherent limitations on private and family life. They did not contest that the second applicant\u2019s inability to receive an MP3 player from J.G. had interfered with his right to under Article 8 of the Convention. However, the Government was of the view that that interference had been in accordance with the law (see paragraphs 24 and 27 above) and had pursued the legitimate aim of motivating inmates to work, to communicate with their relatives and to enhance their social ties, as well as the aim of preventing the possession of items acquired by criminal means."], "id": "8b132c0e-1f41-4e14-882c-7f6a6d3d2bf5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant asserted in particular that the Federal Court of Justice had dismissed his claim primarily because the company\u2019s freedom of expression enjoyed a higher degree of legal protection than his right to . This meant, in his submission, that it had failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise between the interests at stake. The Government submitted that the Federal Court had conducted such a balancing exercise when deciding whether there were any grounds for awarding the applicant the notional licence which he had sought."], "id": "d7d34094-6f1e-4d54-9954-e8f588da7bc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government accepted that the State's obligations under Article 8 could extend to the adoption of measures designed to secure in the sphere of relations between individuals. They went on to say that what was decisive in weighing the applicant's right to the protection of his private life against the right to freedom of expression was whether and to what extent the statement at issue had made a contribution to a debate of general interest. The impugned statement in the letter to subscribers to Zur Zeit and the related previous article had to be seen in the context of an ongoing political discussion between persons of different ideological convictions."], "id": "01262f08-01a2-4c84-902b-f146bf80d9ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government submitted that a person who had committed offences or crimes should envisage various restrictions on his or her rights, including the right to . After the applicant had committed a breach of public order, caused damage to the honour and dignity of the authorities and been escorted to the police station, his private life had been brought into the public domain. The video-recording had been made openly, the applicant had been aware that he was being filmed for television and had not objected to it. In fact, he had asked for the media to be brought to the police station. The Government further claimed that the applicant had been filmed in accordance with the law, with a view to securing evidence of his unlawful behaviour and establishing his identity as an offender. The Murman television company had acted lawfully, because under the relevant legislation it was permitted to seek and obtain information on any subject and to broadcast reliable information about the behaviour of a State official. The TV-21 and Blits television companies had merely rebroadcast the footage filmed by Murman. The Government contended that neither the sending of the videotape by the police chief to the public prosecutor\u2019s office nor its circulation for screening to the members of the regional Duma had amounted to \u201cdissemination of information\u201d."], "id": "988e2acc-a3f0-48a7-9509-3b6cca81529e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant argued that where choices related to the exercise of a right to occurred in a legally regulated area, the State was obliged to provide adequate legal protection in the regulatory scheme put in place, notably by ensuring that the law was accessible and foreseeable, enabling individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly (citing Ternovszky, cited above, \u00a7 24). However, she claimed that she had not been provided with adequate legal protection. Neither the MADEKKI nor the national courts had investigated the case properly in order to establish the relevant facts and determine whether Dr L. had fulfilled her duties according to national law. Further, while Dr L. had been invited to give evidence before the Regional Court and on appeal, the applicant\u2019s request to give evidence had been denied. She had therefore not been questioned on the crucial facts of the case by the courts or by the MADEKKI."], "id": "7267ff3a-b29b-4e97-9d68-0a2ec585193e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant maintained that the procedure to have the sex/gender marker in the civil status register changed was not regulated by law nor was there any established judicial practice in respect of the matter. The law did not differentiate between the rectification and alteration of entries in the public records. The case at issue confirmed that there was no \u201cquick, transparent and accessible\u201d legal gender recognition procedure in the respondent State. Furthermore, the authorities had arbitrarily created and imposed on him a surgery requirement. Relying on the case of A.P., Gar\u00e7on and Nicot (cited above), the applicant submitted that the imposition of that requirement had been in violation of the right to under Article 8. That case had set a precedent that transgender people should not be forced to choose between their right to bodily integrity and the right to have their gender identity legally recognised. Contrary to that principle, he had been required to undergo genital surgery even though (i) there had not been a statutory basis and (ii) it had not been justified."], "id": "c02102d2-dc4b-4bc9-a29e-ec161fa349f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant also contended that the criminal conviction had adversely affected his moral and psychological integrity and that he had suffered personally, socially, psychologically and economically. The Court observes that the protection of an individual\u2019s moral and psychological integrity is an important aspect of Article 8 of the Convention. It notes, however, that there is no Convention case-law in which the Court has accepted that a criminal conviction in itself constitutes an interference with the convict\u2019s right to . The Court does not ignore that such a criminal conviction may entail personal, social, psychological and economic suffering for the convicted person. In the Court\u2019s view, though, such repercussions may be foreseeable consequences of the commission of a criminal offence and can therefore not be relied on in order to complain that a criminal conviction in itself amounts to an interference with the right to respect for \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "33fb6bae-9263-436e-bdab-6deaa62c0397", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["1. The applicant alleges that the prohibition under Italian law on donating embryos conceived through medically assisted reproduction to scientific research is incompatible with her right to . The Court has ruled that her ability to exercise a conscious and considered choice regarding \u201cthe fate of her embryos\u201d concerns an intimate aspect of her personal life and, accordingly, relates to her right to \u201cself-determination\u201d (see paragraph 159 of the present judgment). On this basis, it concludes that Article 8 of the Convention is applicable. It proceeds to find no violation because, inter alia, the ban was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d to protect the rights and freedoms of others within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "e2eff457-2588-499f-a00b-44b675bc9acf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant complained that the disclosure of information of a medical nature by the CFD to her employer constituted a violation of her right to as provided in Article 8 of the Convention. She also alleged that the proceedings in which her action against the CFD had been examined had been unfair because the courts had adopted arbitrary decisions and failed to give reasons for them. Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, on which the applicant relied, read as follows:"], "id": "1608a8f4-8c92-42fe-9df2-1bd38f8a71e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained that he had been dismissed from his position of Vice-President, three years and ten months before the statutory date of his term\u2019s expiry, by means of an ad hominem legislative measure. In the initial application of 20 June 2012 he invoked Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and contended, in particular, that his dismissal had ruined his career and reputation as well as his social and professional relationships and had also resulted in his unjustified deprivation of the peaceful enjoyment of the benefits that would have been due to him during his term of office. In a memorial summarising his arguments following the disjoinder, on 19 March 2014, of the present complaint from the initial application (see paragraph 1 above), the applicant also invoked Article 8 of the Convention and explicitly argued that the termination of his mandate had violated his right to , including the development of relationships of a professional nature."], "id": "de5b5291-bf49-46a8-bb99-941a11ddefb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government noted that the applicant had not denied his need for a mentor. It was inherent in the nature of the powers given to the mentor that he was not bound by the expressions of will of the ward but had to make all decisions in the interests of the ward. Otherwise such an appointment would be pointless. The partial dismissal of the applicant\u2019s mentor would not be decisive for his right to or family life. Therefore, no real interference with the applicant\u2019s Article 8 rights had taken place."], "id": "a7725e5a-198d-4990-bba2-7df44105f29d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for private life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant complained that the State had failed to secure her right to as a result of the derisory sum of non-pecuniary damages awarded to her, even though the domestic courts had found that a serious violation of her privacy had been committed by the newspaper Lietuvos Rytas. She also argued that the national legislation did not provide an effective remedy from the point of view of Article 8 of the Convention as it limited the maximum amount of non-pecuniary damages for a breach of privacy by the mass media. The applicant relied on Articles 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention."], "id": "3c11d52c-7b05-4c78-b0ab-793bf8bb9c5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government refuted the suggestion that, to comply with Article 8 \u00a7 2, the safeguards put in place in respect of the intercepted material had themselves to comply with the \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d criteria. In any event, the functions of the Commissioner and the Tribunal were embodied in statutory provisions that were sufficiently certain and accessible, and in assessing whether the \u201cforeseeability\u201d requirements of Article 8 \u00a7 2 had been met, it was legitimate to take into account the existence of general such as these (the Government relied on Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, \u00a7\u00a7 77-94, 28 June 2007 and Christie v. the United Kingdom, no. 21482/93, Commission decision of 27 June 1994). Moreover, the 1985 Act provided that interception was criminal except where the Secretary of State had issued a warrant and sections 2 and 3(2) set out in very clear terms that, during the relevant period, any person in the United Kingdom who sent or received any form of telecommunication outside Britain could in principle have had it intercepted pursuant to such a warrant. The provisions of primary legislation were, therefore, sufficient to provide reasonable notice to individuals to the degree required in this particular context, and provided adequate protection against arbitrary interference. Article 8 \u00a7 2 did not require that the nature of the \u201carrangements\u201d made by the Secretary of State under section 6 of the 1985 Act be set out in legislation (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, \u00a7 68), and for security reasons it had not been possible to reveal such information to the public, but the arrangements had been subject to review by the Commissioners, each of whom had found them to be satisfactory (see paragraph 33 above)."], "id": "5004f2f7-1adf-41c2-adb9-c45c5d626960", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government argue that are provided by the right of an individual to challenge a stop and search by way of judicial review or an action in damages. But the limitations of both actions are clearly demonstrated by the present case. In particular, in the absence of any obligation on the part of the officer to show a reasonable suspicion, it is likely to be difficult if not impossible to prove that the power was improperly exercised."], "id": "7e72d790-8453-4959-92fb-d3f3fdbdb10c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["191. The applicant submitted that, although domestic law required prior judicial authorisation for interceptions, the authorisation procedure did not provide for sufficient . Firstly, in urgent cases communications could be intercepted without judicial authorisation for up to forty-eight hours. Secondly, in contrast to the CCrP, the OSAA did not provide for any requirements concerning the content of the interception authorisation. In particular, it did not require that the interception subject be clearly specified in the authorisation by name, telephone number or address (see, by contrast, the United Kingdom\u2019s and Bulgaria\u2019s legislation reproduced in Kennedy, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 41 and 160, and Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev, cited above, \u00a7 13). Nor did domestic law require that the authorisation specify which communications, or types of communications, should be recorded in order to limit the law-enforcement authorities\u2019 discretion to determine the scope of surveillance measures. Russian law did not establish any special rules for surveillance in sensitive situations, for example where the confidentiality of journalists\u2019 sources was at stake, or where surveillance concerned privileged lawyer-client communications."], "id": "f0405a8e-00ba-4311-a577-a2e9e102ecfb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicants submitted that the object of the legal certainty requirement running through the Convention was to give protection against arbitrary interference by the public authorities. It followed that \u201claw\u201d must be accessible, foreseeable and compatible with the rule of law, giving an adequate indication of the circumstances in which a power might be exercised and thereby enabling members of the public to regulate their conduct and foresee the consequences of their actions. The executive could not be granted an unfettered discretion; moreover, the scope of any discretion conferred on the executive had to be defined with such precision, appropriate to the subject matter, as to make clear the conditions in which a power might be exercised. In addition, there had to be legal ."], "id": "4fb41fb3-5f8b-4ea4-aff2-bd9866b8478b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted that the search warrant had been in compliance with the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention. The decision to carry out a search had been based on a reasonable suspicion that the applicants might have committed tax evasion between 2002 and 2006. Moreover, the search warrant had been subjected to prior judicial control and contained reasons justifying its issuance. Accordingly, the applicants had enjoyed sufficient ."], "id": "a2bbb6b9-c5cd-4756-9caf-18c2427c073c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government submitted that the requirement of lawfulness under the Convention was met in the present case by a combination of the legislative provisions; the information given to individuals following a search under section 44; the precise instructions in the Code on how search powers were to be exercised; and the availability of court proceedings to challenge the use of those powers by the police in individual cases. Sections 44-45 of the 2000 Act were clear as to their effect. They gave notice to citizens that they might be required to submit to a stop and search and provided , well in excess of provisions of national law that the Court or Commission in cases had held to be sufficiently foreseeable in the national security context (as in, for example, Brind v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 18714/91, 9 May 1994; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, \u00a7\u00a7 117-129, 20 June 2002; Esbester v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 18601/91, 2 April 1993)."], "id": "7ed0b94d-15c6-4811-97fe-b6f3a0d1db62", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["157. The Government concluded, in view of the above, that the present case was different from Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria (no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007) where the Court had refused to apply the \u201creasonable likelihood\u201d test because of the absence of any safeguards against unlawful interception in Bulgaria. Given that Russian law provided for adequate and sufficient in the sphere of interception of communications, including available remedies, in the Government\u2019s opinion the applicant could not claim an interference as a result of the mere existence of legislation permitting secret surveillance. In the absence of a \u201creasonable likelihood\u201d that his telephone communications had been intercepted, he could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "9bc23023-b6df-4a50-8f7f-70ca18aefa37", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the legislation authorising secret surveillance in Bulgaria did not provide sufficient and barred the authorities from giving out any information as to whether a person had been subjected to such surveillance. He further complained under Article 10 of the Convention that his first and second requests for information as to whether he had been subjected to secret surveillance had been rejected."], "id": "edaca2c0-2539-4c97-9802-834dc6997084", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicants argued that the interference had not been justified under Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, they stated that the prosecutor could have interviewed V.E. to verify his statements. They claimed that there had been no reasonable suspicion and therefore no basis for the search-and-seizure operation. In response to the Government\u2019s assertion that the first applicant had already been warned by the police once, the applicants submitted that at that time they had presented all the necessary documents. In their view, the operation had been unlawful because the circumstances had not been pressing: the authorities had planned the operation carefully and could have sought judicial approval beforehand. The subsequent judicial review had been formalistic and had failed to provide any , and the applicants had been unable to present their arguments. Also, it had not been necessary for the authorities to seize the computers; they could have seized only the computer products by recording them on paper or by some other means. Lastly, the applicants asserted that the computers had been retained without due consideration of the fact that they had contained personal information."], "id": "24e449f4-f243-44bd-9011-aae40628fa17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["119. The applicant contended that an investigating judge had authorised the use of special investigative measures, including the use of informants, without a thorough assessment of whether the use of such measures was justified and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, in the applicant\u2019s view, there had not been sufficient by informants of their position in the domestic system at the relevant time. The applicant further submitted that he had never engaged in any illegal activities. He had never requested a bribe and it had been J.K. who had entrapped him into the corrupt scheme. The applicant considered that it had been apparent from the recordings of his communication with J.K. that the latter had created the conditions for corruption and had then contacted him in order to incite him to participate in such activities. However, the domestic courts had not properly examined all the circumstances of his initial contacts with J.K. and the prosecution had failed to adequately refute his arguments of entrapment."], "id": "8e440775-d0ee-4788-9b7a-05e6e3cb5669", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant noted that there had clearly been an interference with her right to respect for home and correspondence, and that that interference had had a basis in Finnish law. However, the quality of that law was problematic. There existed no legal safeguards whatsoever in this respect. Since very strict limits were called for as regards the conduct of searches without a warrant, the law in question did not fulfil the \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d requirements, as established by the Court. When searches were conducted in law offices, the safeguards against arbitrariness had to be particularly strong. It did not make any difference whether the applicant herself was suspected of an offence or not. Professional secrecy applied to all material in a lawyer's possession regardless of the capacity in which he or she had obtained it. The fact that the search had been conducted in an attorney's office only made the need for effective legal and arbitrariness more apparent."], "id": "22f42633-4c48-4105-9f8d-9f6fe50551f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant said that while university authorities, including vice-chancellors\u2019 offices and deaneries, were unquestionably at liberty to use the powers vested in them by law, the scope of those powers and the limits on them were also defined by law, as were the procedures by which they were to be exercised and the of authority. In the instant case, the Vice-Chancellor had not possessed the authority or power, either under the laws in force or the Students Disciplinary Procedure Rules, to refuse students \u201cwearing the headscarf\u201d access to university premises or examination rooms. In addition, the legislature had at no stage sought to issue a general ban on wearing religious signs in schools and universities and there had never been support for such a ban in Parliament, despite the fierce debate to which the Islamic headscarf had given rise. Moreover, the fact that the administrative authorities had not introduced any general regulations providing for the imposition of disciplinary penalties on students wearing the headscarf in institutions of higher education meant that no such ban existed."], "id": "3d76caff-da7a-41d2-86f8-6d41b7467f34", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["163. The applicant contended that there had been interference with his private life as a result of his dismissal from the post of judge of the Supreme Court. That interference had not been lawful, as the grounds for liability for \u201cbreach of oath\u201d had been drafted too vaguely; domestic law had not provided for any limitation periods that were applicable to the dismissal proceedings and had thus not provided adequate and arbitrariness; moreover, it had not set out an appropriate scale of sanctions for disciplinary liability ensuring its application on a proportionate basis. For those reasons, it had not been compatible with the requirements of the \u201cquality of law\u201d. The applicant further asserted that the interference in question had not been necessary in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "b8188da4-0089-4190-a6da-8b163e96953a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant further took the view that the use of numerous further surveillance measures in addition to GPS surveillance had led to his total surveillance by the State authorities and had violated his rights under Article 8 in that the law did not contain sufficient , in particular because no order by an independent tribunal had been necessary to authorise and supervise the surveillance measures in their entirety. A subsequent judicial review of the surveillance measures alone had not afforded sufficient protection to the persons concerned. It was carried out only if criminal proceedings were instituted at all following such a measure and if by that measure the prosecution had obtained evidence which it intended to use at the trial. Article 163f of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 32 above) had not been in force at the relevant time and, in any event, did itself not contain sufficient safeguards against abuse."], "id": "90aecc70-d8df-456c-a625-40109b7d779f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicants submitted that the requirement of was not met in their case. Whilst sections 44-47 of the 2000 Act were adequately accessible to the public, the authorisation and confirmation were not. Thus, a member of the public would know that a section 44 power to stop and search could be conferred on the police, but would not know at any given time or in any given place whether it had been so conferred. He could not know whether, if he went to any particular location, he would be liable to be stopped and searched and, if he were stopped and searched, he could not know whether the police officer was authorised to carry out the procedure. When, unknown to a member of the public, the power had been conferred on a constable, the constable's discretion to stop and search was broad and ill-defined, requiring no grounds of suspicion and constrained solely by the condition that it could be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism."], "id": "bde64784-ee41-4774-ac67-f8c45eae3ae5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["139. The applicant submitted that, in keeping with the Court\u2019s case-law as established in the judgments in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011) and Tarakhel v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 29217/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention had to be examined in concreto and in the light of all the facts of the case, taking into consideration the of treatment in the country of destination and the particular vulnerability of the person concerned."], "id": "01ddf339-9806-440a-8617-9688d039c426", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["250. The Government suggested the following remedies: complaints to the prison or prosecution authorities and complaints to the domestic courts, according to the procedures provided by the national law. The Court, taking into account its case-law as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies described above (see paragraphs 247 - 249 above), will examine the effectiveness and of these remedies in relation to each of the applicants' complaints under Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "d6d30714-22a8-437f-9cdd-559ddfd1961c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government further cited the provisions of Law no. 5378 (see paragraph 22 above) concerning the of public buildings and spaces for persons with disabilities. They explained that the redevelopment work required for such accessibility had to be ordered within eight years of the entry into force of the Law, with the possibility of an additional maximum period of two years. They added that the Law laid down an administrative fine for failure to carry out the requisite redevelopment work within the legal time-limits."], "id": "3a9bd642-6e31-44ed-ba6a-166af27af306", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant maintained that the Finnish law did not contain at the relevant time provisions governing restrictions on a bankrupt\u2019s right to the secrecy of his correspondence. Neither the Bankruptcy Act nor the Postal Service Decree (which was not even in force at the relevant time) provided for any such restrictions. In the absence of relevant legislation, the interference with his rights was not \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d. In this connection the applicant recalled that in order to be a law, the rule had to be accessible and written in a form sufficiently precise to ensure foreseeability. As encroachment upon the right protected by Article 8 involved a serious invasion of privacy and violation of secrecy of correspondence, it should, therefore, be based on a law which was especially precise. It should clearly define the persons covered and the conditions in which the secrecy of correspondence could be interfered with. The internal instructions for the authorities, such as the repealed Postal Service Decree which was applied as an internal instruction within the postal service, did not meet the requirements of and foreseeability."], "id": "f7cb3dc6-7247-4468-ab13-8f2f1deba556", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government argued that the measure satisfied the criteria of paragraph 2 of Article 8. In their submission, it had been in accordance with the law, namely, Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002 published in the Official Gazette, and therefore fulfilled the condition of . The Government considered that the criterion of foreseeability had also been satisfied in that section 83 of the above-mentioned ordinance provided that aliens could be banned from the country only in strictly defined circumstances, that is, if they had engaged, were engaged or had the intention of engaging in activities capable of endangering national security or public order."], "id": "80855ba2-3f48-4aa1-b797-7875542c8b4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "5efe5902-afed-4d2d-a6d5-c7e17b5ab3f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government further stated that was one of the principles underpinning the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as ratified by the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 3 December 2008, of which they quoted Article 9 \u00a7 1 (see paragraph 25 above). By the same token, referring to the provisions of Law no. 3194 on Urban Planning (see paragraph 23 above), they affirmed that the institutions and authorities, which had a duty and responsibility vis-\u00e0-vis the built environment, complied with the accessibility requirement. Therefore, according to the Government, all institutions and authorities were required to carry out the necessary redevelopment work, in line with the relevant standards of the Turkish Standards Institute, in order to render buildings, open spaces (roads, car parks, pedestrian areas, parks and pavements), transport and communications accessible."], "id": "0fec1a3a-ad0a-437d-999b-0aa5a348913b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["289. The Government pointed out, first of all, that the relevant applicants had not adduced any documents proving their title to the houses, or any detailed description of the property allegedly lost by them. The Government argued that it was incumbent on the relevant applicants to have their property rights confirmed under domestic law by the competent national authorities. They further argued that the alleged interference with the relevant applicants\u2019 rights secured by Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been lawful, as the counter-terrorism operation in the Chechen Republic, in the context of which the strikes of 19 October 1999 had been executed, had been launched and carried out on the basis of Presidential Decrees nos. 2137, 2166 and 2155c of 30 November and 9 December 1994 and 23 September 1999 respectively, Governmental Decree no. 1360 of 9 December 1994, and the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998. In the Government\u2019s submission, the aforementioned decrees, except for certain provisions, had been found compatible with the Russian Constitution by the Russian Constitutional Court. The Government insisted that all the aforementioned legal instruments had met the requirements of foreseeability and ."], "id": "2de0a207-65ef-4d68-be34-258a7c9f835e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "58c153b0-30b1-4891-bc8d-64d7af0362c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government claimed that in any event the damage to the applicant's property was lawful, as section 21 of the Law on Suppression of Terrorism \u201cpermits the deliberate inflicting of damage on legally-protected interests, including property rights\u201d. In the Government's submission, the legal act had been duly published and therefore met the requirements of clarity, and foreseeability. They also insisted that the interference in question had pursed a legitimate aim, as the counter-terrorist operation had been launched in order to suppress criminal and terrorist activity, ensure security of individuals, and protect their rights and freedoms."], "id": "17aab83b-343f-4e72-9b52-007de6c92c46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["95. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "8c5ded48-255c-49e3-80d0-4323538123d9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["173. The applicant submitted that the violation of her rights had originated also in the unregulated practice of conscientious objection. The refusal of the Krak\u00f3w University Hospital to provide certain services on grounds of conscientious objection constituted a failure to ensure the availability and of reproductive health services. The public health care institutions, being public entities, had a duty to provide legal health services to the public. The State had a duty to ensure that the laws governing conscientious objection were complemented by implementing regulations or guidelines balancing the medical staff\u2019s right to object against the patient\u2019s rights to obtain access to lawful medical services."], "id": "478a1a05-0a61-4890-b245-93064cc5985a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government first expressed the view that the impugned measure had been in accordance with the \u201claw\u201d, namely the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980, which satisfied the criteria of foreseeability and that had emerged from the Court's case-law; on this point they cited the Tiemann v. Germany and France decision of 24 April 2000. They noted that the first applicant was familiar with the provisions of the Hague Convention since she herself had relied on Article 13 (b) in asserting her rights."], "id": "a3b9490a-a72c-4d22-8b5c-841e2c460020", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["109. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "8f53572c-6e69-45c8-a6eb-a5824a930078", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["114. The applicants submitted that this way of measuring the extent of dissemination did not take into account the fact that the Internet amplified material and rendered it ubiquitous and hence the possibility that, irrespective of the initial extent of its dissemination, the information concerning them could be found permanently, particularly through the use of search engines. In that connection the Court, while aware of the lasting of any information once it is published on the Internet, notes that the applicants made no mention of any attempts to contact search\u2011engine operators with a view to making the information concerning them less easy to find (see Fuchsmann, cited above, \u00a7 53, and Phil v. Sweden (dec.), no. 74742/14, 7 February 2017). Moreover, the Court considers that it is not called upon to rule on the possibility that the domestic courts could have ordered measures that were less restrictive of the media outlets\u2019 freedom of expression, given that these were not discussed before the courts in the domestic proceedings or, indeed, in the proceedings before the Court."], "id": "b48e605f-2f42-4a3b-aa98-e7d76d772816", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant company submitted that there had been a disproportionate interference with its freedom of expression. At the end of the proceedings, it had had to pay Ms L. a very high sum in damages (more than fifty times the average annual wage in Ireland) as well as her high legal costs, including those incurred on appeal. It was a very far-reaching interference with its right to freedom of expression that was not \u201cprescribed by law\u201d within the meaning of this Court\u2019s case-law, since the domestic legal framework failed to meet the criteria of , foreseeability and clarity. The domestic law in force at the time allowed the jury in a defamation case practically unlimited discretion in assessing damages. According to the applicant company, as seen in the present case, the trial judge was not permitted to offer any useful or meaningful guidance to the jury, such as relevant comparisons or even a range of figures. While the 2009 Act provided for guidance to be given to juries in relation to damages, it did not fundamentally alter the domestic system. There was even a risk that the amount given to Ms L. would be taken as setting a benchmark in future defamation cases."], "id": "fd7a4799-7bd0-47f6-895d-fb7fae620ff9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government contested that the telephone tapping constituted interference with the applicant\u2019s rights. Even assuming that such interference occurred, they argued that it was done in accordance with the law, the Act. Relying on Klass and Others v. Germany (6 September 1978, \u00a7 49, Series A no. 28), they stated that the Court had accepted that national security concerns could justify, in exceptional circumstances, measures of secret surveillance. Furthermore, the measure was authorised by the prosecutor and the applicant had the possibility to have the tapes thus obtained examined by an expert."], "id": "d0c3d751-18e2-41fd-a236-7ad1b7a4b2b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicants further submitted that the judicial review of the annulment of the first applicant\u2019s residence permit by the domestic courts had not been attended by adequate procedural safeguards. The courts had failed to request and examine its actual basis, that is scrutinise the evidence proving that he represented threat to ; moreover, the courts had directly stated that they could not subject the FSB\u2019s submissions to judicial scrutiny (see paragraph 27 above), and had limited themselves to assessing whether the decision had been issued within the FSB\u2019s administrative competence and in compliance with the relevant procedure."], "id": "44c1a2ae-c91b-4240-80cd-e66be9a6c136", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["122. The applicants alleged that the proceedings available to Mr M. under Bulgarian law did not secure adequate protection against violations of Articles 3 and 8. That was so because, inter alia, the Supreme Administrative Court provided only a limited and formalistic review of the grounds underlying the deportation order, accepting without evidence the statements of the Service. Furthermore, the court had failed to consider the proportionality of the impugned measure which interfered with all the applicants\u2019 family life."], "id": "6dcae419-2e1e-4236-93c0-242b78f1dbb1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government maintained that the issuance of the clearance had had a clear legal basis in the Lustration Act and had been necessary in the interests of . The Lustration Act afforded comprehensive substantial and procedural guarantees, in the light of which the issuance of the applicant\u2019s clearance was to be considered proportionate. Moreover, as from 1 January 1997, the Lustration Act had lost any legal force in Slovakia. It thus no longer prevented the applicant from living his life as he saw fit."], "id": "ce5d7e65-54ad-4625-a2c5-43e6b7dab89e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government maintained that the interference pursued one or more legitimate aims: the prevention of crime, in so far as the first applicant\u2019s own safety was concerned by the bomb threats, and the interests of with regard to all the applicants. In each case the interference was moreover \u201cnecessary\u201d for the achievement of the legitimate aim or aims pursued."], "id": "0347c238-4ea9-466e-b46a-b053a08d724e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant submitted that under the Court\u2019s case\u2011law sometimes the mere existence of laws authorising secret surveillance could render a person victim of an alleged breach of Article 8 of the Convention. It was not necessary to establish that he had in fact been subjected to such surveillance. The letter of the Agency which said that it had no information that special means of surveillance had been used against the applicant was therefore irrelevant. In any event, that letter did not constitute full proof that the applicant had not been subjected to secret surveillance. When he had sought information on that issue in 2001 and 2003, the Special Surveillance Means Act 1997 had allowed a number of authorities to request the use of special means of surveillance against a person. The National Security Agency, which had been created long after that, in 2008, was the successor of only some of those authorities. A 2009 letter in which the Agency affirmed that it had no information that the applicant had been subjected to secret surveillance could not therefore show that other authorities had not sought to have the applicant subjected to such surveillance. Moreover, the law continued to be unclear as to the manner in which information about the use of special means of surveillance was to be recorded and stored. It was therefore difficult to accept that the Agency could provide full information on that point. Another reason why the information given by the Agency\u2019s director was of dubious reliability was that by law any information relating to the use of special means of surveillance was classified, and its disclosure to an unauthorised person amounted to a criminal offence. It was therefore hard to believe that the National Security Agency would make public accurate information about the use of special means of surveillance against the applicant. The only authority, apart from a regional court, that would have been able to give comprehensive and reliable information on that point was the National Bureau for Control over Special Surveillance Means, whose creation had been mandated by the 2008 amendments to the 1997 Act."], "id": "298dc3a0-134e-4c29-a68e-621e0f86def5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government submitted that the evidence proving that the applicant had posed a threat to had been submitted to the domestic courts and duly examined by them. The evidence presented by the FSS to the Regional Court had constituted a State secret. Therefore, it had not been included in the case file but had been \u201creviewed\u201d (\u043f\u0440\u0438\u043d\u044f\u0442\u043e \u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0431\u043e\u0437\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435) by the court. As a result, the court had concluded that Russian national security interests outweighed the personal interests of the applicant. In addition, the applicant\u2019s representative had failed to exercise his procedural rights and submit evidence during the examination of the appeal."], "id": "e915d04e-8bcd-4cd2-adc4-d08f93e062e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant did not submit a claim for pecuniary damage. As for non-pecuniary damage, she submitted that as a result of a violation of her right under Article 8 of the Convention, she had suffered from anguish and distress caused by the disruption to her family life with her husband and child and by the lack of information concerning the alleged threat she posed to Russia\u2019s . The applicant left the determination of the amount of compensation to the Court and requested that, given that she was an American living in Prague, any award be paid directly to her bank account outside the Russian Federation."], "id": "c600b929-c973-455d-a48b-d52139950193", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant disagreed and submitted that the domestic courts had not examined any evidence concerning the threat that he allegedly posed to . In particular, he stated that the domestic courts had examined only the regulations concerning the FSS\u2019s authority to take decisions and its compliance with the relevant procedure. The examination of his appeal had been conducted in camera; moreover, despite the undertaking given by his representative not to disclose information concerning the State secret concerned, the domestic courts had failed to examine concrete evidence against him."], "id": "90796561-8537-4210-94e5-5bb96bb0f8f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government did not dispute that the applicants\u2019 removal from the territory of Moldova had constituted an interference with their private and family lives. However, that interference had been in accordance with the provisions of the Status of Aliens Act, had pursued the legitimate aim of protection of and had been necessary in a democratic society because it had been justified by the pressing social need to ensure the nation\u2019s safety. The Government also argued that the applicants\u2019 families had not even attempted to visit them in Turkey during their detention and expressed the view that they would not be at any risk in Turkey. The Turkish authorities had informed the applicants\u2019 families that the applicants had been taken into custody and the latter had been visited by family members who lived in Turkey on multiple occasions."], "id": "b7a7148a-466f-490a-a976-151ef6f76184", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government did not contest that the telephone tapping had constituted interference with the applicant\u2019s rights. However, it had been carried out in accordance with the law, the Act. Relying on Klass and Others (cited above, \u00a7 49), they stated that the Court had accepted that national security concerns could justify, in exceptional circumstances, measures of secret surveillance. Furthermore, the measure had been authorised by the prosecutor and the applicant had had the opportunity \u2013 of which she had availed herself \u2013 to obtain an expert examination of the evidence thus obtained."], "id": "d160ec30-8c11-4626-be0e-f1e27e89e6e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["180. The applicant recalled that restrictions on court proceedings could only be compatible with Article 6 \u00a7 1 where they pursued a legitimate aim and there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be pursued. Further, limitations could not impair the very essence of fair trial rights and any restrictions had to be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities (citing Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, \u00a7 61, ECHR 2000\u2011II). Although the applicant appeared to accept that the restrictions on the procedure before the IPT pursued the legitimate aim of securing that information was not disclosed contrary to the public interest, or the detection and prevention of serious crime, he argued that they were not proportionate and impaired the very essence of his right to a fair hearing. In particular, the applicant contended that Rule 6(2) to (5) (restrictions on disclosure and evidence), Rule 9 (secrecy of proceedings) and section 68 RIPA together with Rule 13 (the refusal to provide any reasons to unsuccessful complainants) were contrary to the principle of equality of arms."], "id": "2f2e1199-e228-4b6d-a23a-7f6200fad57c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government thus maintained that in the present case the applicant\u2019s deportation from the territory of Lithuania had corresponded to the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of . On 11 June 2002 the State Security Department had started an investigation into the applicant, who was suspected of trying to set up an organisation of an anti-national character. The data collected during the investigation had proved that the applicant\u2019s activities posed a threat to national security and public order. On that basis, the Migration Department had refused the applicant\u2019s request for a temporary residence permit. Since all the data submitted by the State Security Department constituted State secrets, the courts had decided not to disclose it and had, exceptionally, relied on the data as evidence. However, the courts had duly examined the information marked \u201crestricted use\u201d and \u201csecret\u201d, and had found the conclusions of the State Security Department to be well reasoned. From the above, the Government deduced that the applicant\u2019s deportation from the Republic of Lithuania had been fully compatible with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "e52b0da0-37f9-4e6c-a750-429a8005a913", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants said that they had had a genuine family life in Bulgaria, which had been disrupted by the first applicant\u2019s expulsion. They conceded that this expulsion had been formally in line with the applicable provisions of the 1998 Aliens Act, but argued that domestic law had failed to provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrary action on ostensible grounds. In particular, while the first applicant had been able to institute judicial review proceedings against the order for his expulsion, the courts had not properly scrutinised this decision and had refused to examine its proportionality. The only piece of evidence used to justify the conclusion that he was a national security risk had been a \u201cproposal\u201d containing information allegedly gathered through secret surveillance. However, the primary material from that surveillance had not been made available to the courts. The courts had thus surrendered their function of reviewing the exercise of the executive\u2019s discretion and the lawfulness of its actions, thereby depriving the applicants of the minimum degree of protection against arbitrariness."], "id": "137e65d6-20ce-4f08-8f93-b16e2b0ee942", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government noted that the necessity of the measure had been assessed twice, with a possibility of rejection \u2013 first by the Attorney General and subsequently by the Vilnius Regional Court. The contested operational measure had been necessary and had been applied in the interests of , public safety and the prevention of crime. The authorities had had operational information about the applicant\u2019s possible involvement in criminal activities. The applicant had close connections with J.B. and persons from J.B.\u2019s milieu. Most importantly, in the course of the operational investigation in respect of J.B., the authorities had learned about his threats to the State President. That information had later been confirmed when intercepting the applicant\u2019s telephone conversation with J.B., in which the latter used psychological pressure and demanded that his requirements be reported to the head of State. Subsequently, J.B. had been convicted of having threatened the State President. The Government also observed that both J.B. and the applicant had had close relations with the State President and had played a significant role in the political activities of the President\u2019s political party and his electoral campaign; at the time of surveillance the applicant had been a member of the Vilnius City Municipal Council. In this connection the Government also referred to the Court\u2019s judgment in Craxi v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 25337/94, \u00a7 64, 17 July 2003), submitting that politicians inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny by both journalists and the public at large. Therefore, even acknowledging that no investigation had been carried out by the SSD in order to reveal the circumstances in which the journalists had obtained the recording of the intercepted conversation, the question of fulfilment of the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention could not arise."], "id": "70fce4bf-2d82-46b5-a329-6fd22f592bb0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants stated that they did not question the FSS\u2019s authority to issue exclusion orders. They stressed, however, that there had been no factual basis for such a decision to be taken in respect of the first applicant. They submitted that the Regional FSS had not furnished any evidence of a threat posed by the first applicant to and that the domestic courts had not given them a chance to refute the allegations. The examination of their appeal against the exclusion order had been carried out in camera; despite the fact that they had given undertakings of confidentiality, the domestic courts had failed to disclose to them any evidence against the first applicant. In particular, in reply to the representative\u2019s request that the FSS officer cite a single concrete fact indicating the first applicant\u2019s threat to State security, the latter refused (with the judge\u2019s approval) to provide such information. The FSS case file submitted to the Regional Court had been examined by the judge for only five minutes and neither the second applicant nor the representative had been allowed to see any of its contents. In addition, after the imposition of the exclusion order against the first applicant, the FSS had denied any involvement in the matter; this had prevented the applicants from lodging an appeal in a timely manner against the exclusion order with the domestic courts."], "id": "92e0a6e9-d1d4-450c-ac1e-3bf7afab59d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government contested that the applicant\u2019s exclusion from Russia had violated his right to respect for his family life. They submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right had complied with Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, the decision to exclude him had been taken within the competence of the Federal Security Service and had been dictated by the need to protect Russia\u2019s . The relevant procedure had also been complied with. They stated in general terms that \u201cin refusing to grant the appeal, the courts had information which served as the basis for the decision [to exclude the applicant]\u201d. They further stressed that the applicant\u2019s exclusion for five years was not disproportionate as such a ban appeared reasonable in comparison with the one of ten years imposed on the applicant in Lupsa v. Romania (no. 10337/04, ECHR 2006\u2011VII). Furthermore, referring to the cases of Samsonnikov v. Estonia (no. 52178/10, 3 July 2012) and Senchishak v. Finland (no. 5049/12, 18 November 2014), the Government argued that the applicant was not a long-term migrant as he had not grown up in Russia. Therefore his move to Kazakhstan had not represented an extreme hardship for him."], "id": "333429bd-2585-4243-90c0-6792c10e8a11", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government contended that there was another characteristic which distinguished the present case from the previous judgments of Sidabras and D\u017eiautas and Rainys and Gasparavi\u010dius, in which the Court had found a violation of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 8. In the latter cases the statutory restrictions on holding certain jobs, functions or tasks were automatically applied to the applicants merely on the ground that at a certain time they had worked for the Committee of State Security of the Lithuanian SSR. However the Law applied to the applicant in the present case did not impose unconditional restrictions on a person\u2019s employment. First, the person had to have intentionally collaborated in secret with the special services of the former USSR. Secondly, by the statutory deadline, the individual concerned had to have failed to confess to the State authorities about his or her secret collaboration. Thirdly, after the failure to confess, the fact of that person\u2019s secret collaboration had to have been published in the \u201cOfficial Gazette\u201d. The Government maintained that 1,500 people had appeared before the Commission to admit their collaboration within the six-month period prescribed by the Law. The applicant had been free to take this step \u2013 if he had confessed, he would have avoided the unfavourable legal consequences. However, as the applicant had intentionally chosen not to confess about his past collaboration within the above-mentioned period, the State had had the right and duty to apply to him the employment-related restrictions. Moreover, under Article 8 of the Law, information concerning persons who had confessed about their collaboration in the past was to be classified as a State secret and the State assumed the obligation to protect them against possible blackmail and the declassification of information. Taking this into consideration, the Government argued that the State had not overstepped its margin of appreciation and that the Law constituted a proportionate measure to safeguard and to protect the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention."], "id": "abfcb3e7-d72c-436c-ad1e-4d03910bce25", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["147. The Government also insisted that any interference pursued a legitimate aim. The Government emphatically denied, in this regard, the applicant's allegation that interception was being used to intimidate him and undermine his business activities. The three relevant objectives set out in section 5(3) RIPA, namely safeguarding , preventing or detecting serious crime and safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, were all legitimate aims for the purposes of Article 8(2)."], "id": "312f2209-1d91-4bdd-9f7d-02f45018b32a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["351. The Government submitted that at the time when the new State was being created, the independence legislation had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting . Moreover, the right for the State to control the entry and residence of aliens within its territory presupposed that it could take dissuasive measures, such as deportation, against persons infringing immigration laws (see paragraph 325 above)."], "id": "e917bd4a-af48-478a-be77-f3791df17ea7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable in the present case as that provision did not guarantee a right to retain employment or to choose a profession. They further stated that, in any event, the application of the KGB Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of protecting and was necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, the KGB Act constituted no more than a justified security screening measure intended to prevent former employees of a foreign secret service from working not only in State institutions but also in other spheres of activity which were important to the State\u2019s national security. The KGB Act itself did not impose collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. It provided for individualised restrictions on employment prospects by way of the list of positions in the former KGB which warranted application of the restrictions under section 2 of the KGB Act (see paragraph 27 above). The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in section 3 of the KGB Act showed that there existed a well-founded suspicion that the applicants lacked loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Given that not all former employees of the KGB were affected by the KGB Act, Article 14 of the Convention was not applicable. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "81792fd4-3216-49fb-a160-e329802d1ebe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["137. The Government submitted that any interference which may have arisen in the present case satisfied the requirements of Article 8 \u00a7 2. The Government emphasised the duty of democratic governments to uphold the criminal law and protect citizens from terrorist threats and organised crime. In order to discharge this duty, the power to intercept the communications of specific targets was necessary. They pointed to the Commissioner's consistent conclusions that the interception powers under RIPA were an invaluable weapon for the protection of and the fight against organised crime (see paragraphs 64 and 72 above). Further, in order for interception to yield useful intelligence, the fact of the interception, as well as the methods by which it could be effected, had to be kept secret. If possible targets were able to gain insight into sensitive interception techniques and capabilities, then they would be able to take steps to undermine the usefulness of any intelligence gathered against them. The Government explained that they had had experience of information about surveillance techniques being put in the public domain, which had led directly to the loss of important sources of intelligence. They insisted that their policy of \u201cneither confirm nor deny\u201d was important to ensure the overall effectiveness of surveillance operations."], "id": "035000ff-96af-4dd7-8c0e-5af70f10e2ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s fears were groundless in view of the prohibition in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 on the expulsion of aliens to a country where their health or life would be in jeopardy. The order to expel him had been intended to protect the of Bulgaria. However, its enforcement was subject to the provisions of section 44a, which coincided with the principles underlying Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. The practice in such cases was for the competent authorities, which worked in close cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and non\u2011governmental organisations, to verify the issue upon expulsion of their own motion. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs kept an updated list of safe third countries that could receive individuals in the applicant\u2019s position. The authorities were thus complying with the absolute prohibition of Article 3 of the Convention, and, unlike the situation obtaining in Saadi v. Italy ([GC], no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008\u2011...), were not seeking to balance national security considerations against the risk of ill\u2011treatment faced by the applicant. The bar in section 44a applied to all aliens, including those subject to expulsion orders on national security grounds."], "id": "efaab727-1080-4574-a9d6-d80b56230109", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant contested the Government\u2019s argument that his complaints were time-barred. He pointed out that, by the end of 2006 when the expulsion order against him had been issued, the Supreme Administrative Court had given numerous decisions accepting for examination applications for judicial review of similar expulsion orders based on grounds. This meant that the judicial review that he had sought had been a normal remedy, which he had had to exhaust."], "id": "78c7c4ad-b9f5-43c0-93ea-56a66de10170", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicants alleged two separate violations of Article 8. The first concerned Mr M.\u2019s detention, which in their view interfered in an arbitrary and disproportionate manner with their right to respect for their private and family life. The second concerned Mr M.\u2019s deportation, which was arbitrary. The applicants averred that there was no evidence of any involvement of Mr M. in organising illegal border crossings and that in any event such activities could not be reasonably interpreted as a threat to . The applicants also claimed that domestic law did not require that evidence of the alleged unlawful activities be presented to and examined by an independent authority."], "id": "982c0f3f-56c4-4713-9127-6f7b28d36333", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government claimed in addition that the Bulgarian authorities had \u201cproven\u201d that the first applicant\u2019s expulsion had been justified and that it was \u201cindisputable\u201d that he had posed a threat to . They considered that the Supreme Administrative Court had conducted a \u201cthorough and comprehensive\u201d review of the allegations against the first applicant, giving \u201cconvincing, albeit laconic\u201d, reasons for its decision to uphold the expulsion order."], "id": "1d5c139b-11a3-4a81-92ff-9b2477e9d1dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of , public safety, for the prevention of disorder and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "af8ae2fe-f43f-4818-b8fb-bc46c5de3997", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government submitted that the requirement of lawfulness under the Convention was met in the present case by a combination of the legislative provisions; the information given to individuals following a search under section 44; the precise instructions in the Code on how search powers were to be exercised; and the availability of court proceedings to challenge the use of those powers by the police in individual cases. Sections 44-45 of the 2000 Act were clear as to their effect. They gave notice to citizens that they might be required to submit to a stop and search and provided safeguards against abuse, well in excess of provisions of national law that the Court or Commission in cases had held to be sufficiently foreseeable in the context (as in, for example, Brind v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 18714/91, 9 May 1994; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, \u00a7\u00a7 117-129, 20 June 2002; Esbester v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 18601/91, 2 April 1993)."], "id": "05119507-114e-4ecd-b893-ebfe6561d31f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government submitted that the first applicant had been refused a residence permit and had been administratively removed from Russia because he presented a danger to . They refused to produce copies of the materials from the Federal Security Service which had served as a basis for the refusal of a residence permit or copies of the minutes of the domestic hearings, stating that these were confidential documents. They submitted that the confidential materials had been examined by the domestic courts, which had found that certain factors warranting the refusal of a residence permit to the first applicant had indeed been uncovered by the security services. The sources of the security services\u2019 information had not, however, been subject to judicial review."], "id": "558da9f8-406e-4570-bac5-19eb48e4eab5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicants disagreed. They pointed out that they had lived as a family in Bulgaria and that there was no doubt that the first applicant\u2019s expulsion represented an interference with their right to family life. They argued that the measures against the first applicant had been arbitrary, since the allegations against him had remained unproven and had been unsupported by any evidence. Moreover, according to the applicants it was doubtful whether some of the actions alleged on the first applicant could indeed be seen as impinging upon the of Bulgaria. Lastly, the Supreme Administrative Court had applied a formalistic approach, failing to verify the executive\u2019s allegations against the first applicant, and had failed to respond in a meaningful manner to his arguments related to his right to family life."], "id": "a8fb2e2c-3cf1-4685-9a4d-c7feb867113e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant further submitted that the Government had failed to comply with the Court\u2019s request to produce documents serving to substantiate the authorities\u2019 allegations that she posed a threat to . Given that no explanations for such a failure had been given, the applicant, referring to Benzer and Others v. Turkey (no. 23502/06, \u00a7 160, 12 November 2013), invited the Court to draw inferences from the Government\u2019s failure to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court in its task of establishing the facts."], "id": "09bb3ce9-2aff-4ff3-9d18-0293314eedd0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicants argued that they had had a genuine family life in Bulgaria, which had been disrupted by the first applicant's expulsion. They conceded that this expulsion had been formally in line with the applicable provisions of the 1998 Aliens Act, but argued that domestic law failed to provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrary action on ostensible grounds. In particular, although the first applicant had been able to challenge before a court the order for his expulsion, the courts had failed to properly scrutinise that order and to exercise full judicial review. The first applicant had not been informed of the factual grounds that had led the authorities to the conclusion that he represented a threat to national security and in the judicial proceedings he had not been given a meaningful opportunity to disprove these allegations. Furthermore, the courts had failed to examine the proportionality of the first applicant's expulsion in view of the applicants' right to family life guaranteed under the Convention."], "id": "66e033d0-83dc-437c-ba67-1dd6fceaa875", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government argued that the measure satisfied the criteria of paragraph 2 of Article 8. In their submission, it had been in accordance with the law, namely, Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002 published in the Official Gazette, and therefore fulfilled the condition of accessibility. The Government considered that the criterion of foreseeability had also been satisfied in that section 83 of the above-mentioned ordinance provided that aliens could be banned from the country only in strictly defined circumstances, that is, if they had engaged, were engaged or had the intention of engaging in activities capable of endangering or public order."], "id": "343b75af-8ddb-4e1e-8648-f66450741f2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant was no longer living in the area where he allegedly had had his \u201chome\u201d. In any event, the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of , public safety, for the prevention of disorder and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "ec4cfc22-316c-4acf-98f8-5d883cee120a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government emphasised that it was not in dispute that from 1980 until 1991 the applicant had worked as a driver in the KGB. Furthermore, the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life was in accordance with law and it was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of , public safety and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government pointed out that for the transfer from a totalitarian regime to a democratic system, Estonia took various measures which, in aggregate, had to ensure the development and security of the democratic system. Criminal liability for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed under the totalitarian regime was established and an obligation to take an oath of conscience was introduced for those seeking the highest offices in the country. The Disclosure Act dealt with the persons who had not committed any crimes but had been employed by or collaborated with the intelligence or counterintelligence authorities of the States which had occupied Estonia. It was found that such persons had to come to terms with their past and not to try to forget, conceal or be silent about it. There was also a significant public interest in the publicity of information relating to the past; this had to guarantee transparency and clarity as well as overall internal peace in the society. Obtaining complete information about the members and agents of the security and intelligence authorities which had operated on the territory of Estonia was also important for the protection of independence and security of the Republic of Estonia. Estonia was lacking the relevant information; such information, including the lists of persons who had worked in the KGB, was in the hands of foreign States. There could be attempts to recruit former staff of the security authorities and make them perform security or intelligence tasks, or they could be subject to blackmailing. Such situation was dangerous and damaging for Estonia. The Government referred to recent cases where former employees or collaborators of the KGB had provided a foreign country with state secrets leading to their conviction of treason."], "id": "b1469296-9702-4df5-a046-16c827769d54", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant submitted that there had been a difference in treatment between \u201ctraditional\u201d Russian religions and those that were perceived as having foreign origins, in that only the latter were singled out in Russia\u2019s Concept as being a \u201cnegative influence\u201d and posing a threat to national security. The extreme measure of excluding him from Russia, where he had engaged in the lawful and peaceful manifestation of his religious beliefs, had served no legitimate purpose and had also been disproportionate to whatever aim had been pursued."], "id": "3672c9aa-79a2-4f6c-9f74-a5c980814ada", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant complaints were only in respect of \u201cfield plots\u201d and not in respect of her \u201chome\u201d. Moreover, she was no longer living in the area where she alleged she had had her \u201chome\u201d. In any event, the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with her rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of , public safety, for the prevention of disorder and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "18c2a4b1-77b7-429e-b1bb-a74dddcbb79a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant further argued that the interference did not pursue a legitimate aim. The authorities did not seek to protect , public safety or the economic well-being of the country, or to prevent disorder or crime. As to the protection of the health and morals of others, there was no indication that the applicant represented a threat to the rights of third parties. Finally, with regard to the applicant himself, the Government did not suggest that the incapacitation had had a therapeutic effect on the applicant. Nor was there any evidence that the authorities had sought to deprive the applicant of his capacity because he would otherwise have carried out actions which would result in a deterioration of his health. With regard to his own pecuniary interests, the protection of a person\u2019s own rights is not a ground listed in Article 8 \u00a7 2, and it cannot therefore serve as a justification for interfering with a person\u2019s rights as protected under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In sum, the interference with his private life did not pursue any of the legitimate aims listed in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "d34ff75f-307d-43fb-9565-31c62d936d6a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["133. The applicant argued that the Court's decisions in Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain, 30 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011V; Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176\u2011B; Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176\u2011A; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, ECHR 2000\u2011II; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, 20 June 2002; and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, ECHR 2000\u2011V had expanded on the issue of \u201cforeseeability\u201d and indicated a departure from the narrower scope of earlier decisions which tolerated the restrictive extent to which had imposed blanket secrecy on the publication of surveillance procedures. This broader approach had been confirmed by the Court's recent ruling in Liberty and Others, cited above. The applicant argued that the RIPA scheme remained \u201cunnecessarily opaque\u201d and that further details about the operation, beyond those currently included in the Code, should be made available in order to comply with the Convention requirements regarding clarity and precision."], "id": "e403962f-47fd-4c18-bd40-1fded32da236", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["215. The Government argued that the authorities were entitled to rely on the advice of the consultees without requiring further environmental information or the detail of any of the studies. Such assessments were made in the context of the HSE\u2019s detailed assessment and acceptance of the risks, continuing regulatory duties, MHPA\u2019s duties and the obvious interest of the operators in the safe operation of the Milford Haven port. Both operators were under an obligation to provide safety reports pursuant to the COMAH Regulations, although these reports had not been made public for reasons of . The HSE reviewed the reports in respect of its regulation of the shoreside risks. In deciding whether it had enough information to permit the LNG terminals to proceed, the relevant authorities were entitled to weigh all the evidence before them and were entitled to conclude that the grant of permissions and consents struck a fair balance and was proportionate, bearing in mind the overall assessment of the acceptability of the LNG terminals."], "id": "1e71b971-b29a-4aa3-b9a3-f71b6fc27dec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of , public safety, for the prevention of disorder and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "491e6c3d-2d89-46e1-b592-de060c080b12", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government submitted that they were at a loss to understand the reason why the first applicant should claim at all that the Security Police\u2019s registration and filing of information concerning threats against her were not in her best interests but, on the contrary, entailed a violation of her rights under the Convention. The information that had been released to the other four applicants was highly varied in nature. Most of it appeared to have been found in the public domain, such as the media. The Government were unaware of the origins of each and every piece of information, and therefore could not comment on that particular aspect. They noted, however, that from today\u2019s perspective the information seemed either fairly old or quite harmless and that the interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, namely the protection of ."], "id": "52c2c4ed-21fa-4b05-8e8b-0b6e2bb9673f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["141. The Government stated that there had been no interference with the first applicant's right to teach religion. His deportation had not been a reaction against his religious classes - which had been lawful - but had been based on the assessment that his religious activities had constituted a thread to . Furthermore, Mr Al-Nashif had voluntarily abandoned teaching after service of the deportation order and would not be able to restart as new instructions issued by the Chief Mufti Office after his deportation prohibited religious instruction by persons lacking appropriate religious education. The Government further stated that religious freedoms in Bulgaria were guaranteed and that the authorities strictly adhered to the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of religious communities and regularly allowed visits by foreigners coming to teach religion."], "id": "7f0a9cc7-377f-411a-83bc-d749a19780a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicants argued that the first applicant had been expelled from Bulgaria on the basis of general allegations made by the Service, unsupported by any evidence. The failure to mention specific dates, places or facts in proposal no. B849 concerning the first applicant meant that he had been unable to present meaningful evidence to refute the allegations against him. Moreover, according to the applicants some of these allegations, such as the ones concerning extortion, drug trafficking or smuggling, could not justify a conclusion that he represented a threat to national security. In addition, the Supreme Administrative Court had failed to review the executive\u2019s allegations, considering merely that it was bound by them. It failed to assess the proportionality of the measures against the first applicant and to comment on his arguments related to his family life."], "id": "7b4e6ef3-1317-4ea7-b35e-ad91effb9e68", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government submitted that the applicant did not have the status of a victim and that there had been no interference with his right to respect for his private life or his correspondence, because, as evident from the letter of the Agency, he had not been subjected to secret surveillance. His supposition that he had been subjected to such surveillance, formed wrongly on the basis of random incidents, was erroneous. A perusal of his applications and requests showed that he had mistakenly interpreted certain facts. By law, the class of persons who could be subjected to surveillance was quite limited, as were the authorities which could request such surveillance. In that connection, it was not to be overlooked that in 2008\u201109 the Special Surveillance Means Act 1997 and the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act 1988 had been amended, reinforcing the relevant safeguards. The law now provided for judicial authorisation of secret surveillance and for written notification of those concerned in cases of unlawful surveillance. Moreover, the 1988 Act provided for State liability in cases of unlawful surveillance."], "id": "390d22b7-321b-4ba0-813c-d6ec34f95454", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["145. The Government emphasised that information concerning the arrangements put in place under section 15 RIPA had been published in the Code. However, in order to maintain the operational effectiveness of interception techniques, it was not possible to publish full details of the arrangements. In the view of the Government, the publication of any more detail than had already been published would be contrary to and prejudicial to the prevention and detection of serious crime. They argued that the decision as to how much information on safeguards could safely be put in the public domain without undermining the interests of national security or prejudicing the prevention and detection of serious crime fell within their margin of appreciation. It was also significant that the full details of the arrangements in place were made available to the Commissioner, who was required to keep them under review. The Government emphasised that the Commissioner's approval was sought and given in respect of the safeguard documents either before or shortly after the entry into force of RIPA (see paragraph 63 above). They further emphasised that the Commissioner had expressed his satisfaction with the section 15 safeguards in every report prepared since 2000. They referred in particular to the Commissioner's 2002 and 2004 reports (see paragraphs 68 to 69 above)."], "id": "d0ddacf2-6b10-4e93-9032-06fb952761b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government put forward a number of aims pursued by the impugned restriction which appeared to follow closely the text of the Preamble to the HIV Prevention Act (see paragraphs 16 and 40 above). They did not explain how the alleged threats to and to the existence of humankind were relevant to the applicant\u2019s individual situation, what socio-economic or demographic consequences his presence in the Russian territory could entail or why the refusal of a residence permit would enhance the protection of the rights and interests of others. It transpires nevertheless from the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision that the restriction on temporary residence of HIV-positive foreign nationals had the aim of ensuring the protection of public health (see paragraph 25 above). While that aim is without doubt legitimate, it does not in itself establish the legitimacy of the specific treatment afforded to the applicant on account of his health status. It has to be ascertained whether there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the aim pursued and the means employed."], "id": "165be32e-b467-4ac0-8e7a-da12d9dd849c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government argued that the application was time-barred, as it had not been submitted within six months of the date on which the order for the applicant\u2019s expulsion was issued (6 November 2006) or of the date on which the applicant had left Bulgaria (29 October 2006). The Government were of the view that the six-month time-limit under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention had started running on one of these dates, because at that time the Aliens Act did not provide expressly for judicial review of expulsion orders based on grounds. The Government relied in this regard on the Court\u2019s findings in the case of Danawar v. Bulgaria ((dec.), no. 52843/07, 20 January 2015)."], "id": "29dd4d5a-a85d-4cc9-af0b-34173f99d475", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants submitted that, although the national courts had agreed to examine the first applicant\u2019s application for judicial review, they had not in fact considered his arguments relating to the lawfulness of his expulsion. Both levels of court had held that the assertions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were sufficient to show that the first applicant represented a risk. Moreover, the courts had refused to examine the proportionality of his expulsion. None of these defects could be remedied by the April 2007 amendment to the 1998 Aliens Act, firstly because that amendment had come into force after the first applicant\u2019s case had been examined, and secondly because it did not contain any guarantees that the courts would not continue to take a formalistic approach. The crux of the problem was not the availability of proceedings by which to challenge expulsion orders, but the manner in which the courts scrutinised their legality in the course of such proceedings. The approach adopted in the first applicant\u2019s case could not provide any guarantees against arbitrary action and effectively vindicate his Convention rights."], "id": "4d889e42-2397-4e87-bd75-1ad3a4905f60", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["208. The Government submitted that supervision of operational-search activities, including interceptions of telephone communications, was exercised by the President, Parliament and the government. In particular, the President determined the strategy and appointed and dismissed the heads of all law-enforcement agencies. There was also a special department within the President\u2019s Administration which supervised the activities of the law-enforcement agencies, including operational-search activities. That department consisted of officials from the Ministry of the Interior and the FSB who had the appropriate level of security clearance. Parliament participated in the supervision process by adopting and amending laws governing operational-search activities. It could also form committees and commissions and hold parliamentary hearings on all issues, including those relating to operational-search activities, and could hear the heads of law-enforcement agencies if necessary. The government adopted decrees and orders governing operational-search activities and allocated the budgetary funds to the law-enforcement agencies."], "id": "9bddf822-54b0-4929-bd26-8d1b6a8304fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted that the applicant still lived in the Oryol Region and that, given his family ties and health condition, he had not been deported. The refusal of a residence permit did not interfere with his right to respect for his family life and, even assuming that it did, such interference had a legal basis in section 7(1)(13) of the Foreign Nationals Act. It was also justified by the Russian authorities\u2019 concerns about the massive spread of the HIV epidemic and its socio-economic and demographic consequences in the Russian Federation, the threat it posed to personal, public and and to the existence of humankind, and the need to ensure the protection of the rights and lawful interests of the population. The refusal of a residence permit was a necessary measure directed at preventing and combating HIV infection."], "id": "ad6a40ad-9798-4923-bf9b-0b2e496c5602", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["112. The Government further argued that States had a wide margin of appreciation in matters of , as well as in matters relating to general measures of economic and social strategy (they referred to James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, \u00a7 46, Series A no. 98, and National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, \u00a7 80, Reports 1997\u2011VII). Because of their direct knowledge of the society and its needs, the national authorities were better placed than the international judge to appreciate what was \u201cin the public interest\u201d. The Court should respect the legislature\u2019s policy choice unless it was \u201cmanifestly without reasonable foundation\u201d."], "id": "8f1c9124-1ac3-475b-a983-a490375ab4c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicants submitted that the refusal of a residence permit to the first applicant and his subsequent administrative removal to China had been unlawful and had not been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. Firstly, Instruction no. 0300 of 4 December 2003, which provided a legal basis for the Federal Security Service\u2019s refusal of permission to grant a residence permit and on which the domestic courts relied in their judgments, had not been published. Secondly, a residence permit had been refused by reference to considerations. To establish the risk to national security, the domestic courts had relied on classified materials from the Federal Security Service. However, they had declined to examine any evidence confirming the information contained in those materials, finding that the Federal Security Service\u2019s sources of information were not subject to judicial scrutiny. Nor had the courts verified whether the alleged actions indeed presented a danger to national security, finding that the security services had unfettered discretion in such matters. Accordingly, in the applicants\u2019 opinion, the judicial scrutiny had been excessively restricted in scope."], "id": "e884443d-1d02-498f-94fa-c8a71d2b61d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["176. The Government finally noted that the IPT's ruling was issued before the Court's judgment in Association for European Integration and Human Rights, cited above, \u00a7 106, in which the Court reached the conclusion that Article 6 \u00a7 1 did not apply to such proceedings. It was clear that secret powers of interception which were used solely in the interests of or in order to prevent and detect serious crime formed part of the \u201chard core of public authority prerogatives\u201d, such that it was inappropriate to classify any related rights and obligations as \u201ccivil\u201d in nature (citing Ferrazzini, \u00a7 29; and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, \u00a7 61, ECHR 2007\u2011IV)."], "id": "f7a6210f-da9a-4c2f-81de-fb53aa4311b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that the evidence proving the threat posed by the first applicant to had been duly examined by the domestic courts. The classified evidence furnished by the FSS to the Regional Court had been reviewed without it being included in the case file. The information furnished by the executive had enabled the court to conclude that the first applicant\u2019s exclusion had been substantiated and that the order had been issued within the scope of the FSS\u2019s powers. The examination of the appeal had been held in camera in the presence of the second applicant and the applicants\u2019 representative, who had failed to exercise their right to submit evidence. Having examined the information submitted by the Regional FSS and considered the applicants\u2019 family situation, the court had found that the public interest prevailed over the private interests of the applicants."], "id": "f8b92e83-ded9-4c3d-87b2-0e57832ce090", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["230. The Government argued in particular that the refusal to grant any civilian access to Gulistan was justified by the security situation pertaining in and around the village. While referring briefly to their obligations under international humanitarian law, the Government relied mainly on interests of defence and and on their obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to protect life against dangers emanating from landmines or military activity."], "id": "f41b6400-6da5-492e-9f0f-ae9a4c3b301e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government concluded from the above that the applicant\u2019s administrative removal from Russia had been lawful and proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting because the public interest prevailed over the applicants\u2019 private interests. In any event, the second, third and fourth applicants were free to leave Russia if they wanted to reunite with the first applicant."], "id": "03b71db8-6f99-4829-a859-3ff405bf997f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant maintained his complaint. He stressed, in particular, that he was not questioning the lawfulness of his exclusion, but the lack of proof justifying that measure. The applicant pointed out that the Russian courts which had examined his appeals against the exclusion had not allowed for the relevant procedural guarantees as no evidence had been presented and examined by them in order to verify the Federal Security Service\u2019s claim of his being a threat to . Referring to the cases of Boultif v. Switzerland (no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001\u2011IX) and Al\u2011Nashif v. Bulgaria (no. 50963/99, 20 June 2002), the applicant submitted that his exclusion had been disproportionate and had failed to balance the interests of the State against his right to respect for his family life. He stressed that the exclusion had had the effect of disrupting his family life with his wife and children, who were minors."], "id": "e05f1b1f-9ae2-41b6-bd56-6b855b18271f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable in the present case as that provision did not guarantee a right to retain employment or to choose a profession. They further stated that, in any event, the application of the Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of protecting and was necessary in a democratic society. According to the Government, the Act constituted no more than a justified security screening measure intended to prevent former employees of a foreign secret service from working not only in State institutions but also in other spheres of activity which were important to the State's national security. The Act itself did not impose collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. It provided for individualised restrictions on employment prospects by way of the adoption of \u201cthe list\u201d of positions in the former KGB which warranted application of the restrictions under Article 2 of the Act. The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in Article 3 of the Act showed that there existed a well-founded suspicion that the applicants lacked loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Given that not all former employees of the KGB were affected by the Act, Article 14 of the Convention was not therefore applicable. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "4ad03045-ea52-4aa0-bff4-8b72b0991c1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant stated that the domestic courts could not examine the applicability of Article 44a of the Aliens Act as their review was limited solely to the issue of the lawfulness of the order. He further claimed that the only procedure where the applicant\u2019s grievances under Article 3 could be considered was the asylum procedure. However, possible proceedings under the Law on Asylum and Refugees were not capable of barring the expulsion of individuals who were considered a threat to ."], "id": "1bb769fa-55de-4271-88c9-5fa27ddbde02", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["132. The applicant relied on the Court's judgment in Liberty and Others, cited above, as to the lack of clarity of the relevant provisions of RIPA's predecessor, the Interception of Communications Act 1985, and argued that the changes introduced to the surveillance regime by RIPA were inadequate to address the flaws identified in that case. He concluded that any interference therefore automatically failed to meet the requirement that it must be in accordance with the law and relied in this regard on the conclusions of a report by a surveillance law expert instructed by him, Dr Goold, appended to his submissions. He further highlighted the conclusion of the Court in Liberty and Others, cited above, \u00a7 68, that the fact that extracts of the code of practice adopted under section 71 RIPA were in the public domain suggested that it was possible for a State to make public certain details about the operation of a scheme for external surveillance without compromising ."], "id": "e0d072b3-1f84-451c-9078-c189f699496d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant maintained her complaint. She submitted that the psychiatrists had acted in response to the letter they had received from the police. Neither the police nor the Government had shown that there had been any actual complaints about the applicant\u2019s behaviour. The interference with her private life had neither been in accordance with law nor necessary in a democratic society. The head of the police department had acted in contravention of the Federal Police Act, which contained an exhaustive list of the circumstances allowing the collection of personal data by the police. The applicant\u2019s situation had not fallen within the ambit of the relevant provisions. The applicant had not been a threat to or public order or to the economic well-being of the country. Nor had the authorities been in possession of any information to the contrary. The aim of the police had been to put an end to the applicant\u2019s activities. For years she had been a human rights activist. She had lodged many complaints about inactivity and corruption of the municipal authorities acting in the interests of the persons living in the area. As regards the wording of the letter of 15 January 2014, the applicant submitted that, according to the Ozhegov Dictionary of the Russian Language, the term \u201cto examine (check) (\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0442\u044c)\u201d meant"], "id": "d7c4b38a-3e88-48de-a522-a60474e2417a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant alleged that the revocation of her residence permit had adversely affected her right to respect for family life, as it had deprived her of any legal basis to remain in Russia, made her liable to deportation with a five-year re-entry ban and disrupted her family life with her husband and minor child in Russia. She further submitted that the judicial review of the impugned measure by the domestic courts had not been attended by adequate procedural safeguards, as it had been limited in scope, had not been adversarial and had taken place after the measure had been carried out. Moreover, the courts had not conducted a meaningful balancing exercise between the interests and her right to respect for family life."], "id": "bdd15a95-0751-430a-a083-349ac00349e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["116. The Government submitted that the secret surveillance of the applicant\u2019s telephone conversations was justified for the purpose of investigating the information received at the NSS suggesting that the organisation led by the applicant was carrying out activities aimed at overthrowing the government through unconstitutional means. The interference was in accordance with the law since the grounds and the procedure for it were prescribed by the CCP. It pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in the interests of and for the prevention of disorder and crime."], "id": "8e062a51-06c1-4a0b-a0b9-4664b5a6a435", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["689. The Government contended that the search of the homes and offices of certain applicants, and the confiscation of personal items and files, was in accordance with the law, namely Article 11 of the Law on the State of Emergency No. 2935, Article 3 of Decree No. 430 for the state of emergency region and Articles 90 to 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were necessary under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in the interests of , public safety, for the prevention of disorder and crime, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others from terrorist attack. Furthermore, these matters did not raise any issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as any interference with the applicants' property was justified in the public interest, within the meaning of that provision. In this connection, the Government emphasised that the searches in the present case were part of an operation against the PKK, an illegal terrorist organisation responsible for thousands of atrocious murders and maimings, as well as serious economic and social losses."], "id": "e8600663-dd81-4ff3-9c19-798e73cc4fa3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["202. The applicant argued, relying on the Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria case (no. 50963/99, 20 June 2002), that the competing interests of the protection of sources and information critical to , on the one hand, and the right to an effective remedy, on the other, could be reconciled through a specially adapted procedure. In the present case, however, no such procedure had been available, either before United Nations bodies or before the domestic authorities."], "id": "3b4328ba-a3c5-425a-8ad7-1b233f7c0e01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the interference in question had been prescribed by law and had pursued a number of legitimate aims, namely the protection of , territorial integrity, public safety, public order and prevention of crime. They also claimed that the restriction had been necessary in a democratic society because it had been carried out as a result of a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. They concluded that, in the exercise of their discretion, the prison authorities had decided not to allow the impugned letter to be sent outside."], "id": "5af1a00a-cefa-49a6-81d8-b81ad65fd47b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted that if the Court concluded that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, which they disputed, then the alleged interference had been in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of and the prevention of disorder or crime. Additionally, the alleged \u201clegislative interference\u201d had been justified in the interests of public safety and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as set forth in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "f774de93-3f93-4520-9dd8-344802dd0fd8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicants argued that they had been forced to leave Romania as a result of the measure taken against the first applicant, that being their only choice for re-establishing their family life. They further argued that the prosecutor could not justify the issuing of the order of 25 March 2003 and that the first applicant had not been engaged in any activities that would pose a threat to ."], "id": "c0c459f5-6a5d-402c-8344-a9468d98f4aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government maintained that the factual grounds for the first applicant\u2019s deportation were based on information lawfully obtained by the competent administrative body, the Service. This information was not refuted during judicial review at two levels of jurisdiction. The balance between the first applicant\u2019s rights and the public interest had been respected. Furthermore, in case of expulsion the applicants could settle in the first applicant\u2019s country of origin or another country of their choice."], "id": "a28eca06-c6f0-4c2f-9a21-90e341ac7cf8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government submitted that the section 3(2) warrant regime was proportionate and \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. Democratic States faced a growing threat from terrorism, and as communications networks became more wide-ranging and sophisticated, terrorist organisations had acquired ever greater scope to operate and co-operate on a trans-national level. It would be a gross dereliction of the Government\u2019s duty to safeguard and the lives and well-being of its population if it failed to take steps to gather intelligence that might allow preventative action to be taken or if it compromised the operational effectiveness of the surveillance methods available to it. Within the United Kingdom the Government had extensive powers and resources to investigate individuals and organisations that might threaten the interests of national security or perpetrate serious crimes, and it was therefore feasible for the domestic interception regime to require individual addresses to be identified before interception could take place. Outside the jurisdiction, however, the ability of the Government to discover the identity and location of individuals and organisations which might represent a threat to national security was drastically reduced and a broader approach was needed. Maintaining operational effectiveness required not simply that the fact of interception be kept as secret as appropriate; it was also necessary to maintain a degree of secrecy as regards the methods by which such interception might be effected, to prevent the loss of important sources of information."], "id": "26db449a-3a2b-4d4f-bfab-f09c84e9f6ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["174. The applicant did not appear to deny that the impugned restrictions were imposed in pursuit of legitimate aims. The Court finds it established that those restrictions pursued one or more of the legitimate aims enumerated in Article 8 \u00a7 2: firstly, they sought to prevent crime, and, secondly, as the relevant Security Council resolutions had been adopted to combat international terrorism under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter (\u201cAction with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression\u201d), they were also capable of contributing to Switzerland\u2019s and public safety."], "id": "2c75fa91-b353-4419-8d8f-5921c42473d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant accepted that considerations might justify withholding information from the defence. Praying in aid Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, ECHR 2004\u2011X, and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, ECHR 2009, he submitted that strict necessity for so doing should be shown; that the restrictions on access to the information should be the least intrusive possible; and that counterbalancing procedures should be in place."], "id": "1bd24ecb-2cce-4a72-b06b-aee1d53b5d19", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted in the alternative that any interference with the applicant\u2019s right under Article 8 had been carried out on the basis of section 48(A)(5) of Law no. 657 on Civil Servants. They provided the Court with extracts of this provision containing the amendments of 2008 (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above). The Government also relied on section 39(1) of the Regulation on Private Tutoring Centres. They further contended that the applicant\u2019s dismissal had pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining , territorial integrity, public safety, public order and preventing crime, and that it had been necessary in a democratic society in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "0748de09-b313-4263-af30-a01216aa1149", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant also maintained that Article 6 \u00a7 2 was violated as the State authorities presumed him to be guilty of posing a threat to without having proved it. Relying on Article 6 \u00a7 3 (a), (b) and (d), he also alleged that the reasons why he purportedly posed a threat to national security were never disclosed to him and, therefore, he could not prepare his defence."], "id": "a2842a7a-45a4-48c5-8719-0e9cbd8f96f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government annexed to their Further Observations, dated 23 May 2003, a second statement by Mr Boys Smith, in response to Mr Campbell\u2019s statement (see paragraph 48 above), which provided more detail, to the extent that was possible without undermining , about the \u201carrangements\u201d made by the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Act. The Government submitted that the Court should proceed on the basis that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, in the democratic society of the United Kingdom, the relevant ministers, officials and Commissioners properly discharged their statutory duties to ensure that safeguards were in place to comply with all the requirements of section 6. Moreover Mr Boys Smith\u2019s statement showed that during the relevant period there was a range of safeguards in place to ensure that the process of selection of material for examination (the stage referred to by the applicants as \u201cfiltering\u201d) could be carried out only strictly in accordance with the statutory framework and the terms of the warrant and the certificate (that is, could be carried out only when necessary in the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime or for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom), and could not be abused or operated arbitrarily."], "id": "a9d7e8ea-1ed4-40b7-8449-d67dc642aec0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government submitted that Article 10 was not applicable in the present case. In any event they stated that the application of the KGB Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of the protection of and was necessary in a democratic society in view of the applicants\u2019 lack of loyalty to the State. The applicants had not been punished for their views, be they views which they hold at present or views that they might have held in the past. The KGB Act had not imposed a collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in section 3 of the KGB Act showed that there had been a well-founded suspicion that the applicants had been lacking in loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "9d1c3018-8443-403c-82d8-216f69b8286b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants have been married since 1994 and have had two children. The Court is satisfied that the applicants' relationship amounted to family life. The second applicant and the children are Russian nationals who were born in Russia and have been living there all their lives. From 1994 to 1996 and from 2001 to August 2003 the first applicant lawfully resided in Russia with his wife and children on the basis of a renewable work visa. In 2003 he applied for a residence permit to which he had become entitled under the new law passed in 2002 (see paragraph 32 above). However, his application was refused by reference to considerations and he was required to leave Russia. As he did not leave, his deportation was ordered. The deportation order is still valid and enforceable and the deportation is impending. The Court therefore concludes that the measures taken by the domestic authorities against the first applicant constituted interference with the applicants' right to respect for their family life (compare Bashir and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 65028/01, \u00a7 37, 14 June 2007, and Musa and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 61259/00, \u00a7 58, 11 January 2007)."], "id": "7ee1905a-f4f6-4b1f-94b4-6172303d83e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants further argued that the Data Protection Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Committee for were not a substitute for the judicial control in the authorisation phase since they constituted oversight, rather than remedial, mechanisms and these had only general consequences not affecting the concrete case. Upon queries addressed to these two organs, the applicants found that none of them had ever dealt with a case on surveillance of citizens. These potential control mechanisms were thus not effective."], "id": "9e71fdc5-659a-48a2-afea-5d5fc6201f3f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants contested the Government's submissions. They complained in particular that they had lost their private-sector jobs, and that they had furthermore been deprived of the possibility to seek employment in various private-sector fields until 2009 as a result of their statutory status as \u201cformer KGB officers\u201d. The applicants submitted that they had not been given any possibility under the Act either to present their personal cases in the evaluation and establishment of their loyalty to the State, or to avoid the application to them of the employment restrictions prescribed by Article 3 of the Act. In particular, the applicants stressed that they had left the KGB almost a decade before their dismissals. Furthermore, the applicants contended that their jobs in the private sector had not constituted any threat to the of Lithuania. However, the domestic courts imposed the employment restrictions solely on the ground of their former employment in the KGB. Finally, the applicants submitted that, as a result of the negative publicity caused by the adoption of the \u201cKGB Act\u201d and its application to them, they had been subjected to daily embarrassment on account of their past."], "id": "432b6664-bd89-477f-a55f-e2837d84fe42", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government submitted that Russian law treated all aliens on an equal basis, irrespective of whether or not they had a minor child in Russia. There was no evidence that the State authorities had prevented the applicant from being reunited with his son in a different State. Nor had he shown that he had taken any steps to remove his son from Russia. In any event, the Convention does not guarantee the right to establish family life in any specific country (here they referred to the case of Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, \u00a7 97, ECHR 2003\u2011X). Unlike the first applicant in the Slivenko case, who had come to Latvia when she had been only ten months old and had spent her entire life there, the applicant had arrived in Russia as an adult and had lived there for only eight years. His integration into Russian society was open to doubt since he had been unable, by his own admission, to read a document handwritten in Russian. Moreover, owing to their profession, religious missionaries must be prepared to change their place of residence with greater ease. Finally, the Government submitted that, in any event, the interference with the applicant\u2019s family life had been in accordance with law, pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of and had also been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "e9c9cabe-ffea-4635-9ec5-de15a2432503", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["87. The Government put forward the interests of as the only justification for the course of action they had adopted. The Court has already found above that they failed to produce any material or evidence corroborating their claim that the applicant\u2019s presence on Russian soil had indeed posed a threat to national security. It follows that the Government did not offer any justification which could outweigh the legitimate interest of the applicant and his son in staying together."], "id": "8de2e84f-7afd-4624-9045-95c1bf2ebee2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["115. The Government invoked the exception mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to justify the course of action adopted by the Russian authorities against the applicant. However, as the Court has found above, they did not submit any material or evidence capable of corroborating their claim that the interests of or public order had been at stake. Accordingly, the exception set out in paragraph 2 cannot be held to apply in the instant case and the normal procedure described in paragraph 1 must have been followed. As regards compliance with that procedure, the Court notes that the Government did not furnish any explanation as to why the decision on the applicant\u2019s exclusion had not been communicated to him for more than three months and why he had not been allowed to submit reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed with the participation of his counsel. He was therefore not afforded the procedural guarantees set out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 7."], "id": "04333c72-e179-414b-87f1-00c8e3c7354f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government submitted that the measures taken against the first applicant pursued a legitimate aim and were necessary. The Contracting States were entitled to expel an alien regardless of his or her level of integration. The first applicant\u2019s removal from Bulgaria would not impose a disproportionate burden on the applicants, because they would be able to continue their family life outside the country. The circumstances in which the first applicant\u2019s expulsion had been ordered showed that the authorities had not failed to strike a balance between the applicants\u2019 rights and the public interest; they had carried out their duty to protect public order and . The expulsion order had not yet been put into effect, and the applicants\u2019 family life could not therefore be regarded as already affected by it. The first applicant\u2019s detention pending removal had not been disproportionate either, because the other applicants had been able to visit him in custody."], "id": "5db11057-e4ed-45d4-9864-fcb03b89c709", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["181. The applicant submitted that even where was at stake, a domestic court could not infringe the fair hearing principle in a blanket and uncritical manner. He argued that less restrictive measures were available to achieve the aim pursued, including arrangements to protect witnesses' identities, disclosure of documents with redactions approved by the IPT, provision of a summary of particularly sensitive material under the supervision of the IPT and appointment of special advocates to whom disclosure of sensitive material could be made. He referred to a recent report on secret evidence published in June 2009 by the non-governmental organisation, JUSTICE, which called for the strengthening of disclosure procedures and increased transparency in court proceedings."], "id": "83b3226a-06c4-46f4-8b04-d5da0ed63c23", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["95. The Government further argued that neither the domestic courts nor other State institutions participating in the court proceedings for the applicant\u2019s deportation could be blamed for delays. The Government admitted that, normally in cases regarding alleged violations of Article 8 of the Convention, the passage of time could have irremediable consequences for the applicant\u2019s family. However, in the instant case, the passage of time had had no negative impact on the applicant\u2019s private and family life. Quite the opposite, it was a well thought-out strategy, chosen by the applicant and his lawyers, expecting that the lapse of time would possibly render the applicant\u2019s threat to less significant. It was true that the administrative proceedings in the applicant\u2019s case had started already in 2004. Nonetheless, the delays had been caused by the necessity to await the outcome of the criminal case against the applicant (see paragraph 42 above), and the applicant\u2019s or his lawyers\u2019 requests to suspend the administrative proceedings until his case had been heard before the European Court of Human Rights, or to make interpretative requests to the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 50 and 53 above)."], "id": "621d3195-235e-4552-bdfa-bde7076ffd40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "National Security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["101. The applicants protested against the manner in which the Government's Agent had tried to \u201csqueeze in\u201d evidence by reading out at the oral hearing passages of documents she had not submitted to the Court. When those documents had later been submitted they had turned out to be declarations created for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court, full of vague generalisations and exaggerations lacking any credibility such as the statements about \u201chundreds of thousands of dollars..., once ... even twenty thousand\u201d in the first applicant's home, coming in \u201cUSD 100 bills\u201d. The Service's Information Note, moreover, contained incorrect claims, such as those concerning the Tayba and Irshad foundations."], "id": "831ab29c-d031-4c92-b369-a2f2a2571cf5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "national security", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicants submitted that the application for a residence permit had been refused by reference to considerations. The first applicant's presence in Russia had become unlawful as a result of that refusal. The refusal of a residence permit and the deportation order had not pursued any legitimate aim. No criminal proceedings had ever been brought against him and there had been no evidence that he had presented a national security risk. Moreover, the deportation had been ordered by the Federal Migration Service in breach of domestic law because the deportation order had not been confirmed by a court in accordance with the procedure established in the Administrative Offences Code."], "id": "23a21e46-1e56-45fd-ac97-a80c17eb8a8a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["115. The Government invoked the exception mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to justify the course of action adopted by the Russian authorities against the applicant. However, as the Court has found above, they did not submit any material or evidence capable of corroborating their claim that the interests of national security or public order had been at stake. Accordingly, the exception set out in paragraph 2 cannot be held to apply in the instant case and the normal procedure described in paragraph 1 must have been followed. As regards compliance with that procedure, the Court notes that the Government did not furnish any explanation as to why the decision on the applicant\u2019s exclusion had not been communicated to him for more than three months and why he had not been allowed to submit reasons against his and to have his case reviewed with the participation of his counsel. He was therefore not afforded the procedural guarantees set out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 7."], "id": "0531e4ba-ed7a-424c-bc97-d3cc711d2b05", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant\u2019s case differed from previous cases examined by the Court in at least two aspects. Firstly, unlike the majority of applicants who had disputed their before the Court, she had not committed any serious crime in the host country. Secondly, in contrast to the situation in a number of previous cases, it could not be argued that her residence in Norway had never had any basis or that her family ties with her children had been established after expulsion had become imminent."], "id": "121c6c2b-def5-4059-949a-6629b5cff5dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his led to a separation from his wife and children. While the measure might have had a legitimate aim, namely the prevention of disorder and crime, it had not been necessary in a democratic society. In this respect he stressed that he \u2013 having lived for more than 27 years in Germany \u2013 had fully integrated into German society and that he did not have any remaining links to Turkey other than his nationality, also lacking sufficient knowledge of the Turkish language. He maintained that he had been employed during the major part of his adult life and that he had been working in Germany from January 2001 until his second deportation in August 2003. His children could not be expected to accompany him to Turkey, as they would not be able to follow school there because of their poor knowledge of the Turkish language."], "id": "810f0453-ef43-4eab-995c-82ab750bd2b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government attached crucial importance to the judgment by the Supreme Court of 25 August 2006 convicting the applicant of twenty-six counts of drugs-related offences involving 2.68 kg of heroin and cocaine, for which he was sentenced to seven years\u2019 imprisonment. Hence the offences were extremely serious, a fact which had led the Court in numerous cases to find an justified by weighty interests of public order (see, inter alia, Lagergren v. Denmark (dec.), no. 18668/03, 16 October 2006, and Mccalla v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30673/04, 31 May 2005)."], "id": "49c6ace2-9c4c-4d37-9ce2-df25f4bbadd1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["126. The applicant submitted that there was no indication that the authorities had been actively pursuing his or that it was at all possible. The only thing that the authorities had done had been to contact the Lebanese embassy in Sofia with a view to obtaining travel documents for the applicant to allow him to enter Lebanon. They had not tried to contact the embassies of any safe third countries. In the applicant\u2019s view, detention pending deportation should be allowed to reach the maximum eighteen\u2011month period allowed by law only in exceptional cases."], "id": "8d4fa396-99bf-4d01-ab07-d83b8fde1994", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s would amount to an interference with his right to respect for his family life. However, such an interference was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society. During the period of his residence in the Russian Federation, the applicant had been convicted twice of criminal offences. In particular, on 18 November 1999 the Shuya Town Court of the Ivanovo Region had found him guilty of extortion committed by a group of persons (a serious crime) and theft of a passport (a minor offence) and sentenced him to three years and one month\u2019s imprisonment. On 26 April 2005 the Town Court had found him guilty of theft (an offence of medium gravity) and sentenced him to three years\u2019 imprisonment. The Government stressed that the fact that the applicant committed the theft shortly after having served his first prison sentence should not be overlooked, as it showed his firm propensity to commit crimes against property. Furthermore, on 19 June 2007 and 8 July 2010 the applicant had been held administratively liable for failing to have his residency in Russia duly authorised. According to the information from the police, the applicant was a member of an organised criminal gang, was actively involved in drug dealing and was a drug addict himself. He was unemployed and did not support his wife and children. Accordingly, his expulsion would not have any bearing on his family\u2019s financial situation. His wife had been aware of his convictions prior to marrying him. She had never met her parents-in-law in person. She maintained contact with them by telephone or via the internet."], "id": "5231cd0f-3263-463f-a6a5-11a5ece2e8bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant claimed that the Swiss authorities had not complied with their obligations, inherent in Article 8 of the Convention, to allow him to reside in Switzerland, thereby enabling him to enjoy family and private life in that country. He submitted that his personal interests in remaining in Switzerland outweighed the State\u2019s interest in securing public order and safety, and that his for an undetermined period of time was a disproportionate measure under Article 8 of the Convention. He alleged that the facts of his case were comparable to those in Emre v. Switzerland (no. 42034/04, 22 May 2008) because he too had been living in Switzerland for a long time, had established strong social and professional ties to that country and no longer had ties with his home country, Peru. In addition, he was enjoying family life in Switzerland since he had been residing there with his second wife between 2005 and 2008, and several of his brothers and sisters were living in the respondent State. Furthermore, by contrast to Emre (cited above), he had been sentenced only once."], "id": "8aa32c5e-8375-4b0b-a9e2-149ba8e1d038", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant referred to the reality of the situation in French Guiana, where 10,000 of the 40,000 illegal aliens present were removed every year. In the applicant\u2019s submission, such figures made it impossible to review each individual situation prior to . Most of the removal orders were executed within forty-eight hours, with only very cursory formal verification, and were simply signed in bulk, as revealed by an investigation carried out by the National Commission for Policing Ethics (see paragraphs 45 and 46 above). They concerned all sorts of cases, including parents obliged to leave their children behind, who were then placed in care, irremediably affecting their family life. The potential for irreversible effects was all the greater in that no prior verifications were made by the authorities or the courts."], "id": "5782dfe2-2f46-4b46-81e8-e284da69e22f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government pointed out, as stressed by the Aliens Appeals Board in its judgment of 27 November 2010 (see paragraph 46 above), that a stay of execution could also be obtained by means of a different combination of remedies. This involved first an application to set aside and a request for a stay of execution under the ordinary procedure to be lodged within thirty days of notification of the impugned decision, followed by a request for interim measures as a matter of extreme urgency once the alien concerned was made the subject of a coercive measure. The Aliens Appeals Board then had a statutory duty to examine simultaneously, within seventy\u2011two hours, the request for extremely urgent interim measures and the ordinary request for a stay of execution that had already been lodged. The request for extremely urgent interim measures, once lodged, automatically suspended enforcement of the measure."], "id": "3750b13d-c078-478c-bbf6-349076f3f95c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants claimed the following amounts: 1) 19,200 euros (EUR) for rent paid between January 2006 and December 2009 by the first applicant for an apartment rented by him in Thessaloniki; 2) 13,000 United States dollars (USD) borrowed by the first applicant to cover his living expenses; and 3) EUR 9,539.10 paid by the four applicants for plane and bus tickets after the first applicant's . In support of these claims they presented a declaration signed by the first applicant's landlord in Thessaloniki and concerning the rent paid, a declaration by the first applicant to the effect that he had borrowed USD 13,000, copies of plane tickets showing that the first applicant had travelled to Paris and to Amritsar, India, and bank statements."], "id": "015dec37-5286-44be-a176-85e3c4ed41c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["148. The Government first of all suggest distinguishing two separate procedures \u2013 the as a result of conviction and the expulsion as a result of the breach of the administrative provisions regarding the entrance and stay of foreigners in Latvia. The Government state that in the present case the applicant was expelled as a result of the breach of the afore-mentioned administrative provisions."], "id": "37d7ee5c-6cd2-40c5-9acd-aa471d20a2c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government claimed that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. In particular, they had not pursued the appeal against the 2013 decision which was at the origin of their subsequent administrative detention; had not challenged the detention measure under Article 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; had not appealed against the decision of the K\u0119trzyn District Court of 4 February 2014; had not appealed against the respective decisions of the head of the Aliens Office of 19 February and 18 April 2014; and had not brought an action for compensation for unjustified detention in a guarded centre under section 407 of the Aliens Act of 12 December 2013."], "id": "8a02c29c-e5ef-41b9-9f10-7b3ac2936338", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["217. The applicants submitted that, if they had been ethnically Armenian and Christian rather than Azerbaijani Kurds and Muslim, they would not have been forcibly displaced from their homes by the Armenian-backed forces. They referred to the report by Mr David Atkinson and the Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly, according to which \u201cthe military action, and the widespread ethnic hostilities which preceded it, led to large-scale ethnic and the creation of mono\u2011ethnic areas which resemble the terrible concept of ethnic cleansing\u201d (see paragraph 64 above). Alternatively, the applicants submitted that they had been subjected to indirect discrimination by Armenia, since the actions taken by the Armenian military and the Armenian-backed Karabakh forces had disproportionately affected Azerbaijani Kurds, who were individuals belonging to an identifiable group."], "id": "3fab5902-992e-4deb-867c-c063276d2e6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government claimed, firstly, that the applicant had not been resident in Russia because he had flown in from Cyprus. Secondly, they alleged that his visa had no longer been valid and his residence had therefore been unlawful, referring to the Commission\u2019s decision in the Voulfouvitch and Oulianova v. Sweden case (no. 19373/92, Commission decision of 13 January 1993). Thirdly, they maintained that the decision on the applicant\u2019s exclusion had been taken \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d, namely section 27 \u00a7 1 of the Entry Procedure Act, and that an alien could be expelled before being able to exercise his procedural rights if this was necessary \u201cin the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security\u201d. The Government did not state the reasons underlying the decision, referring to \u201cgenerally accepted international practice\u201d. They lastly pointed out that the right to admit aliens to its territory was a universally recognised sovereign right of a State."], "id": "395531f1-662c-42e1-a9f0-488c8dc38e40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicants alleged a breached of Article 3 of the Convention on account of their forced from their village. They had mentally suffered as a result of the actions of the members of security forces, who had burned their family houses. Under Article 8 of the Convention, they complained about the destruction of their property. Furthermore, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they maintained that the destruction of their houses and their forced eviction from the village had violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The provisions of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention are set out above at paragraph 59, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "43c0c35f-d61b-4900-95c3-fb9f80943178", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government stressed that, since the applicant\u2019s stay in Norway had been unlawful, the impugned did not constitute an interference with her right to respect for her family life for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention. The question was rather whether the Norwegian authorities \u201cwere under a duty to allow the .., applicant to reside\u201d in Norway, \u201cthus enabling [her] to maintain and develop family life\u201d in that country (see, Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, \u00a7 38, ECHR 2006\u2011I). In other words, the case should be regarded as \u201cone involving an allegation of failure on the part of the respondent State to comply with a positive obligation\u201d (ibid.)."], "id": "b0de6b6d-e08f-42d1-aead-ef02134ce20e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant submitted that his constituted not only an interference with his \u201cprivate life\u201d, but also his \u201cfamily life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, because he had a very close relationship with his daughter. He argued that the interference was not justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, as it was disproportionate. He had been polysubstance-dependent when he committed the crimes in order to finance his drug habit. The criminal offences had not been of such a nature as to cause anyone severe harm. He had not committed a crime since 2009. Rather, he had graduated from school (see paragraph 14 above) and successfully fought his polysubstance dependence since."], "id": "8b54225c-0172-4b3d-8f2f-b24a12c5748a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant submitted that the deportation order had interfered with his right to enjoy his family life, without being justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8. He pointed out that he had lived with his wife and their child before and following his detention. His wife and daughter could not reasonably be expected to follow him to Morocco and occasional contacts were insufficient to maintain the family relationship. He further stressed that he had not committed any further offences following his release from prison and that his would deprive the couple of the possibility of undergoing pertinent therapy and thus solving the problems which had initially led to the offence in question."], "id": "488e65cc-9e6f-40c4-af9c-a195c1516464", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicants' family life, as it was open to them to settle in Greece where the first applicant is currently residing. In any event, they considered that if there was interference, it met the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, they contended that the national courts had exercised full judicial review and had duly examined the grounds relied on by the executive in relation to the first applicant's ."], "id": "64ea021e-3fef-4455-9c45-f49e1b06e480", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants have been married since 2011 and have had a child together, born in 2012. The second applicant and the child are Russian nationals who were born in Russia and have been living there all their lives. In addition, the first applicant\u2019s parents settled in Russia in the early 2000s and have since acquired Russian nationality. The first applicant\u2019s was ordered in administrative proceedings, a decision declaring his presence in Russia undesirable was issued with reference to the same proceedings and his residence permit was revoked. The Court considers that the measures taken by the domestic authorities against the first applicant constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their family life (compare with Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, \u00a7 51, 6 December 2007, with further references)."], "id": "4c0ea74f-9d27-42e3-a118-17eb01e68a66", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government acknowledged that the judicial decision of 15 November 2011 amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their family life. However, the interference was prescribed by Article 6.9 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences and section 25.10 of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act, and the Federal Service for Drug Control had authority to issue the decision declaring the first applicant\u2019s presence in Russia undesirable. The interference pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of public order and was necessary to prevent the first applicant and other persons from re-offending. The Government disputed that the first applicant could be considered a long-term or settled migrant because he had taken up legal residence in Russia in 2001 at the age of twenty. The applicants\u2019 marriage had been a very recent event, having taken place in August 2011. The applicants had not shown that they would not be able to continue their life in Georgia where the first applicant had spent a major part of his life, where he could receive specialist treatment and find employment as a driver. The Government further pointed out that the first applicant had been held criminally responsible and found guilty on ten counts of administrative offences before the decision of 15 November 2011 and on seven counts after that date. Having regard to the first applicant\u2019s age, the length of the period of his criminal and immoral behaviour, as well as the seriousness of the crime and administrative offences he had committed, those deeds could not be regarded as \u201cacts of juvenile delinquency\u201d (here the Government referred to Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, 10 April 2012). The Government attached particular weight to the fact that the first applicant had committed drug-related offences. Lastly, they submitted that the first applicant would not be able to return to Russia for five years following his administrative and submitted that, in their view, that period was not excessively long (here they referred to Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, 3 July 2012, in which the Court found no violation in respect of a three-year period, and Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, ECHR 2008, in which the Court found a violation in respect of a ten-year period)."], "id": "c3d898cf-d6ea-4853-80f4-59cfd0ac659c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s was justified in the light of the European Parliament\u2019s Resolution on Cults in Europe of 29 February 1996, in which it had expressed concern over certain cults \u201cengaging in activities of an illicit or criminal nature and in violations of human rights, such as maltreatment, sexual abuse, unlawful detention, slavery, the encouragement of aggressive behaviour or propagation of racist ideologies, tax fraud, illegal transfers of funds, trafficking in arms or drugs, violation of labour laws, the illegal practice of medicine\u201d. The Government also referred to the same effect to Recommendation 1178 (1992) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on sects and new religious movements and the Committee of Ministers\u2019 supplementary reply to that Recommendation, adopted on 17 February 1994 (doc. 7030). The Government inferred from those documents that States had the right and obligation to exercise vigilance and caution in such sensitive matters as spreading religious teachings. The applicant\u2019s activity as a coordinator of Rev. Moon\u2019s groups had been merely a \u201cmotive\u201d rather than a \u201cground\u201d for the Russian authorities \u201cto exercise vigilance and make use of existing legal instruments\u201d. The grounds for the applicant\u2019s exclusion were the results of the operational and search measures as reflected in the report by the Stavropol Regional Branch of the Federal Security Service, dated 18 February 2002, concerning the banning of the applicant from the Russian Federation. As the Moscow City Court had pointed out in its judgment of 25 March 2003, the applicant\u2019s activities in the Russian territory were \u201cof a destructive nature and pose[d] a threat to the security of the Russian Federation\u201d. The Government emphasised that the threat resulted from the applicant\u2019s activities rather than his religious beliefs."], "id": "d04de597-d091-4edf-a0d1-03ae856806b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["171. The Government recalled that in March 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court had found that no family life within the meaning of Article 8 had existed between the applicant and E. Any interference with such family life on account of the applicant\u2019s order and the enforcement thereof was, and would be, grounded on the Aliens Act and further a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2."], "id": "d154925a-919a-45c6-80d9-673e5afe9d29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government claimed in addition that the Bulgarian authorities had \u201cproven\u201d that the first applicant\u2019s had been justified and that it was \u201cindisputable\u201d that he had posed a threat to national security. They considered that the Supreme Administrative Court had conducted a \u201cthorough and comprehensive\u201d review of the allegations against the first applicant, giving \u201cconvincing, albeit laconic\u201d, reasons for its decision to uphold the expulsion order."], "id": "2162ee3f-67f9-4f32-9d39-ae31cd4317f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government contested the allegation of a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. Reference was made to sections 7(1), 10(1) and 11(3) of the Aliens\u2019 Domicile and Residence Act as well as to Article 16 \u00a7 3 of the ordinance implementing the Act, all of which had been duly published and which provided a sufficient legal basis for the interference. According to these provisions, the residence permit of the foreign spouse of a Swiss citizen would not be renewed if there was a ground for . The Swiss authorities were called upon to examine the proportionality of the measure. Given the offences which the applicant had committed in Switzerland, there could be no doubt that the refusal not to renew the residence permit was called for in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "1df784ca-7dc1-4646-a9a3-6c512dd869e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government submitted that the sums claimed by the first applicant were exorbitant, and that there were no reasons to award anything to the other applicants. They pointed out that the order for the first applicant\u2019s had not been enforced, and said that there was noting to prevent the other applicants from following him to another safe country. In those circumstances, the finding of a violation would amount to sufficient just satisfaction."], "id": "1f7f251e-ab40-422a-a072-33e3b554751e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government submitted that in examining Mr Raza\u2019s application for judicial review the Supreme Administrative Court had fully and objectively analysed the factual and legal grounds for the order, and had given convincing reasons why the interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8 of the Convention was justified in the circumstances. Its decision was well\u2011founded and lawful."], "id": "0d20c1fe-dbf6-4834-9b00-4402edf118df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government submitted that the first applicant\u2019s would be justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 as being in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society. They emphasised that the applicant had been the subject of several criminal convictions and that his expulsion would pursue the legitimate aim of the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights of others."], "id": "3ca5b934-9be1-4e88-9dbf-f3f04ccaeb13", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["122. The Government\u2019s case was that the issue of risk would be examined upon the enforcement of the order against the applicant and that the authorities would not remove him from Bulgaria without ensuring that this would not fall foul of the prohibition set out in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 (see paragraph 38 above). However, the Court has already found that there are no guarantees that before proceeding with the expulsion the authorities would subject the applicant\u2019s claims under Article 3 of the Convention to rigorous scrutiny (see paragraphs 105 and 106 above). More importantly, the Government did not point to any procedure whereby the applicant would be able to challenge their assessment of those claims. From the provisions of the Aliens Act 1998 and the regulations for its application it does not appear that it is possible to bring a separate legal challenge against the enforcement of the expulsion order, let alone that there exists an avenue of redress that meets the two requirements set out in paragraph 120 above. The Court would emphasise in that connection that the existence of remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, and that it falls to the respondent State to establish that (see, among other authorities, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, \u00a7 107, ECHR 2010\u2011...)."], "id": "82a5765e-e171-41a9-b56b-40b0e32ef566", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d in terms of Article 34 of the Convention. They contended that an applicant could be considered a victim only if the State had already decided to take steps against him, and interference would come about only upon the execution or implementation of that decision. In the present case, despite the lack of any interim measure by the Court, no removal order was awaiting execution or implementation, as no such order had been issued, and no practical steps had been taken by the authorities in order to remove the applicant from Malta. The Government referred to Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France (27 August 1992, \u00a7 46, Series A no. 241\u2011B), in which the Court had distinguished the applicants\u2019 case from that of the applicant in Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, Series A no. 161), since in the former case no order had been made in respect of the applicants. They explained that deprivation of Maltese citizenship did not mean that the person so deprived would be removed from Malta. In order for the person to be removed from Malta, a removal order would have to be issued. Such an order had not been issued in the case of the applicant in the present case."], "id": "b37961c4-af56-4d75-a105-62d233924753", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government argued that the application was time-barred, as it had not been submitted within six months of the date on which the order for the applicant\u2019s was issued (6 November 2006) or of the date on which the applicant had left Bulgaria (29 October 2006). The Government were of the view that the six-month time-limit under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention had started running on one of these dates, because at that time the Aliens Act did not provide expressly for judicial review of expulsion orders based on national security grounds. The Government relied in this regard on the Court\u2019s findings in the case of Danawar v. Bulgaria ((dec.), no. 52843/07, 20 January 2015)."], "id": "669be7fd-baba-457c-862c-396f69d6487a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicants initially complained that the first applicant\u2019s to Turkey would entail a violation not only of Article 8 but also of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. However, after his expulsion to Turkey on 16 July 2011, they submitted in their pleadings to the Court of 18 October 2011 that they only maintained their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "f73cffae-86f7-45c2-943a-3186c3197e7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government contended that the applicants\u2019 claims were generally exaggerated and not supported by any evidence. They noted that the first applicant\u2019s detention with a view to his was not at issue in the present proceedings and could therefore not give rise to any claims. As regards the remaining items of pecuniary damage, the Government submitted that there was no causal link between the first and second applicants\u2019 alleged loss of earnings and the breach of the Convention at issue. In any case the applicants\u2019 claims in this respect were not corroborated in any way. The same applied in respect of the telephone costs claimed."], "id": "4c16d4aa-2b47-4b92-93b0-7ca6f9040f8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["376. The applicant further complained under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the destruction of his and the Orhans' home, property and possessions represented a serious violation of their right to respect for their private and family lives and their homes and of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. He also argued that his from his home, village and community represented a separate and serious violation of his rights under these provisions. The Government disputed that there was any such military operation in Deveboyu as alleged or at all."], "id": "0450af4d-e75a-4919-a5a3-ff3e0d0ce212", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government did not argue in their written observations that the Court should not have regard to facts which occurred after the final domestic decision in January 2008. The Court recalls that according to its established case-law under Article 3 of the Convention, the existence of a risk faced by an applicant in the country to which he is to be expelled is assessed by reference to the facts which were known or ought to have been known at the time of the ; in cases where the applicant has not yet been deported, the risk is assessed at the time of the proceedings before the Court (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, \u00a7 133, ECHR 2008\u2011...). The Court sees no reason to take a different approach to the assessment of the proportionality of a deportation under Article 8 of the Convention and points out in this regard that its task is to assess the compatibility with the Convention of the applicant\u2019s actual expulsion and not of the final expulsion order (see Maslov, cited above, \u00a7 93). Any other approach would render the protection of the Convention theoretical and illusory by allowing Contracting States to expel applicants months, even years, after a final order had been made notwithstanding the fact that such expulsion would be disproportionate having regard to subsequent developments. The Government have not explained whether further remedies within the domestic legal system are now available to allow the applicant to challenge his deportation a second time, nor have they suggested that the Court is precluded from examining developments on the basis that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In the circumstances, it is appropriate for the Court itself to assess the effect of this additional lapse of time on the proportionality of the applicant\u2019s deportation."], "id": "86863c43-3b21-429e-b628-723aa5838c87", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant\u2019s second wife, Y, from his marriage under Islamic law in 2002, was an Iraqi woman of Kurdish origin. They married before the offences at issue were committed. Thus, the criterion of whether the spouse knew about the offence at the time when he or she entered into a family relationship does not come into play in the present case. In respect of their marriage it is noteworthy, though, that they divorced in May 2013, before the District Court\u2019s decision of 3 June 2013 to refuse to revoke the order. Accordingly, the criterion relating to the seriousness of the difficulties which spouse Y is likely to encounter in the country to which the applicant is to be expelled does not apply. Y and the applicant had three children together, born between 2003 and 2009. The children had Danish nationality and their legal status was not affected by the applicant\u2019s expulsion order."], "id": "7ed350ba-f73e-404e-9b53-dec329caccbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants alleged that the of the second applicant to Italy in 2012 violated Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. They alleged that if the second applicant were to be expelled again there would be another violation of Articles 3 and 8. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants also claimed that they did not have an effective remedy at national level as the FAC did not take into account their family relationship when upholding the administrative decision not to examine the second applicant\u2019s asylum request on the merits."], "id": "ad698b92-a94e-4df2-b1d8-67ae586a3a80", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicants claimed 60,000 euros (EUR) (EUR 20,000 each) in respect of the non\u2011pecuniary damage arising out of the violation of Article 8 of the Convention. They submitted that their physical separation had engendered feelings of loneliness and hopelessness. The second applicant had had to take sedatives for a year after the of her husband. The relationship between the first applicant and his daughter had suffered serious damage as a result of their being apart. This had been exacerbated by the fact that the third applicant had epilepsy, which had grown worse as a result of the stress caused by her father\u2019s absence. The option for the whole family to settle in Turkey was not viable because there, unlike in Bulgaria, the costly medication needed for the third applicant\u2019s epilepsy would not be provided free of charge. Moreover, neither the second nor the third applicant spoke Turkish."], "id": "96daba98-124b-4607-8080-120f1d08587d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government stated at the outset that the applicant did not dispute that the exclusion order and subsequent had been based on the law and had pursued a legitimate aim. At the same time, the Government did not dispute that these measures had constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "ca77f127-47ab-41de-92c1-fa86527020e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicants submitted that Mr Raza\u2019s deprivation of liberty was unlawful because it had lasted an unreasonably long time. At the material time Bulgarian law, in breach of the applicable European standards, did not limit the duration of detention pending deportation. Save for sending several letters to the Pakistani embassy, the authorities had done nothing to expedite Mr Raza\u2019s . Given that he had a family, a place to live and financial means to support himself, and could be kept under police supervision, there had been no need to keep him in custody for so long."], "id": "570db64d-3843-450c-8fdb-ba433b72bacb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicant disagreed. In respect of the exhaustion issue he argued that the Government had failed to refer to any domestic case-law demonstrating the effectiveness of challenging the order considering that he had already been expelled from Estonia. Indeed, during the proceedings before the Strasbourg Court, a first-instance administrative court had dismissed the applicant\u2019s complaint against the expulsion order. As concerns the possibility of reapplying for a residence permit, the applicant noted that the Government had not specified what circumstances had changed in the meantime and argued that since his application had been rejected by the migration authorities and the courts, he was not required to make another similar application in order to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies before applying to the Court."], "id": "797a32db-eaf9-4d89-855c-9ec1297772da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["402. The applicants submitted that the deliberate destruction of their homes, property and possessions and the resulting arbitrary from their homes and village represented a serious violation of their right to respect for private and family life and of their right to respect for their home, as well as a serious interference with their way of life. They further claimed that the destruction of their homes and family life was part of a practice and that, therefore, they had suffered an aggravated violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "dfecd220-c8db-471d-a344-a485b7a89bc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant submitted that since she had lost her residence rights, the assurance given by the Government did not make her situation any less insecure, even if her removal would require a fresh order and the German authorities were not, for the time being, planning to take any decision to expel her to Pakistan. She did not respond to the Government\u2019s request for the application to be struck out."], "id": "d79caedc-270b-480f-927e-9fec7664250e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant did not dispute that she had entered Norway illegally on 19 July 1996 contrary to a re-entry ban imposed on her in March 1996. Although her first in March 1996 had been implemented very speedily without access to a lawyer and she was relatively young (20 years) when re-entering and marrying a Norwegian citizen soon thereafter, she had never denied her full responsibility for her unlawful re-entry in July 1996. It had not been until the expiry in March 1998 of the first re-entry ban that the spouses could have resided together in Norway lawfully. Nor did she dispute that, since the first prohibition on re-entry had been an obstacle to obtaining lawful residence, the residence permits issued to her on the basis of her marriage to a Norwegian citizen from 1996 onwards had been issued on erroneous grounds due to her failure to provide correct information. She therefore conceded that the situation in her case had differed from that of the applicant mother in Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer (cited above), where no formal obstacles had existed to the latter\u2019s obtaining a residence permit had she applied. The breaches of national immigration rules in question in the present case were of a more serious nature than those at issue in the aforementioned case."], "id": "949e07ae-dcbf-4b55-b7b7-f837107b6ea0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government considered that the application was inadmissible because the domestic remedies had not been exhausted. They pointed out that the judicial proceedings related to the applicant\u2019s order and his actual expulsion were pending before administrative courts. Moreover, the applicant could also submit a new application for a residence permit once the circumstances changed. The Government also noted that the applicant had not contested the prohibition on entry to the Schengen area applied by Sweden and that Estonia had to adhere to that restriction."], "id": "a63501bf-6b89-4d07-82bc-0395d20bb65f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government pointed out that it was the ties between the applicant and her two children that had to be considered when examining \u201cthe extent to which family life [would be] effectively ruptured\u201d by her (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, \u00a7 39). While the Government did not dispute that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in such cases, it was by no means an \u201cextraordinary\u201d circumstance that children were affected by expulsion measures. Hence, the mere fact that the applicant had children in Norway could not preclude expulsion, even having regard to the protection of \u201cfamily life\u201d provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. In this regard the Government subscribed to the approach of the Supreme Court set out in paragraph 62 of its judgment:"], "id": "3b59b72b-1850-4caa-a470-d919ab1fcdd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant expressed the view that the criminal charge brought against him in 2006 should not have been taken into account by the Swiss authorities when assessing whether he constituted a risk to public safety because the criminal proceedings had ended in a nolle prosequi and he had been declared innocent. He added that the domestic authorities and the Government had given too much weight to his conviction and the criminal charges brought against him, while disregarding all other elements. He maintained that his from Switzerland had not been necessary in a democratic society under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "13976680-d830-4f60-b1eb-117c183a9a7d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants complained that the exclusion order against the first applicant gave rise to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The applicants further complained that their separation as a result of the exclusion order caused both of them irreparable mental harm and therefore constituted inhuman and degrading treatment pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention. The Court considers that the complaint concerning the effects of the on the applicants\u2019 mental health also falls under Article 8 (see Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, \u00a7\u00a7 46-47, ECHR 2001\u2011I, with further references), and will consequently examine it under that head. Article 8 reads as follows:"], "id": "3e016ee1-5811-4732-ba31-5ebb46691eca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant submitted that the decision not to grant him a new temporary residence permit and the resulting order infringed Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, he claimed that that decision was based solely on the allegation that he posed a \u201cthreat to national security\u201d contained in the file provided by the State Security Department and classified as \u201csecret\u201d. However, he was never informed of the contents of that file. He argued that he was genuinely integrated into life in Lithuania, where he had a business and had registered a non-governmental organisation Ibrahimas ir draugai (\u201cIbrahimas and friends\u201d), the aim of which was to foster the cultural traditions of Azeris residing in Lithuania. The applicant stressed that from 1993 he had lived in Lithuania with SG, a Lithuanian citizen, whom he had married in 2001 and with whom he had two children, both of whom were also Lithuanian citizens and still underage. He was the main source of income in the household and his expulsion deprived them of financial support."], "id": "988859c6-abdf-4863-a001-ed1cc26139f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government admitted that the applicants had been deprived of their liberty for a short period of time. However, that deprivation had been justified under the second limb of sub-paragraph (f) of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and effected for the purpose of the applicant\u2019s under supervision from the territory of the Republic of Moldova in accordance with the decision of the BMA to bar them from the territory. The Government also submitted that at the time of their transfer to Turkey the applicants had not opposed being expelled to their country of origin and that they had not claimed that they had risked being tortured or subjected to inhuman treatment if sent to that country. Moreover, the Moldovan authorities had not been in possession of any such information."], "id": "45f2c7b9-bc05-48ff-91ea-ab63c05e1e1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant argued that the decision to revoke his permanent residence permit and to order his constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for family life. He submitted that the criminal courts were of the opinion that the homicide he committed and his guilt were not serious as they sentenced him to five years and three months\u2019 imprisonment while the maximum penalty possible was twenty years\u2019 imprisonment. Moreover, he was twenty years old at the time he committed that offence on which the expulsion order was mainly based. The circumstances of the offence, a car race, were typical of an offence committed by adolescents. He claimed that he had matured since, also due to a therapy he underwent and relied on expert reports stating that there was a low risk that he would reoffend. The applicant emphasised that he had not offended in the years between the commission of the offence in 2000 and the commencement of his prison sentence in 2006 and that he served his sentence in a semi-custodial regime (offener Vollzug). All of these factors bore testimony to the fact that he did not constitute a threat to public safety. He also argued that the length of time between the commission of the offences in 2000 and the first service of the expulsion order in 2009 had to be taken into account."], "id": "e710115a-150a-4d45-a477-346ec13beadd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government submitted that the Austrian authorities had carefully examined all legal conditions regarding the proceedings to lift the applicant\u2019s asylum status, and had weighed the competing interests involved in line with the Boultif criteria (see Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, \u00a7 48, ECHR 2001\u2011IX). After a thorough evaluation of the proportionality of the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life, the authorities came to the decision that the was proportionate to the aim pursued, especially in view of the applicant\u2019s entry into the country as an adult, the lack of effort on his part to integrate into Austrian society, and the offences committed."], "id": "9418f917-a436-49b3-85e6-a3d50397640b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government acknowledged that the applicant was enjoying family life with his wife and children in Switzerland. Arguing that the decision to revoke his permanent residence permit and order his constituted a justified interference with his family life, they submitted that the applicant was convicted of criminal offences several times, including in 2007 while serving his prison sentence. They emphasised that the homicide committed by the applicant was characterised by a high degree of recklessness, as he engaged in a car race and drove his car at a speed of at least 170 kilometres per hour, posing a threat to public safety. They argued that the domestic courts had thoroughly assessed expert reports on the risk of the applicant\u2019s reoffending and submitted that these reports did not entirely exclude the possibility that he would engage in a car race again and commit similar offences, despite his maturation process."], "id": "80be2dcc-a2dc-4a93-b51f-78833ff5b640", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government further submitted that the applicant had failed to integrate into the social and economic environment in Germany. Having finished his training as a car mechanic, he had not shown any inclination to find appropriate employment. His family of origin had not prevented him from committing criminal offences. In so far as his social prospects had improved through the founding of his own family, that could not be taken into account in the proceedings relating to his . The Government did not attach credence to the applicant's allegation that he had not maintained any contact with Turkey and that he did not have sufficient knowledge of the Turkish language. They pointed out that during his detention on remand he had written letters to his mother in Turkish."], "id": "1b02d595-2807-4d3e-a5e8-af602af1c68b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["161. The Government is of the opinion that the order on the applicant's from Latvia has been issued \u201cin accordance with law\u201d. Moreover, the Government underline that whether the judgment of the Riga Regional Court had or had not come into force was of no legal relevance since the applicant was not expelled on the basis of the judgment."], "id": "8ca6452c-cfec-4d9d-88cc-2555acb425f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant alleged that she had not had an effective remedy in respect of her complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention by which to challenge the order to leave the country. As her application to the Aliens Appeals Board to set aside that order, which was still pending, did not suspend her , she had lodged a request with that court under the extremely urgent procedure for a stay of execution of the order to leave the country, with a view to obtaining a ruling on the merits of her complaints before she was expelled. However, that procedure had proved fruitless because she had not been in detention and could therefore not establish the urgency of the situation. She stressed that the Aliens Appeals Board applied the same case-law when examining requests for interim measures as a matter of extreme urgency in the context of requests for a stay of execution under the ordinary procedure."], "id": "a45a3069-1778-46d8-9934-2467b2b9ed4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the order was \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime. As to the question of whether the interference was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d, the Government emphasised that the Danish courts had struck a fair balance between the opposing interests and carefully assessed the applicant\u2019s personal circumstances in accordance with Article 8 and the Court\u2019s case-law, including Maslov v. Austria, cited above. In making an overall assessment, they had attached significant weight to the two robberies committed, one in a private home and one a bank robbery, and to the circumstance that the applicant had prior convictions for robberies, including two convictions after he had attained the age of 18 (see also Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VI). Having regard to the subsidiarity principle, the Court should therefore be reluctant to disregard the outcome of the assessment made by the national courts."], "id": "6a128927-f9e3-442e-ab01-8e93bd25c3d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants disputed the Government's argument that their case fell outside the scope of protection of Article 8 of the right to respect for private and family life. They pointed out that the first and second applicants had been married during the period when a stay of execution had been granted in respect of the first applicant's and were thus lawfully residing in Norway. A marriage, even if entered into in breach of the criteria for contracting marriage, should be regarded as having been legally contracted and as implying the same rights as other marriages entered into in Norway. Spouses of Norwegian citizens who had applied for family reunion had a right to make such an application from Norway and to live with their spouse in the country pending final decision on their application. Thus the first applicant had established and enjoyed family life with a permission to reside in Norway, which was sufficient to trigger the protection of Article 8 of the Convention. Referring to the Court's case-law in this area (notably Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, ECHR 2006\u2011...; and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, ECHR 2006\u2011...), the applicants argued that the Article 8 guarantees applied also where the person concerned did not hold a formal residence permit but nevertheless lived and had family life in the respondent State."], "id": "d939da34-86a2-4ad1-b224-e9f064b1c171", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicant alleged that in thus rejecting her request for a stay of execution, the Aliens Appeals Board, contrary to the Court\u2019s case-law on Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, had deprived her of the only possibility under Belgian law of obtaining automatic suspension of the measure, which was liable to be enforced at any time after 22 December 2010."], "id": "11b8925a-b7f6-47be-8a29-70b0e053dce7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["151. The Government further submit that the applicant's from Latvia did not limit his access to court as he could rectify the deficiency of his complaint and continue the proceedings before the Central District Court of the City of Riga through his lawyer. In case the applicant's presence was considered mandatory by the court, it would have summoned him, according to Article 2395 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court's summons would have been a valid basis for issuing a visa to the applicant."], "id": "7f946449-8169-487c-a7ae-01965b0aaf17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government further argued that, by contrast to Shala v. Switzerland, no. 52873/09, \u00a7 55, 15 November 2012, the applicant had not arrived in Russia at a young age. He arrived at the age of twenty-four having completed all his studies in Georgia where he had obtained two university degrees. Therefore, the Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1504 (2001) on the non- of long-term immigrants did not apply to him. Furthermore, the applicant\u2019s parents and sister kept living in Georgia and he maintained social, cultural and linguistic connections with his home country. As regards the fact that, according to the Russian law, the applicant could not re-enter Russia within five years after his removal, in the Government\u2019s view this did not constitute an excessively long period, especially given that the applicant had previously left Russia for a similar period in the 1990s of his own accord (see paragraph 12 above)."], "id": "8d06ceca-460f-4ccd-a74c-d795810f4c64", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicants also claimed that the Swiss authorities had disregarded completely the situation to which the three children would be exposed if sent back to Kosovo. Even if they were still socially and culturally attached to their home country, which the applicants contested, they disputed that there was any proof that the children\u2019s grandmother or other relatives would be able to care for them. They explained that the grandmother only temporarily took care of the children between 2007 and 2009 on condition that they would join the applicants in Switzerland as soon as the second applicant had obtained residence permits for them. Therefore, in the event of to their country of origin, the children would be at risk of spending their lives in an orphanage. This would be contrary to the children\u2019s best interests and in violation of their rights under Article 3(1), 8(1), 9(1) and 10(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (see above \u00a733)."], "id": "255908f6-972f-4699-9969-ab3c7f80e573", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants claimed compensation for damages of altogether ATS 689,188.80 (equivalent to EUR 50,085.20). This sum includes ATS 251,188.80, equivalent to EUR 18,254.50, for pecuniary damage, in particular costs of the first applicant\u2019s detention with a view to his in 1995, loss of earnings suffered by the first applicant after he left Austria in July 1997 and by the second applicant when she stayed in Turkey in 2001 and telephone costs incurred during their separation. Furthermore, it includes ATS 438,000, equivalent to EUR 31,830.70 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, in particular compensation for the first applicant\u2019s suffering on account of his detention with a view to his expuslion and for all three applicants\u2019 suffering due to being separated."], "id": "a7e2bc3a-6383-4b62-b73b-71870062f971", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government argued that the application was inadmissible for two reasons. First, as in the case of Abulail and Ludneva v. Bulgaria ((dec.), no. 21341/07, 13 November 2014), the first applicant had not raised in the domestic judicial proceedings a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. Second, he could have brought a tort action against the State, in view of the fact that the decisions concerning his detention pending had been quashed."], "id": "17f7a3b3-3925-4a88-a119-f4242dd33778", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant specified that he was not complaining regarding the issuance of the ban prohibiting his return to Austria. His complaint to the Court solely concerned the withdrawal of his subsidiary protection status and his subsequent to Kosovo, which, in his view, had violated his right to respect for his private and family life as set out in Article 8 of the Convention, which reads:"], "id": "1363c74d-18e2-4577-952f-c496f00862d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant submitted that it had not been justified only to take into account the seriousness of his criminal offences. In his view, his good behaviour during and after the serving of his prison sentence, the extent of his social, cultural and family ties in Austria, the lack of such ties with Turkey, his long-term residence in Austria, his overall living conditions and his interest in improving his private and family life weighed much more than the State\u2019s interest in his ."], "id": "281d4f95-d73e-430d-8e2b-ce53e04fd548", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicants disagreed. They pointed out that they had lived as a family in Bulgaria and that there was no doubt that the first applicant\u2019s represented an interference with their right to family life. They argued that the measures against the first applicant had been arbitrary, since the allegations against him had remained unproven and had been unsupported by any evidence. Moreover, according to the applicants it was doubtful whether some of the actions alleged on the first applicant could indeed be seen as impinging upon the national security of Bulgaria. Lastly, the Supreme Administrative Court had applied a formalistic approach, failing to verify the executive\u2019s allegations against the first applicant, and had failed to respond in a meaningful manner to his arguments related to his right to family life."], "id": "60cabb63-d178-47f1-82f6-73129ead6a2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["3. The applicant\u2019s order received comprehensive and exhaustive examination by the domestic courts in Norway, where Article 8 was also examined. The decision of the Directorate of Immigration was reviewed by the Immigration Appeals Board (\u00a7\u00a7 14, 15 and 19), by the Oslo City Court (\u00a7 20), by the Borgarting High Court (\u00a7\u00a7 20 and 21) and by the Supreme Court (\u00a7\u00a7 22 et sequens). At all these levels the domestic courts took into account and examined all the submissions advanced by the parties for and against the deportation order. We find it difficult to understand how and why, given the considerable margin of appreciation given to States in connection with immigration policy, and the fact that the domestic courts are best suited to appreciate the particular local exigencies on the one hand and the actual situation of the persons affected by the authorities\u2019 decision on the other hand[1], the Court found it necessary in this case to interfere in the final decision of the Supreme Court and go against it. In our view, the Supreme Court\u2019s decision was based on relevant and sufficient reasons and considerations. It is true that the Borgarting High Court quashed the Board\u2019s decision of the 23 February 2007. However it is clear that this is due to the fact that Norwegian law (section 29(2) of the Immigration Act 1988, see \u00a7 26) required a twofold and separate assessment of the proportionality or otherwise of the deportation measure \u2013 one vis-\u00e0-vis the foreign national to be deported, and another vis-\u00e0-vis \u201cthe closest members\u201d of his/her family. This dichotomy is artificial in the light of what must necessarily be a unitary concept of family life in Article 8. In any case, although the Borgarting High Court found that the measure would not be disproportionate as regards the applicant but that it would be disproportionate as regards the children, it nonetheless \u201cassumed that the decision of the 23 February 2007 was not incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention.\u201d (\u00a7 20)."], "id": "52229a2e-9ec5-4962-8612-f0b58c683654", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government argued, further, that the common denominator of State measures that could be regarded as interference with private and family life \u2013 such as refusal to recognise the biological link between a child and its mother or father; intervention in a child\u2019s personal relationships with its parents; the of a family member; or even measures motivated by a person\u2019s sexual orientation \u2013 was the fact that they were all taken against the will or without the knowledge of at least one of the people concerned. They must therefore be clearly distinguished from the circumstances of this case, in which the parties accused, namely the social worker and the registrar, believed that they were acting in accordance with the wishes expressed by the applicant. The registrar had thus decided in good faith to order the burial of the stillborn child in the applicant\u2019s absence, believing that that decision reflected the parents\u2019 wishes."], "id": "76d6bebd-e7a3-4ec2-aad4-d201b7e38b56", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant pointed out in addition that he and Ms M. did constitute a family \u201cin the most traditional sense of the word\u201d, that they had a child, and that they had been living together prior to his from Bulgaria in 2006. To substantiate the latter point, the applicant submitted statements by his son and by two neighbours. The applicant pointed out that his application concerned in addition his right to private life. He had arrived in Bulgaria in 1995, at the age of 29, and had lived in the country for eleven years, establishing social connections and developing his business."], "id": "cf89a73d-5940-42e3-b4b8-61890e0e2007", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government reiterated that the refusal of the residence permit and the order against the applicant were justified measures under Article 8 of the Convention. They submitted that the circumstances which had led to the applicant\u2019s conviction in 2001 were so serious that the immigration measures had been necessary in a democratic society in order to preserve public order and safety. They also considered that the applicant had shown neither remorse nor the necessary respect towards the victim during the criminal proceedings."], "id": "732ca14d-5778-4063-97b4-50625c769523", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government argued that the applicant had retained social, linguistic and cultural ties with his home country. He had stated during the proceedings that he still had relatives in Kosovo, and that his father owned some land and three shops there. Moreover, the applicant had entered Austria as an adult and had spent a major part of his life in his home country."], "id": "8440bbb0-5085-4c1f-a724-1120ae4691dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government have accepted that the applicant\u2019s deportation would interfere with his private life as reflected in his relationship with his mother and brothers, and the Court endorses this view. The Court also recalls that, as Article 8 also protects the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual\u2019s social identity, it must be accepted that the totality of social ties between settled migrants such as the applicants and the community in which they are living constitutes part of the concept of \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8. Regardless of the existence or otherwise of a \u201cfamily life\u201d, and having regard to the considerable period of time he has lived in the United Kingdom, the of the applicant would therefore constitute an interference with his right to respect for his private life. The Court recalls that it will depend on the circumstances of the particular case whether it is appropriate for the Court to focus on the \u201cfamily life\u201d rather than the \u201cprivate life\u201d aspect (see Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, ECHR 2008 \u00a7 63)."], "id": "01ad9bb6-58e0-4326-a3b0-7a329e6d1cfd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant submitted that, at the time of his first conviction, he had already been living in Austria for nine years. At the time of his in 2013, he had been living in the country for fifteen years. He spoke German very well and had been socially and economically integrated in Austria. Both he and his wife had been employed and living in stable circumstances. His children had been born and raised in Austria and had no ties to Kosovo. He complained that these factors had not been duly taken into account by the authorities."], "id": "a1777177-97ba-4bad-b42f-0d46743352c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all available domestic remedies since he failed to request that the order be revoked under section 50, subsection 1, of the Aliens Act. He could thus have submitted that material changes in his circumstances had occurred after the original expulsion order and relied, for example, on the fact that time had passed since the Supreme Court judgment of 12 October 2011 and that he had divorced."], "id": "b6c9db81-0246-4233-9e5b-487acec9e7da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant emphasised that the Austrian authorities, when examining the decision to lift his asylum status and to expel him, in respect of a possible interference with his right to respect for family life overlooked the fact that his wife and the two children, born in 2004 and 2007, had independent asylum status in Austria. In those asylum decisions, the Independent Asylum Panel explicitly stated that the applicant\u2019s wife had a well-founded fear of independent persecution if she returned to the Russian Federation. It followed that the applicant\u2019s wife and children could not reasonably be expected to follow the applicant to the Russian Federation to maintain family life; in fact, an of the applicant to the Russian Federation would render any effective family relations impossible."], "id": "338904b9-1739-48cb-bc32-3f55e724989e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s fears were groundless in view of the prohibition in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 on the of aliens to a country where their health or life would be in jeopardy. The order to expel him had been intended to protect the national security of Bulgaria. However, its enforcement was subject to the provisions of section 44a, which coincided with the principles underlying Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. The practice in such cases was for the competent authorities, which worked in close cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and non\u2011governmental organisations, to verify the issue upon expulsion of their own motion. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs kept an updated list of safe third countries that could receive individuals in the applicant\u2019s position. The authorities were thus complying with the absolute prohibition of Article 3 of the Convention, and, unlike the situation obtaining in Saadi v. Italy ([GC], no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008\u2011...), were not seeking to balance national security considerations against the risk of ill\u2011treatment faced by the applicant. The bar in section 44a applied to all aliens, including those subject to expulsion orders on national security grounds."], "id": "16021d39-64d3-4bbb-af85-7a88f30d3884", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["150. The Government submitted that, although it was acknowledged in the Court\u2019s case-law that the responsibility of a Contracting Party could be engaged under Article 3 on account of the of an alien and his exposure to a risk of a breach of his economic and social rights, it nevertheless had to be taken into consideration that, where the person concerned suffered from an illness, neither the returning State nor the receiving State could be held directly responsible for the shortcomings of the health-care system and the repercussions on the health of the individual concerned. The case-law demonstrated that in order for the threshold of severity required by Article 3 to be attained in such cases the extreme nature of the applicant\u2019s living conditions or his or her extreme vulnerability had to be established. The circumstances contrary to human dignity had to be exceptional to such a degree that the person concerned, owing to his or her critical condition prior to removal, would inevitably be placed in a situation of intense suffering solely on account of the removal procedure and the complete absence of care and treatment in the receiving country. Human rights were not synonymous with compelling humanitarian considerations and a general obligation to provide social welfare assistance could not be inferred from Article 3 even in the name of human dignity."], "id": "161ed1ff-4d4e-4b4e-b8c4-d85609f547e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant also argued that his amounted to a severe interference with his family life both with his partner and his father. He had lived with V. since August 2009, they had made attempts to register their marriage, V. had regularly visited him while he had been in custody and they had maintained close contact after his expulsion, V. having visited him in Russia three times. The applicant further submitted that owing to his medical condition and his father\u2019s age they had been dependent on each other; he had also supported his father financially. Although the applicant\u2019s father and V. did not need a visa for travelling to Russia, they could only stay there for up to ninety days a year, otherwise their residence permits in Estonia could be revoked. Both his father and V. had strong family ties in Estonia. Like the applicant, V. had been born in Estonia, lived there all her life and knew no one in Russia apart from the applicant."], "id": "79a85933-a542-4cac-9f7f-0f0681e35f84", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government submitted that no support could be found, either in the Convention or in the Court\u2019s case-law, for the idea that the of aliens belonging to the category of second-generation or long-term immigrants was always disproportionate and discriminatory. Such a premise would entirely eliminate the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State when assessing individual immigration cases. The principle of non-discrimination did not, in any event, come into play, as the situation of nationals and non-nationals was not equal."], "id": "5b8a5f36-ee3e-4ff4-9f70-00ca0956a727", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["115. The Government submitted that the applicant had been able to challenge the order for his in judicial review proceedings, in the course of which he had been able to acquaint himself with all documents in the case file and seek to rebut the assertions of the authorities. In judicial review proceedings, the courts reviewed whether the administrative decision had been issued by a competent authority, in due form, and in compliance with the rules of administrative procedure and substantive law. In the applicant\u2019s case, the Supreme Administrative Court had done just that. It had examined the arguments of the parties and had given reasons for finding against the applicant. It is true that the question whether the applicant faced a risk of ill\u2011treatment upon expulsion had been raised before that court. However, since the proceedings concerned the lawfulness of the expulsion order, the court had deemed that question to be irrelevant. Domestic courts could review only specific administrative decisions. The applicant did not claim that there existed a tacit or an express refusal to stay the enforcement of the order for his expulsion by reference to section 44a."], "id": "0f6a766e-0eff-4f7e-a1c5-7c6e53d42910", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that even if the order interferes with the applicant's family life, it discloses no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Given the seriousness of the offence which the applicant committed in Denmark the measure of expulsion was called for in the interest of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The Government drew attention to the fact that the applicant has very strong ties with his country of origin since he was already an adult when he left Iran and had his entire school education in Iran. He masters the local language, he served part of his compulsory military service and he has family there. In comparison, the applicant does not have strong ties with Denmark. At the time the expulsion order was made he had resided for only eight years in Denmark. Moreover, in the Government's view, there is no evidence to prove that the applicant's spouse, the children of the marriage, and the spouse's child of another relationship will not be able to accompany the applicant to Iran."], "id": "505c1ce4-6517-4970-b006-2e3b5dacb343", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant\u2019s argument that the low prison terms applicable to breaches of the Immigration Act suggested that her offences had been of a trivial nature was flawed. The gravity of her offences could not really be assessed in criminal law terms. The legislator had consciously chosen not to make criminal sanctions the principal reaction to such breaches, which were primarily met with administrative sanctions, i.e. or refusal or withdrawal of permits. This had been based, inter alia, on the view that where the foreigner would in any event be forced to leave the country strict penalties would be redundant. The imposition of criminal sanctions might in fact slow down expulsion procedures and thus be counter-productive rather than beneficial to an effective enforcement of immigration law (see the quote from the travaux pr\u00e9paratoires at paragraph 50 of the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment at paragraph 23 above). Accordingly, as confirmed by the Supreme Court majority (see paragraph 49 of the said judgment, ibid.), the applicable prison terms did not reflect the gravity of the applicant\u2019s infringements of the Immigration Act."], "id": "b01f3eee-6fb9-45b4-a6f2-88fa3e3ed0e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government invited the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Convention on the ground that the applicant no longer ran any risk of being expelled to Pakistan on the basis of the order of 4 June 2009. They explained that even though the assurance they had given could not eradicate that order, the latter was no longer enforceable and the assurance in question could be relied on to prevent any attempt to enforce it. The Government emphasised that the applicant could henceforth only be expelled on the basis of a possible new expulsion order taking account of her state of health and the time which had passed since the 2009 expulsion order. They added that the German authorities would tolerate the applicant\u2019s residence in Germany under section 60a of the Residence Act pending the potential adoption of a new expulsion order with final effect."], "id": "fc3c70bf-8f75-4b76-a7de-010eb63bfa02", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicants argued that they had had a genuine family life in Bulgaria, which had been disrupted by the first applicant's . They conceded that this expulsion had been formally in line with the applicable provisions of the 1998 Aliens Act, but argued that domestic law failed to provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrary action on ostensible national security grounds. In particular, although the first applicant had been able to challenge before a court the order for his expulsion, the courts had failed to properly scrutinise that order and to exercise full judicial review. The first applicant had not been informed of the factual grounds that had led the authorities to the conclusion that he represented a threat to national security and in the judicial proceedings he had not been given a meaningful opportunity to disprove these allegations. Furthermore, the courts had failed to examine the proportionality of the first applicant's expulsion in view of the applicants' right to family life guaranteed under the Convention."], "id": "f102c19a-a587-4592-9a84-af7af6f0eccf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant further submitted that her from the Netherlands would not only entail a separation from her husband and son, but also from her husband's relatives \u2013 namely his mother and six siblings \u2013 all of whom are living in the Netherlands where Mr G.'s entire family group was granted admission in 1977. Also two siblings of the applicant herself are living in the Netherlands. As, according to the applicant, family ties are more important for Roma than for many other people, such a separation would be emotionally very burdensome."], "id": "024f5a1e-7914-4518-9bf4-e8c238d022e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government submitted that following the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Al-Nashif (cited above), the domestic courts had started examining applications for judicial review of orders. In the instant case the Plovdiv Regional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court had thoroughly assessed the factual and legal grounds for the orders made against the first applicant. Their analysis had been fully consistent with the principles of the Convention, and their judgments fully reasoned. The applicants\u2019 insinuations that these courts had examined the case in a formalistic fashion were groundless. The national courts\u2019 practice had later been confirmed by the April 2007 amendment to the 1998 Aliens Act."], "id": "62c92f8b-5bd6-474c-8815-c3eff822e324", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant was still a minor when, on 9 August 2005, she applied to be reunited with her family in Denmark. She had reached the age of majority when the refusal to reinstate her residence permit became final on 19 January 2008, when leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused. The Court has accepted in a number of cases concerning young adults who had not yet founded a family of their own that their relationship with their parents and other close family members also constituted \u201cfamily life\u201d. Furthermore, Article 8 also protects the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual\u2019s social identity, it must be accepted that the totality of social ties between settled migrants and the community in which they are living constitutes part of the concept of \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8. Regardless of the existence or otherwise of a \u201cfamily life\u201d, the of a settled migrant therefore constitutes an interference with his or her right to respect for private life. It will depend on the circumstances of the particular case whether it is appropriate for the Court to focus on the \u201cfamily life\u201d rather than the \u201cprivate life\u201d aspect (Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, \u00a7\u00a7 62-63, 23 June 2008."], "id": "cd7c49ff-1f0f-4629-907b-38d65ae74fdc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants maintained that the first and second applicants had had a relationship since the spring of 2001 and had been married since 2 February 2003. On 20 September 2006 a child had been born from their union, the third applicant. In the event of the first applicant's being expelled to Nigeria it would not be possible for the second and third applicants to follow him to settle there. The of the father would lead to the family being split, which would have particularly adverse consequences for the wife and the child and would amount to a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private and family life."], "id": "0b2b0b12-57d6-4ded-a746-1ba527469ea4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant stated that the domestic courts could not examine the applicability of Article 44a of the Aliens Act as their review was limited solely to the issue of the lawfulness of the order. He further claimed that the only procedure where the applicant\u2019s grievances under Article 3 could be considered was the asylum procedure. However, possible proceedings under the Law on Asylum and Refugees were not capable of barring the of individuals who were considered a threat to national security."], "id": "97c030ce-a0e0-4a47-b138-f3a4662cf536", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants said that they had had a genuine family life in Bulgaria, which had been disrupted by the first applicant\u2019s . They conceded that this expulsion had been formally in line with the applicable provisions of the 1998 Aliens Act, but argued that domestic law had failed to provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrary action on ostensible national security grounds. In particular, while the first applicant had been able to institute judicial review proceedings against the order for his expulsion, the courts had not properly scrutinised this decision and had refused to examine its proportionality. The only piece of evidence used to justify the conclusion that he was a national security risk had been a \u201cproposal\u201d containing information allegedly gathered through secret surveillance. However, the primary material from that surveillance had not been made available to the courts. The courts had thus surrendered their function of reviewing the exercise of the executive\u2019s discretion and the lawfulness of its actions, thereby depriving the applicants of the minimum degree of protection against arbitrariness."], "id": "f6475758-20de-4ec6-a717-5ae0cd6d78a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant further complained of a violation of the presumption of innocence, as provided for in Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. He claimed that the domestic authorities, when deciding on the immigration measures against him, had considered that his behaviour after his conviction in 2001 had not been irreproachable even though the criminal charge brought against him in 2006 had been withdrawn and he had been declared innocent. Therefore, the refusal of the residence permit and the from Swiss territory had breached his rights not only under Article 8 but also under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "b991b93e-e2f0-41e4-9e3e-5d18766d455e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicants contended that the order for the first applicant\u2019s was arbitrary and based on unspecified information contained in a secret internal document. They further stated that during the proceedings the authorities failed to present any other information or documents in support of their allegations. Lastly, the applicants claimed that the domestic courts failed to examine the credibility of the executive\u2019s assertions and the necessity of the first applicant\u2019s expulsion."], "id": "2403936a-0c9d-4da4-ad05-c0894536cd6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant further emphasised that contact between the children and him, their biological father, was in the children\u2019s best interest in the circumstances of the case. The independent expert consulted in the proceedings before the District Court had confirmed this and found that contact with him was important for the children to develop their own identity, in particular because it was visible that Mr B. was not the twins\u2019 biological father. Being African-German, they needed their father in order to understand why they were different. The applicant underlined that Mr and Mrs B. had not challenged the expert for bias in the proceedings before the domestic courts and that the family courts had not considered the expert biased. The denial of access to his children would result in his from Germany, which in turn would render impossible any future contact between him and the children."], "id": "6df519da-3f02-4f1b-bee1-7507b79655fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government argued that there was nothing uncertain in the applicant\u2019s situation in connection with the administrative case concerning his from the Republic of Lithuania. Contrary to the Court\u2019s judgment in Shevanova v. Latvia (no. 58822/00, 15 June 2006), where the applicant had undergone a period of seven years of uncertainty and insecurity owing to her illegal stay in Latvia, the applicant in the instant case had been residing in Lithuania legally, that is, his stay had been regularised ever since the final loss of Lithuanian citizenship. In particular, by the decisions of the Migration Department of 10 September 2004, 1 September 2005, 4 September 2006 and 19 September 2007, the applicant had been issued with one-year, temporary residence permits until the end of the examination of his administrative case. On that basis he could legally reside in the country."], "id": "45054bcd-ffbd-4a5c-8577-66aedc561161", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government maintained that the factual grounds for the first applicant\u2019s deportation were based on information lawfully obtained by the competent administrative body, the National Security Service. This information was not refuted during judicial review at two levels of jurisdiction. The balance between the first applicant\u2019s rights and the public interest had been respected. Furthermore, in case of the applicants could settle in the first applicant\u2019s country of origin or another country of their choice."], "id": "56e3e7e5-73f1-4ae4-a6f7-a71dd3ece859", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicants further contended that the authorities\u2019 failure to assist the first applicant amounted to a de facto from school, and implicitly a denial of education. However, they observed that their case was not exceptional, that children with disabilities were more likely to be segregated in special schools where they received education of inferior standard, and that the lack of inclusive education was a systemic problem in the respondent State. Lastly, they reiterated the Commissioner\u2019s findings concerning inclusive education after his 2013 visit to Romania, and in particular the overreliance on special schools; the low level of attendance in mainstream schools; the high drop-out rates and the poor data collection concerning the education of children with disabilities; the lack of trained teachers and appropriate teaching methods; the lack of funding for assisting pupils with disabilities, which often forced the parents to bear the costs; the reported practice of mainstream schools refusing enrolment to children with disabilities; and the ill-treatment of children with a disability by their educators and peers. The applicants concluded that this information offered sufficient prima facie evidence of discrimination in the present case. They further relied on the findings of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2017 report), the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights (report on the mission to Romania, 8 April 2016), the European Committee of Social Rights (2016 report), UNICEF (2015 report), and on the Government\u2019s Disability Strategy 2016-2020."], "id": "50117d47-c228-4d93-ad91-0979d90ad38f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants complained that of the children to their home country would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, because they would be separated from their immediate family and sent to their home country, where they have no one to care for them. They would probably be sent to an orphanage and would depend on social services in Kosovo. Their expulsion would therefore put them at risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "9f98003a-52ea-4cbc-b4c2-ba5809ee86eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government accepted that the order interfered with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1. In the Government\u2019s view, the measure at issue was justified under \u00a7 2 of that same provision as being in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society. They pointed out that the domestic authorities, on request, generally set a time-limit to the ban to re\u2011enter German territory, as provided by section 8 of the Aliens Act. While the applicant had lodged such a request, he did not appear to have made sustained efforts to pursue it. In particular, he had not answered to the Regional Government\u2019s letter of 30 January 2004."], "id": "37e0e00f-4707-4002-bcdd-3f97f07c3bd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "expulsion", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["127. The applicant complained that the decision ordering his had been contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 and that the domestic law did not provide for the procedural safeguards required by that provision. In particular, the decisions of 17 March and 18 May 2010 on his expulsion had been taken in his absence and without giving him a possibility to submit any arguments in his defence. The applicant also complained that he had been ordered to leave Ukraine despite the fact that at the time he had had a valid residence permit."], "id": "49e0afbc-6b57-443d-86b3-2f9c898ddb42", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicant argued, in the first place, that he had not requested to be provided with a stamped copy of his outgoing mail, while he certainly could not have made such a request in respect of his incoming correspondence, which was also censored. Secondly, the mere existence of an obligation to submit opened letters to the prison authorities in all situations was a clear interference with the prisoners\u2019 right to respect for their correspondence since there was no guarantee that these letters would not be subjected to some sort of censorship and/or monitoring. Thirdly, the applicable domestic legislation was overly vague, which is why the said interference could not have been \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d, as required by the second paragraph of Article 8. Fourthly, the Government provided no substantiation as to why their interference with the applicant\u2019s correspondence was indeed . Finally, the applicant noted that the recently adopted legislation referred to by the Government had not significantly improved the situation, as it had also failed to indicate with reasonable clarity the scope of the discretion conferred on the public authorities."], "id": "a564eb9a-534d-43c8-bf45-4f03f93ac865", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government acknowledged that those who used the telephone had an expectation of privacy in respect of the numbers which they dialled and that obtaining detailed billing information concerning that telephone constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8. The obtaining of the information was, however, in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of crime and/or the protection of the rights of others, as the investigation concerned a very serious crime, the applicants had guns for use in the intended robbery and, as B. was surveillance-conscious, conventional surveillance would not suffice. The only use of the information was to corroborate the times recorded by police officers in respect of the covert listening device in the flat. "], "id": "f78203b8-aa3b-4088-9352-5ea7405bf172", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s eviction had been in accordance with the law, it had pursued legitimate aims provided for in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, and had been proportionate and . The present case differed from Croatian cases concerning the eviction of applicants (\u0106osi\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, 15 January 2009, and Pauli\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009). The applicants in those cases had moved into their flats on lawful grounds and had had no alternative accomodation. After their eviction, the flats had become the property of the State. The applicant in the present case had moved into the flat unlawfully, without obtaining the written consent of her uncle. The State had not been a party to the proceedings in question, and after the applicant\u2019s eviction the flat in question had been given to a private individual \u2013 A., a minor. Prior to being registered as living in her grandmother\u2019s flat, the applicant had been registered as living in her mother\u2019s flat, and after her eviction she had been registered as living in a room \u2013 belonging to her husband \u2013 in a communal flat. Therefore, after her eviction from the disputed flat, the applicant had not been deprived of the opportunity to move into different housing. Under domestic law, being registered as living in a particular dwelling did not give rise to any rights or obligations in respect of that dwelling."], "id": "a784bcb1-2e24-4b33-bae4-d818d2b95df0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his expulsion led to a separation from his wife and children. While the measure might have had a legitimate aim, namely the prevention of disorder and crime, it had not been . In this respect he stressed that he \u2013 having lived for more than 27 years in Germany \u2013 had fully integrated into German society and that he did not have any remaining links to Turkey other than his nationality, also lacking sufficient knowledge of the Turkish language. He maintained that he had been employed during the major part of his adult life and that he had been working in Germany from January 2001 until his second deportation in August 2003. His children could not be expected to accompany him to Turkey, as they would not be able to follow school there because of their poor knowledge of the Turkish language."], "id": "d86b99f4-b048-4c90-9324-019c3ecf793b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government admitted that the rejection of the applications for leave to attend the funerals constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they asserted that it was an \u201cinherent and unavoidable consequence ... of the detention on remand\u201d. Furthermore, the interference was in accordance with the law as it was based on Articles 59 \u00a7 1 and 88 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Enforcement of Sentences. In addition, it was in the interest of public safety and for the prevention of disorder or crime."], "id": "d8472348-e5b8-4c30-aded-2f2b75befebf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicants submitted that they had lived in Moldova together with their families for long periods of time. After their extradition to Turkey their families had remained in Moldova without sources of income. Their families could not return to Turkey for fear of reprisals and therefore all contact with them had been interrupted. Thus, there had been an interference with their private and family lives. That interference had not been in accordance with the law because the law on the basis of which they were expelled from Moldova did not offer any guarantees against abuse and arbitrariness. Moreover, the interferences had not been ."], "id": "9cc37501-ae91-461d-b246-95597e7f6791", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government accept that there has been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life as guaranteed by Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. However, the measure was justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2, being in accordance with the law - Section 176 of the Civil Code - and having pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of health or morals and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government further contend that the measure was within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 and that the Austrian authorities have not overstepped their margin of appreciation."], "id": "be3916e9-7619-4688-bf14-2671fdbe4d9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant submitted that the registration of his name in the Surveillance Database had interfered with his private life because it had permitted the police to collect information about his trips. That interference had been unlawful because the ministerial orders governing the creation and maintenance of the database had never been published. Moreover, the interference had not been . There had been no reason to register his name in the database as he was a law-abiding citizen and had never been suspected of any criminal or administrative offences. According to the applicant, the Surveillance Database contained information on more than 3,800 persons, the majority of whom, like the applicant himself, had been included in that database because of their public and human rights activities."], "id": "21e7bc84-25a5-4a91-b4da-54e545bf9899", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government also submitted that the interference had been . While reiterating that the Court\u2019s case-law did not prohibit the collection and retention of personal data by States as long as there were appropriate and sufficient guarantees, they stressed three points: States had some discretionary powers in this field, and these powers should be reinforced in the case of straightforward fingerprints; the FAED was a major contribution to the success of investigations into and detection of identity theft; and the management of the FAED was surrounded by extensive safeguards. Where these safeguards were concerned, the Government specified that the data registered were exhaustively listed and that the database could only be consulted on the basis of print comparisons (not with reference to a name or address). Moreover, only authorised police and gendarmerie officers could consult it. Data processing was placed under the supervision of both the public prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal and the National Commission on Data Processing and Civil Liberties (CNIL), which was an independent administrative authority. While limiting the period of retention of data to twenty-five years, the Decree also provided that the person concerned could request deletion of the data, and a judicial remedy to that end was available should the public prosecutor refuse deletion. In the instant case the Government noted that the applicant had had recourse to this remedy, applying to the judge responsible for civil liberties and detention matters and then to the First President of the Court of Appeal. They also submitted that the Court of Cassation had considered the applicant\u2019s appeal on points of law from the angle of a fair trial, even though it had declared the appeal inadmissible."], "id": "b0fbc90f-b52e-4db3-8c14-02328688317b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government admitted that there was an interference with the applicant's family life. However, they considered that such interference was justified. They maintained that the issue of allowing family visits was foreseen by the domestic law, namely Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The refusal to allow such family visits during the investigation was in the interests of public safety and was . They further noted that after the applicant's conviction he was allowed to see his mother and his wife on numerous occasions."], "id": "35b457de-6338-4d89-9a40-5018be2174d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government argued that the interference had been , owing to the low level of interference and the seriousness of the crimes under investigation. They argued that due consideration had been given to the special status of the applicant as a lawyer, as the CCP provided sufficient protection for the lawyer-client relationship. Under Article 160a \u00a7 4 of the CCP, this protection was only lifted if a lawyer were suspected of being a participant in an offence or aiding and abetting following the commission of an offence. In the present case, such suspicion had been substantiated by certain facts, since the applicant had received money from the applicant\u2019s fianc\u00e9e, who herself was suspected of having received money stemming from illegal activities. The Government also pointed out that Article 160a \u00a7 4 of the CCP did not require there to be a formal investigation against the applicant, a fact which could be inferred from the discussions during the legislative procedure."], "id": "60be512c-ef6e-439d-afd7-9d23225eda0a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable in the present case as that provision did not guarantee a right to retain employment or to choose a profession. They further stated that, in any event, the application of the KGB Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of protecting national security and was . According to the Government, the KGB Act constituted no more than a justified security screening measure intended to prevent former employees of a foreign secret service from working not only in State institutions but also in other spheres of activity which were important to the State\u2019s national security. The KGB Act itself did not impose collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. It provided for individualised restrictions on employment prospects by way of the list of positions in the former KGB which warranted application of the restrictions under section 2 of the KGB Act (see paragraph 27 above). The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in section 3 of the KGB Act showed that there existed a well-founded suspicion that the applicants lacked loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Given that not all former employees of the KGB were affected by the KGB Act, Article 14 of the Convention was not applicable. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "9c97bfd8-4ad2-4d20-8d77-ee22e0f443c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government contested this argument. They disputed the very fact that there could have been any interference, arguing that the journalist working for the applicant company had voluntarily cooperated in the measure in issue in order to demonstrate that he had taken the necessary steps within the meaning of Article 443 of the Criminal Code. In the alternative, the Government contended that the interference in question had been legally justified, had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and crime and protecting the rights and freedoms of others, and that it had been . Confronted with facts which had constituted prima facie evidence of offences, it had been incumbent on the judicial authorities to initiate the requisite investigation for ascertaining the circumstances of the case in hand. The Government submitted that publishing companies could not be exempted from the implementation of criminal legislation, and that the impugned article had been published under a name which did not appear in the list of journalists officially recognised in Luxembourg, a fact which had necessitated investigations in order to identify the author of the article. Moreover, the interference had been fairly unintrusive given that the police officers had not actively searched for documents, all the documents seized had been voluntarily handed over by the journalist and the search and seizure had actually been in the journalist\u2019s and the publishing house\u2019s best interests. Furthermore, the investigating judge had only being doing his duty, since he had been obliged to gather both incriminating and exonerating evidence and since seizure was the only way to take possession of objects, even where they were handed over voluntarily."], "id": "6c77f1a5-09f3-442f-a3a6-d287662c8a04", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicants complained that their removal from Latvia had violated their rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention in that the measures taken against them in that connection had not respected their private life, their family life and their home in Latvia. They claimed that those measures had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued any legitimate aim and could not be regarded as within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2. The Court must first determine whether the applicants are entitled to claim that they had a \u201cprivate life\u201d, \u201cfamily life\u201d or \u201chome\u201d in Latvia within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1, and, if so, whether their removal from Latvia amounted to an interference with their right to respect for them."], "id": "23fb5fc9-6f24-4bbb-8faf-019fe56637a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government further maintained that the interference complained of had been within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 to achieve the said legitimate aims. The child\u2019s best interest had required the suspension of the applicant\u2019s access. In balancing the competing interests and reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal had relied on the conclusive and carefully reasoned opinion of a competent expert, who had heard the applicant, G.S. and F. several times. After having questioned F. thoroughly, the expert had concluded that ordering contacts between her and the applicant were not in F.\u2019s best interest. Under these circumstances, it had been reasonable for the expert not to confront F. with the applicant and not to explore their interaction. The court had also had regard to the minutes of the child\u2019s questioning at first instance, in the course of which the child had firmly expressed her will not to see her father."], "id": "cf0945e1-8f3c-44e4-a49d-d6999bec7b0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicant also argued that the occupation of his estate could not be deemed and was disproportionate. He submitted that the authorities had not made any attempts to resolve the problem of quartering their personnel in any alternative way, such as settling them in public buildings or tents, and that even assuming that there had been a pressing need for the federal forces to move onto his estate, the authorities could have rented his property, or paid him compensation for the temporary occupation, but had refused to do so."], "id": "6964d488-7eee-4ba2-bb2a-86ddeb4d4cce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that Article 8 was not applicable in the present case as that provision did not guarantee a right to retain employment or to choose a profession. They further stated that, in any event, the application of the Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of protecting national security and was . According to the Government, the Act constituted no more than a justified security screening measure intended to prevent former employees of a foreign secret service from working not only in State institutions but also in other spheres of activity which were important to the State's national security. The Act itself did not impose collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. It provided for individualised restrictions on employment prospects by way of the adoption of \u201cthe list\u201d of positions in the former KGB which warranted application of the restrictions under Article 2 of the Act. The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in Article 3 of the Act showed that there existed a well-founded suspicion that the applicants lacked loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Given that not all former employees of the KGB were affected by the Act, Article 14 of the Convention was not therefore applicable. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "d5660e5d-567d-4317-97be-1db07048f2ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government were convinced that the measure was also . They took the view that, having regard to the quality of the drugs transported (257 grammes of pure cocaine) and the harsh sentences (4 then 42 months imprisonment for drugs offences), the first applicant\u2019s case was a serious one. They pointed out in this connection that the Court had always been very strict vis-\u00e0-vis individuals who had been convicted of drug-related offences."], "id": "33a0f0a4-42c8-41b5-bc44-5fa3368998c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["127. The Government further submitted that the first applicant\u2019s request for recognition and compulsory enforcement of the judgment of Prague 4 District Court of 2 June 2011 granting him custody of the second applicant had been rejected by the Russian courts due to the fact that O.H., the second applicant\u2019s mother, had not been duly notified of the relevant proceedings and had thereby been deprived of the opportunity to take part in them, in violation of the principle of equality of arms. The relevant decisions of the domestic courts had pursued a legitimate aim and had been , in particular because the handing over of the second applicant to the father would have violated O.H.\u2019s right to respect for her family life and would not have been in \u201cthe best interests of the child\u201d. In view of the above, the judgment of 2 June 2011 could not be enforced in Russia."], "id": "ca4af0cc-f4fc-4bf5-8efc-071f6dbcfa92", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted in the alternative that any interference with the applicant\u2019s right under Article 8 had been carried out on the basis of section 48(A)(5) of Law no. 657 on Civil Servants. They provided the Court with extracts of this provision containing the amendments of 2008 (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above). The Government also relied on section 39(1) of the Regulation on Private Tutoring Centres. They further contended that the applicant\u2019s dismissal had pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining national security, territorial integrity, public safety, public order and preventing crime, and that it had been in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "f46413a0-2ec0-4bfd-8290-58dae35d84d1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government accepted that the applicant had enjoyed family and private life in the United Kingdom prior to his deportation and stated that it was not in doubt, and had not been contended by the applicant, that his deportation was anything other than in accordance with the law and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. As such, the only issue before the Court was whether the deportation was ."], "id": "76cefb75-e731-45d7-8e52-c32adc73439e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government conceded that there was family life between the applicant and M. and that the impugned access restrictions, with the exception of those agreed, and the refusal to terminate the public care had amounted to interferences with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, the interferences had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been ."], "id": "19061698-99ce-4195-a3ac-f2862d7b5e5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant argued that the quashing by the City Court of the judgment of 2 December 2015 ordering V.\u2019s immediate return to Finland had amounted to unlawful and disproportionate interference with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention, as it had not been . He challenged the City Court\u2019s interpretation of the provisions of the Hague Convention regarding its basic concepts, such as \u201chabitual residence\u201d, \u201cwrongfulness of the removal\u201d, and \u201cexceptions to immediate return\u201d. In interpreting those concepts, the court had applied approaches characteristic of the national law, without regard to their autonomous meaning in the light of the Hague Convention. He criticised the court\u2019s finding that Finland had not been the place of his daughter\u2019s habitual residence despite the fact that she had been born in Finland and had lived there for over two years prior to her removal to Russia, where she had never been before. The applicant noted in this connection that I.K. had not disputed the fact that Finland had been the country of V.\u2019s habitual residence (see paragraphs 14 and 33 above)."], "id": "d61fbd05-cb8a-4e79-abd3-cae56288d613", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government emphasised that it was not in dispute that from 1980 until 1991 the applicant had worked as a driver in the KGB. Furthermore, the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life was in accordance with law and it was in the interests of national security, public safety and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government pointed out that for the transfer from a totalitarian regime to a democratic system, Estonia took various measures which, in aggregate, had to ensure the development and security of the democratic system. Criminal liability for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed under the totalitarian regime was established and an obligation to take an oath of conscience was introduced for those seeking the highest offices in the country. The Disclosure Act dealt with the persons who had not committed any crimes but had been employed by or collaborated with the intelligence or counterintelligence authorities of the States which had occupied Estonia. It was found that such persons had to come to terms with their past and not to try to forget, conceal or be silent about it. There was also a significant public interest in the publicity of information relating to the past; this had to guarantee transparency and clarity as well as overall internal peace in the society. Obtaining complete information about the members and agents of the security and intelligence authorities which had operated on the territory of Estonia was also important for the protection of independence and security of the Republic of Estonia. Estonia was lacking the relevant information; such information, including the lists of persons who had worked in the KGB, was in the hands of foreign States. There could be attempts to recruit former staff of the security authorities and make them perform security or intelligence tasks, or they could be subject to blackmailing. Such situation was dangerous and damaging for Estonia. The Government referred to recent cases where former employees or collaborators of the KGB had provided a foreign country with state secrets leading to their conviction of treason."], "id": "81e3fa27-a21a-4c8d-89c7-1131ce44fede", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["131. The Government admitted that the sale of the applicant\u2019s home and the ensuing eviction constituted an inference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private and family life. However, they argued that it was in accordance with domestic law, in particular the Enforcement Code, and pursued two legitimate aims, namely the \u201ceconomic well-being of the country\u201d and \u201cthe protection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d. As to whether the measures had been , the Government referred to their submissions in relation to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see above, \u00a7\u00a7 101-107). They added that it was important that property which had been attached be sold as soon as possible to avoid depreciation of its value. Moreover, once the property had been sold, regard should also be had to the purchaser\u2019s legitimate interest in obtaining access to the property which he or she had acquired and paid for."], "id": "2c6cab35-9351-41c7-be9c-779cb9fa2a8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government did not contest that the applicant\u2019s criminal conviction had interfered with his right to the enjoyment of his private and family life. They considered, however, that this interference had been justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 as being in the interest of the prevention of disorder and for the protection of morals."], "id": "be19a90f-138b-4f79-a32b-eaee77760c78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government acknowledged that the search of the applicant\u2019s home interfered with his right to respect for his private life. They submitted that it was justifiable under the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention as being for the prevention of disorder or crime. The Government further submitted that the search warrant was executed in compliance with the procedural requirements set out in Articles 227, 228 and 230 of the CCP."], "id": "18f49dbb-871b-452e-9fae-13e51a980600", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government accepted that the exercise of the right to enter the applicant\u2019s home by the investigating officer had amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his home within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. They considered however that the interference had been justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention: the investigator had acted in accordance with Articles 178 and 179 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, which laid down the scope and manner of exercise of the power conferred on the investigator to inspect the scene of the crime; that his actions pursued the legitimate aim of investigating the incident of forgery of an official document; and that they were ."], "id": "e3843d96-b263-48a2-beba-31d396fa327f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government further submitted that the interference had been . They outlined the complex and extremely hostile relationship between the applicant and the children\u2019s mother, providing details of the pre-investigation inquiry carried out into her allegations against the applicant in connection with his visit to the school on 27 November 2012 (see paragraphs 15-16 above)."], "id": "31185bce-d83b-468e-acc4-5229ad07e6ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant described in detail the relevant legal framework and on this basis alleged that the entirety of his mail whilst in detention, including that with his lawyers, had been monitored, not only before December 2000 and April 2006, but also after that. The legal basis for the interference until April 2006 had been defective and had been set aside by the national courts. The ensuing legal framework had remained unclear and was thus insufficient for the purposes of the Convention. Furthermore, the interference had not been , as correspondence with lawyers was as a rule privileged."], "id": "3a242125-250b-4192-9c64-90263227dc6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicants complained that the decision to remove the first applicant constituted an unjustified interference with their family life, in so far as it had led to the separation of the nuclear family. In particular, the applicants argued that the first applicant's removal had not been and was in breach of the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "a80201b4-f60a-4644-94cc-b1b2ec98e3b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant agreed that she had been an adult when the Paternity Act had entered into force but pointed out that she had learned about her origins only in 2001. She had lived with her mother and the latter\u2019s husband all her life, she bore her stepfather\u2019s name and nobody, not even her mother, had told her the truth. She had had no reason to suspect, during the statutory five-year period, what her origins were. Nor had she had any idea of the identity of her biological father. Had she known the truth at the time, she would have started the proceedings against her biological father within the five-year time-limit. The application of the five-year time-limit was too strict and absolute. The interference with the applicant\u2019s rights had thus not been ."], "id": "96a57a51-857b-4ca9-a35a-be712478e5e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government further submitted that corruption, and in particular bribe-taking, was a serious criminal offence that was very difficult to detect. It was therefore necessary to resort to covert surveillance to combat it. Covert surveillance could only be carried out for the purposes specified in the OSAA and only on the basis of a court order. Those legal provisions guaranteed that covert surveillance, including that in the applicant\u2019s case, was ordered only when ."], "id": "d209348c-ff64-4e5e-8ebb-330e0c5511b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["207. The Government accepted that the forced medication of the applicant had interfered with her right to respect for her private life. It had, however, pursued the legitimate aim of protection of health and the rights and freedoms of others. The impugned measure had been based on law, namely section 8 of the Mental Health Act, which had been both accessible and foreseeable. The Government also contended that the impugned measure had been and that it fell, in any case, within the margin of appreciation accorded to the State."], "id": "19d5caf6-7bf7-4ba0-b6cd-8825036fa368", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant said that a tap had been put on his telephone immediately after his office had been sealed, as evidenced by the disturbances on the line. He had had no way of confirming or dispelling his misgivings in this regard, as under Bulgarian law such information could not be released. He also submitted that if there had been such tapping, it had been unlawful, because he had been merely a witness and the authorities had not had sufficient material to entertain a reasonable suspicion against him. In view of this, and of the applicant\u2019s capacity as a lawyer, it had clearly not been to intercept his telephone communications. He concluded that these circumstances had amounted to a breach of Article 8."], "id": "4d63e579-9c15-432c-8564-ca5464c71e9f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government lastly argued that the alleged interference had met the requirement of being . They took the view that to find such documents inadmissible would prevent courts from ruling on situations that might present a risk for the health, morals or stability of other family members, especially where there were alcohol-related problems. They added that the fact of excluding documents obtained by duress or fraud fulfilled the State\u2019s positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention. The Government further indicated that the Court of Appeal had maintained the applicant\u2019s right of contact in respect of his children pending the results of the expert\u2019s report, and inferred from this that any interference would thus, in any event, have been proportionate. Lastly, they observed that such interference, when compared with that in Z v. Finland (cited above) and M.S. v. Sweden, (27 August 1997, Reports 1997\u2011IV), appeared far less significant and was circumscribed by the requisite safeguards."], "id": "e1b20760-e0bc-48d7-acbd-be374ab7ebd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government submitted that the authorisation of the official receiver to have access to the applicant\u2019s correspondence could be considered to be in furtherance of the protection of the \u201crights of others\u201d within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention and thus to pursue a legitimate aim. In order to prevent the concealment of a bankrupt\u2019s assets to the detriment of his creditors, the authorities may consider it necessary to have recourse to the interception of a bankrupt\u2019s correspondence in order to identify and trace the sources of his income. In the present case, J. had opened one single letter addressed to the applicant, which had been sent by an insurance company. The said letter concerned the price of an apartment which had been pledged as security for the payment of debts. Neither the sender\u2019s name nor any other external fact gave reason to assume that the letter could have been, as is alleged by the applicant, of a private nature. It was also of relevance that the delivered mail was a letter sent by an insurance company, and there was reason to believe that the letter related to property belonging to the bankrupt\u2019s estate. The letter could have, for example, been sent for the purpose of repudiating an insurance policy. It must also be remembered that the official receiver was under an obligation to administer the property of the bankrupt\u2019s estate, subject to liability for damages, and this included a duty to ensure that the property was covered by an appropriate insurance. The various domestic courts that examined the case all observed that the contents of the letter were such that the letter could have concerned property belonging to the bankruptcy estate. Any interference may, thus, be regarded as . It had not been shown that any other mail addressed to the applicant was received by J. during the relevant period."], "id": "81cad7aa-5bee-4dc4-9b80-875f2faa2f88", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that, to the extent that the drafting of the report was to be regarded as an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 of the Convention, it had been in accordance with the domestic legislation in force at the material time. Furthermore, it had been in the interests of public safety and the prevention of disorder."], "id": "855156aa-8629-4da7-8bf9-0f63ac87279d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government further contended that the measure had been within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention and that the Swiss authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation. Particular reference was made to the nature of the offences committed, the length of the prison sentence, the duration of the applicant\u2019s stay in Switzerland and the effects which the refusal to prolong the residence permit would have on the applicant\u2019s wife. In the present case, both the Federal Court and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Z\u00fcrich carefully examined the applicant\u2019s situation. Their analysis of the situation could not be called in question by reason of the fact that the applicant had not committed any offences after his release from prison."], "id": "9ead5048-eadc-4e33-be9b-d8e393848e28", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s family life. However, they considered that such interference was justified. They maintained that the issue of authorisation for family visits was foreseen by the domestic law, namely Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The refusal to allow such family visits during the investigation stage was in the interests of public safety and was ."], "id": "25f7936c-2532-4849-8082-e371a6d860ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government maintained that there had been no violation of Article 8 as a result of the initial taking into care of the applicant\u2019s children. The interference with his right to respect for his family life was based on various provisions of the Child Welfare Act and the related decree which are intended to protect the best interests of children. The placement of the applicant\u2019s children in public care was proportionate to that aim and thus as required by Article 8 \u00a7 2. The public care orders were grounded and upheld on the basis of a large number of reports by social authorities and doctors, all concluding that the children had to be taken into care. "], "id": "c3336ad5-3f6a-41a2-80f1-9301afbee576", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government accepted that the decision to place the applicant\u2019s child in a foster care and to transfer parental rights and responsibilities to the director of the foster care centre and to the district mayor could be seen as interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. They considered that the impugned interference had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been . They asserted, in particular, that the domestic authorities had struck a fair balance between the interests of the child and those of the applicant and that the decisions they had taken had served the best interests of the child."], "id": "4aac567a-1fe4-4235-bf0c-2b7a96e817ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted that if the Court concluded that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, which they disputed, then the alleged interference had been in accordance with the law and for the protection of national security and the prevention of disorder or crime. Additionally, the alleged \u201clegislative interference\u201d had been justified in the interests of public safety and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as set forth in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "3fcc5298-99b1-4bfe-9d19-12ed11ec1b3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant expressed the view that the criminal charge brought against him in 2006 should not have been taken into account by the Swiss authorities when assessing whether he constituted a risk to public safety because the criminal proceedings had ended in a nolle prosequi and he had been declared innocent. He added that the domestic authorities and the Government had given too much weight to his conviction and the criminal charges brought against him, while disregarding all other elements. He maintained that his expulsion from Switzerland had not been under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "47d7915a-1c28-40d8-b8b6-3b8cf952a32d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government conceded that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they argued that the interference in the form of the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to order the return of the applicant\u2019s son to the United States had been in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim, and had been . In particular, the decision had been based on Article 13 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Hague Convention and had sought to protect the rights of others, namely the applicant\u2019s son."], "id": "13139f3b-de1b-470d-bdb6-4704b6d75c6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["199. The Government further referred to the Plenary Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling of 27 June 2013, which explained to the lower courts that any restrictions on human rights and freedoms had to be prescribed by law and be , that is, proportionate to a legitimate aim. Courts were instructed to rely on established facts, verify the existence of relevant and sufficient reasons to justify a restriction on an individual\u2019s rights and balance the interests of the individual whose rights were being restricted against the interests of other individuals, the State and society as a whole. The OSAA explicitly required the courts to give reasons for the decision to authorise interception. In line with the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision of 8 February 2007 (see paragraph 42 above), the interception authorisation was to refer to the specific grounds for suspecting the person in respect of whom operational-search measures were requested of a criminal offence or of activities endangering national, military, economic or ecological security. In its decision of 2 October 2003 (see paragraph 41 above), the Constitutional Court also held that judges had an obligation to examine the materials submitted to them carefully and thoroughly."], "id": "3ff020ff-df80-4972-8af6-121b726f68d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s expulsion would amount to an interference with his right to respect for his family life. However, such an interference was in accordance with the law and . During the period of his residence in the Russian Federation, the applicant had been convicted twice of criminal offences. In particular, on 18 November 1999 the Shuya Town Court of the Ivanovo Region had found him guilty of extortion committed by a group of persons (a serious crime) and theft of a passport (a minor offence) and sentenced him to three years and one month\u2019s imprisonment. On 26 April 2005 the Town Court had found him guilty of theft (an offence of medium gravity) and sentenced him to three years\u2019 imprisonment. The Government stressed that the fact that the applicant committed the theft shortly after having served his first prison sentence should not be overlooked, as it showed his firm propensity to commit crimes against property. Furthermore, on 19 June 2007 and 8 July 2010 the applicant had been held administratively liable for failing to have his residency in Russia duly authorised. According to the information from the police, the applicant was a member of an organised criminal gang, was actively involved in drug dealing and was a drug addict himself. He was unemployed and did not support his wife and children. Accordingly, his expulsion would not have any bearing on his family\u2019s financial situation. His wife had been aware of his convictions prior to marrying him. She had never met her parents-in-law in person. She maintained contact with them by telephone or via the internet."], "id": "1e4dd4d0-a1b8-4a35-ac51-2cb426863e44", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicant submitted that the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to order the return of his son to the United States had amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his family life. That interference had been unlawful, it had not aimed to protect the interests of the child, but solely those of the mother, and thus it had not been . In particular, as regards the requirement of lawfulness, the applicant argued that the domestic courts had construed the exception set out in Article 13 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Hague Convention too widely, an exception which must be interpreted strictly, and had misapplied that Article to the facts of the case."], "id": "d074f87b-3e36-4228-8b62-e53d78a48f22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government did not deny that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life and correspondence. They believed, however, that the interference at issue was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and was . The interference had resulted from the interception of A.B.\u2019s telephone conversations, which had been authorised under section 7(5) of the Law on Operational Activities. In the Government\u2019s view this was sufficient to conclude that the criterion of lawfulness was met in the present case. Moreover, the lawfulness of the interception had subsequently been confirmed on several occasions by the prosecutor\u2019s office in response to the applicant\u2019s complaints (paragraphs 11-15 above). They claimed that it had also been verified by the relevant judge of the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court (in the context of the criminal proceedings). Lastly, they referred to the findings of the Constitutional Court confirming that the said provision had been sufficiently clear and precise as to exclude arbitrariness. Namely, the said provision contained an exhaustive list of offences and the necessary precondition for its application was a situation requiring immediate action. Furthermore, the Government submitted that the interference at issue had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing crime, given that it had been carried out in the framework of criminal proceedings in connection with aggravated bribery. In response to the applicant\u2019s argument, they further reiterated that owing to the rapid development of events from 27 to 30 December 2005 no measures other than the operational interception of telecommunications would have been efficient for gathering credible information about the details of and accomplices involved in the bribery scheme."], "id": "43b1db90-c3c4-4906-8911-034ac326fac8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government did not dispute that the applicants\u2019 removal from the territory of Moldova had constituted an interference with their private and family lives. However, that interference had been in accordance with the provisions of the Status of Aliens Act, had pursued the legitimate aim of protection of national security and had been because it had been justified by the pressing social need to ensure the nation\u2019s safety. The Government also argued that the applicants\u2019 families had not even attempted to visit them in Turkey during their detention and expressed the view that they would not be at any risk in Turkey. The Turkish authorities had informed the applicants\u2019 families that the applicants had been taken into custody and the latter had been visited by family members who lived in Turkey on multiple occasions."], "id": "9171dbe9-766b-493d-9f80-83f8ff40b432", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government argued that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression demanded from the user some duties and responsibilities, which could be subject to restrictions and penalties as were prescribed by law and in the interests of \u2013 with respect to the present case \u2013 public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others or for maintaining the authority of the judiciary. The statements made by the applicant were broadly reported by the mass media to whom he gave a press conference."], "id": "46e992a1-e72c-4af0-b6bc-74b848922453", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government submitted that the first applicant\u2019s expulsion would be justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 as being in accordance with the law and . They emphasised that the applicant had been the subject of several criminal convictions and that his expulsion would pursue the legitimate aim of the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights of others."], "id": "ecaa841a-b526-4432-a907-34070533fb1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government further submitted that if the Court were to decide that there had been an interference, such an interference had been in accordance with the law, had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of other persons living in the dormitory building who had moved in lawfully, and had been . In particular, in taking the decision to evict the adult female applicants, the domestic courts had taken into account that those applicants had moved into the building unlawfully and had been registered as living in other premises. The courts had also duly examined the adult female applicants\u2019 arguments as regards their right to live together with their husbands and children, and had dismissed those arguments as ill-founded. The Government also pointed out that the adult male applicants had never applied to the authorities with a request to acquire ownership of the rooms in the dormitory building by way of privatisation, and had not asked to conclude a special tenancy agreement in respect of the rooms they occupied. Lastly, the eviction order had not placed a disproportionate burden on the adult female applicants."], "id": "4a307376-c1e4-4173-a2be-7d59a39b5c29", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government argued that, were the Court to find that there had been interference, the interference was justified under the second paragraph of Article 8. In their submission it was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim, namely preventing disorder and crime, and was . The Government explained that there were legal guarantees to protect people against arbitrary interference by the public authorities. Lastly, they submitted that the State was under no obligation to cover the cost of translating prisoners\u2019 correspondence, no such obligation being provided for in the Convention."], "id": "8e1bd689-123f-44c6-bf9f-a76d2aff86e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government further submitted that the interference in issue had been within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2. Citing the Court\u2019s case-law (in particular, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, and Odi\u00e8vre, cited above), they observed that, in striking a fair balance between competing interests, the Court afforded States a certain margin of appreciation and that, in assessing whether or not they had overstepped that margin, it took particular care to ensure that the child\u2019s best interests were preserved. In the instant case the Government submitted that, in such a delicate situation as the abandonment of a child by a mother who wished the birth to be registered anonymously, the French legislation attempted to square the various interests at stake: those of the child, the mother and the adoptive family."], "id": "87030699-a3ac-47e7-9326-326f21038079", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government contended that the non-application of the 28\u2011year exception rule to the first applicant was in accordance with the law, that is section 9, subsection 7, of the Aliens Act. The 28\u2011year rule pursued a legitimate aim, namely ensuring that Danish expatriates with strong and lasting ties with Denmark would be able to obtain family reunion in Denmark. The rationale was that it would be unproblematic to grant such persons family reunion with a foreign spouse because the latter would normally be successfully integrated into Danish society. Politically it was felt that this group had been unintentionally and unfairly disadvantaged by the tightening of the attachment requirement introduced in 2002. More generally, the 28-year rule pursued the legitimate aim of immigration control and improving integration, which were important economic and social considerations. The Government also maintained that the refusal to grant the second applicant family reunion in Denmark struck a fair balance and was ."], "id": "bd0417bd-57f2-4500-8ec2-cfe4c5fbdfb7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant further argued that the ten-year exclusion order was in itself a new fact, was not within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2, and thus constituted a fresh violation of his right to respect for his private and family life. He added that the offences he had committed were not of such a nature or seriousness as to justify maintaining his exclusion at the present time. He argued in this connection that the offences had been mistakes of youth and that, by the time of the Federal Court\u2019s revision judgment of 6 July 2009, he had become a responsible adult, being a married man and in gainful employment."], "id": "82a2c7ea-7d41-4b47-a4ed-6be7fabaa208", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government concluded that the Swiss authorities had quite rightly, after a detailed examination of the case, held that the first applicant\u2019s expulsion was a measure that was for the purposes of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The authorities could not therefore be found to have overstepped the margin of appreciation afforded to them in the present case. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 8."], "id": "93386b69-bfc9-43a6-adbc-3b525a8215b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicant submitted that the uncertainty and insecurity to which he had been subjected for twelve years and the various restrictions placed on him as an asylum-seeker had affected the very fabric of his personal, social and economic relations, which he considered as part of his private and family life. He had therefore suffered interference which, moreover, had not been prescribed by law, had not pursued a legitimate aim and had not been . In that regard he pointed out, first of all, that the authorities had given no reason for the waiting period imposed upon him, which he described as very long, and, secondly, that he had been in a situation of vulnerability and should have been granted official protection much more quickly."], "id": "2513fcdd-3c93-4303-adf7-037451f0fcb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government said that, on the contrary, the actions of the domestic authorities had not interfered with the first applicant\u2019s rights under Article 10. The searches had been unproductive, as the sole document seized was not one the first applicant had used as a source for his newspaper article. Any interference had, in any event, been prescribed by law, namely Article 65 of the Criminal Investigation Code, and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder or crime. It had also been and was proportionate to the aim pursued. The approach followed in Goodwin v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 27 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II) could not be applied in the instant case. Firstly, the first applicant had not been required to reveal his source on pain of a fine, but had merely been subjected to a search that had resulted in the seizure of a single document. Secondly, the aim pursued by the interference in the instant case was far more important than that of protecting the economic interests of a private undertaking, as in Goodwin. The investigation into an allegation of breach of professional confidence was of direct relevance to the proper functioning of public institutions. The prevention and punishment of that offence thus constituted a \u201cpressing social need\u201d that justified the interference."], "id": "96cf0b9c-fcf8-4c62-bb06-b2edf08cbff4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government submitted that the decision to deny the first applicant continued residence in the Netherlands was and was proportionate. Referring to the guiding principles for cases of this nature as established by the Court (Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, \u00a7 48, ECHR-2001), they argued that the first applicant had been convicted of an extremely serious drug offence, of the kind that creates a sense of unease and insecurity in society. The Government added that drug offences are regarded both nationally and internationally as a very serious threat, and that considerable efforts have been made, and are still being made, to counter them. The mere fact that the first applicant had not been convicted of such crimes again should not be of decisive importance when balancing the different interests involved in relation to Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "c7f703ae-0e1e-4983-be9e-650183a4b086", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["133. The applicant stressed that the relevant legislation had given the authorities a virtually unlimited power to interfere with his correspondence. He maintained that, even assuming that the authorities had intended to secure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings in his case, the duration of that measure, as well as its scope and nature had by no means been . The need to achieve the aim pursued by the authorities had not required them to read all his letters, notwithstanding whether they had been of strictly personal or of official character. In particular, there had been no reason whatsoever to open and read his correspondence to the lawyer representing him before the Commission and the Court, as such letters were privileged under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "1672233d-3c22-4da8-88ec-31a7eaab7324", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life, since he had not lost personal ties with his daughter. The applicant had never sought contact with V. in Russia by bringing this issue before the childcare authority or the courts. His lack of contact with the child had thus resulted from his own failure to act. If, however, the Court were to find that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life, the Government considered that it had been in accordance with the law, proportionate and ."], "id": "0684d59b-6b21-4a68-ba90-9a811f04530d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicants submitted that the impugned video surveillance had been unlawful, had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been . The Dean of the School had collected and processed the data obtained thereby without any restriction and the applicants had had no effective control over that information. The Agency had also failed to live up to its legal obligations, thus in addition making the interference arbitrary."], "id": "bb8d4caf-7410-42c8-bee8-fa744a973199", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant submitted that the refusal to grant him compassionate leave was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. He emphasised that, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case\u2011law, even if a detainee must be subjected to various limitations of his rights and freedoms, each of these limitations must be justifiable as . It was the duty of the State to demonstrate that such necessity really existed in the applicant\u2019s case. The applicant considered that the Government failed to demonstrate such necessity. The refusal of leave was based mainly on the gravity of the committed offence and the penitentiary authorities failed to take into account the progress of the applicant\u2019s rehabilitation. He further considered that the authorities should have acted with greater expediency, having regard to the urgency of the situation."], "id": "2020c3ac-fc63-439f-a33f-c18f118207b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government argued that the present case differed from the cases Sallinen and Others v. Finland (no. 50882/99, 27 September 2005) and Sorvisto v. Finland (no. 19348/04, 13 January 2009) both as to the facts and the fact that the applicant had not been a suspect but a witness. Also, the extent of the search had been different. Therefore, in the Government's view, the interference had been in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim and had been ."], "id": "62904697-c121-48de-bddf-34331c863d1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government acknowledged that the contact restrictions constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her private and family life but that these limitations were in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim and were . They stressed that it was the best interests of the children which were of crucial importance and that the domestic authorities had constantly based their measures on the established need to protect the children, having regard to the applicant\u2019s conduct and behaviour and their negative reactions to this. Here the Government observed that each meeting with the applicant had been trying for the children and that the applicant\u2019s behaviour had made them feel scared, bad or ill at ease and that they had reacted in different ways to the visits, inter alia, through sleeping difficulties, bed wetting, anxiety and depression. Moreover, an extension of the visits would have been against the expressed will of the children. Therefore, the Social Council had feared that the visits would ultimately be detrimental to the children\u2019s well-being and contrary to their best interest."], "id": "50268fb2-da35-48be-905b-a52a97f237e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government accepted that the police officers' entry into the front garden of the applicant's house constituted an interference with her right to respect for her home guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. However, the interference had been in \u201caccordance with the law\u201d. According to the Government, the interference had been based on section 13(19) of the Police Act of 18 December 1990, and in particular on provisions authorising the police to enter private houses without the consent of the owner and to inspect them in order to put an end to offences and to pursue persons suspected of having committed an offence. The Government also argued that the interference had pursued a legitimate aim and had been ."], "id": "f21c89c1-62b3-4172-8bb3-b8add30aa404", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government submitted that Russian law treated all aliens on an equal basis, irrespective of whether or not they had a minor child in Russia. There was no evidence that the State authorities had prevented the applicant from being reunited with his son in a different State. Nor had he shown that he had taken any steps to remove his son from Russia. In any event, the Convention does not guarantee the right to establish family life in any specific country (here they referred to the case of Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, \u00a7 97, ECHR 2003\u2011X). Unlike the first applicant in the Slivenko case, who had come to Latvia when she had been only ten months old and had spent her entire life there, the applicant had arrived in Russia as an adult and had lived there for only eight years. His integration into Russian society was open to doubt since he had been unable, by his own admission, to read a document handwritten in Russian. Moreover, owing to their profession, religious missionaries must be prepared to change their place of residence with greater ease. Finally, the Government submitted that, in any event, the interference with the applicant\u2019s family life had been in accordance with law, pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of national security and had also been ."], "id": "6fb58b9c-596f-4dd7-9cdd-b83f2171e018", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["128. The Government did not produce any evidence to demonstrate that the Russian courts acted differently in the present case. In particular, they failed to submit copies of the surveillance authorisations in respect of the applicants and thereby made it impossible for the Court to verify whether the authorisations were based on a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed criminal offences. Nor could the Court verify whether the reasons adduced to justify the surveillance measures were \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d, that is to say that the interception of the applicants\u2019 communications was and, in particular, proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued."], "id": "04635ea3-bd21-4b5f-9e77-416b71f4638b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government admitted that the practice of monitoring the applicant\u2019s letters constituted an interference with his right to respect for his correspondence. They maintained, however, that the interference had been in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing the applicant\u2019s absconding from justice and obstructing the investigation of the crime he had been charged with. They further submitted that the interference had been to achieve that aim. Lastly, they noted that as of 6 February 2003 the applicant\u2019s letters to the Ombudsman had not been subject to review."], "id": "909ec693-4f57-496f-902f-fb56b10635c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government accepted that the judgments of the Austrian courts on the applicants request for visiting rights constituted an interference with their right to respect for their family life. That interference was in accordance with the law, that is, it was based on Article 148 (4) of the Civil Code, and it also served a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, that is, the child concerned and his biological mother. The interference was also . The Austrian courts had carefully balanced the interest of the applicants in further personal contact with their former foster child against the interest of the biological mother of the child in re-constituting and protecting an undisturbed and fruitful mother-child relationship, as well as taking into account the welfare of the child himself. Austrian law attributed a particularly high priority to the welfare of the child in decisions on family-law matters and the interests of adults had often to give way to this priority."], "id": "314e3153-b3f0-4f82-9489-6969826e0594", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["104. The applicant argued that his wife orally asked the first instance court to authorise her to visit her husband, but the court refused. The fact that the applicant complained to the prosecutor and later instituted proceedings in which he challenged the ban on visits is proof of that. In any event, the interference did not have a legitimate aim and was not ."], "id": "c7cb68c1-9278-4f84-88d7-94e25f4fce1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Government argued, with reference to section 10 of the Detention on Remand Act 1993, that the interference had been lawful. It was aimed at preventing the applicant from hampering the investigation. The interference had been as both the applicant and his wife had been accused of a particularly serious offence in the context of organised crime and the applicant had tried secretly to send a letter to his wife from prison."], "id": "f787d9fa-654c-415e-95a1-8f2160450142", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that even if the expulsion order interferes with the applicant's family life, it discloses no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Given the seriousness of the offence which the applicant committed in Denmark the measure of expulsion was called for in the interest of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and was within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The Government drew attention to the fact that the applicant has very strong ties with his country of origin since he was already an adult when he left Iran and had his entire school education in Iran. He masters the local language, he served part of his compulsory military service and he has family there. In comparison, the applicant does not have strong ties with Denmark. At the time the expulsion order was made he had resided for only eight years in Denmark. Moreover, in the Government's view, there is no evidence to prove that the applicant's spouse, the children of the marriage, and the spouse's child of another relationship will not be able to accompany the applicant to Iran."], "id": "c32980a1-8779-4456-8128-54e2f3077cd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant accepted that the judgments of the domestic courts had been based on the law in force at the material time. He stressed, however, that the Government had not advanced any reasons to show that the law in question had pursued a legitimate aim and that the interference had been . The applicant submitted that the interference had not been necessary and was not justified for the following reasons."], "id": "faff0a26-55b5-416f-b097-611d0d885c97", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["103. The Government maintained that, given the evidence before the High Court, that court's reasons for its detention orders and the conditions imposed by that court, there was no interference with the applicant's right to respect for his family or private life. Indeed, they argue that he did not have a family life for a considerable period of time prior to the relevant period of detention. Alternatively, any interference with his private or family life was in accordance with the law, had a legitimate aim (the protection of the applicant and others and the prevention of disorder and crime) and was : given the State's margin of appreciation, it was a proportionate response to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved."], "id": "ecca8d3d-a80a-475e-8804-f90fe9e5527c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government submitted that the monitoring of the applicants\u2019 letters had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing escape from and disorder in detention facilities. They further submitted that the interference had been to achieve those aims. They contested the applicants\u2019 submissions that some of their letters had not been sent on to the addressees."], "id": "418fb924-658f-4027-8c11-3935e608819a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government accepted that the expulsion order interfered with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1. In the Government\u2019s view, the measure at issue was justified under \u00a7 2 of that same provision as being in accordance with the law and . They pointed out that the domestic authorities, on request, generally set a time-limit to the ban to re\u2011enter German territory, as provided by section 8 of the Aliens Act. While the applicant had lodged such a request, he did not appear to have made sustained efforts to pursue it. In particular, he had not answered to the Regional Government\u2019s letter of 30 January 2004."], "id": "b5aae2b7-accc-4d4f-b947-ed7b21e1fa0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["169. The Government argued that the decision to prevent the applicant from making a fresh application for full legal capacity to be restored to her had been in accordance with Article 186 \u00a7 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was in the interest of the applicant and the persons in her environment and was in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "6545b879-c003-41f1-9a97-2c435d84c464", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["96. The applicant submitted that the prison authorities did not inform either him or his mother about the need to lodge a request in order to obtain an authorisation to correspond. Neither did they issue a reasoned decision to restrict the applicant's right to correspondence. Moreover, in his particular case, the prohibition on corresponding with his mother was not ."], "id": "a1c6e49c-e0cc-4fea-83dd-049aebb77077", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant submitted that she had been living in the flat since 2005 and that it had become her home. The invalidation of her title to the flat, leading to the eviction order, amounted to an interference with her right to respect for her home. She accepted that the interference was in accordance with the domestic law and that it pursued a legitimate aim. However, she argued that it was not , did not correspond to a pressing social need and was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. She further asserted that the domestic authorities had made it clear to her that they would not provide her with assistance in resolving her housing need."], "id": "5a238120-fd86-4632-8c87-b207aae7a88b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government maintained that even supposing that the search amounted to an interference with the second applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8, it had been justified under paragraph 2 of that provision. The interference was in accordance with the law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely the prevention and punishment of criminal offences. Lastly, it had been . The search warrants had been drafted in narrow terms covering only the search for and seizure of a single document. The offences that had triggered the search were serious ones, as they called into question the very functioning of the State institutions, a factor that justified the investigating judge\u2019s taking any measure which he considered would assist in establishing the truth."], "id": "03ad9354-02e7-4f3e-b10f-9876f8e96c96", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government acknowledged that the impugned measures interfered with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life but submitted that they were \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and pursued the protection of health and morals of the children in question, namely to provide them with stable and safe living conditions and secure their development. They further submitted that the measures were . They pointed out that the national authorities had the benefit of contact with the persons concerned and that a parent was not entitled under Article 8 to have measures taken which would harm a child\u2019s health or development."], "id": "fa854b0d-18bc-4ff7-afd9-77ee7cd19801", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their family life within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, as a result of the first applicant\u2019s parental authority over the second applicant being restricted. At the same time, they insisted that the interference in question had been lawful, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the health and rights of a minor, the second applicant, and that it had been , within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "6eb613cf-0c85-4460-97ba-28a9e7f36191", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the interference in question had been prescribed by law and had pursued a number of legitimate aims, namely the protection of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, public order and prevention of crime. They also claimed that the restriction had been because it had been carried out as a result of a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. They concluded that, in the exercise of their discretion, the prison authorities had decided not to allow the impugned letter to be sent outside."], "id": "c1a5bb6f-739f-4d83-9704-1b7ce2af9fc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government stated that the measures against the applicant had been lawful and for the maintenance of ordre public and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Emphasising that the applicant had owed significant amounts in taxes and had refused to pay, contesting her debt, the Government considered that the measure against the applicant had been imposed on an individual basis, taking into account her behaviour. Also, the applicant had owned and managed a firm in Austria, not in Bulgaria, which allegedly meant that no security for payment had been available. The principle of proportionality had been respected."], "id": "e7680667-ddde-49a4-9275-4af3d58c083b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government agreed that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her private life. However, they argued that the interference was provided for by law, namely by Article 8 of Law No. 982 on access to information (see paragraph 20 above), had pursued a legitimate aim, and had been . The Government stressed that, in their view, the present case very much resembled the case of M.S. v. Sweden (27 August 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011IV) and asked the Court to adopt a similar approach to it."], "id": "e222de8d-f3c8-4412-9250-22d19cc4f0ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 as concerned the search of its offices. They disputed, however, that there had been such an interference in relation to the seizure of the USB memory stick and the external hard disk drive since the domestic courts had reasonably considered that those items belonged to Draupner and not the applicant, in accordance with the presumption that any documents found on the premises linked to a business should be presumed to belong to that business. Nor had the search of the flat interfered with the applicant\u2019s rights as it did not belong to the applicant but had been the business premises of Draupner, as concluded by the courts in several decisions. With respect to the search of the applicant\u2019s offices, the Government further asserted that it had been in accordance with the law and and that, thus, it had not involved a violation of Article 8."], "id": "16128e24-e51e-4491-a180-3468ce88015e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to family life. They stressed however that intervention by the domestic courts had been prescribed by law, namely section 92 (4) of the Csjt. (see paragraph 15 above). Moreover, it pursued a legitimate aim, that is, the protection of the child\u2019s interests, and was . They added that in this field the child\u2019s interests were paramount, overriding the interests of the parents."], "id": "d88e9ca7-54f8-49a8-a7e6-0b559fcf0ed3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government disagreed. They accepted that the first applicant\u2019s psychiatric examination constituted interference with his private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. They argued, however, that this interference was justified under paragraph 2 of the provision at issue. In particular, the assessment had been carried out based on Mrs L.\u2019s complaints about the first applicant\u2019s deviant behaviour, which had posed a threat to her own safety and the safety of others. These complaints had not been unsubstantiated; in particular, in June 2000 the first applicant had injured Mrs L. Other villagers had also complained to various authorities about the first applicant\u2019s provocative conduct. The Government submitted in this regard copies of complaints concerning the first applicant\u2019s conduct signed by various individuals and dated 2000 \u2013 2003. In the light of this, the first applicant\u2019s psychiatric examination had pursued a legitimate aim \u2013 namely, protection of the rights of others. It had been and was conducted in accordance with the law. In particular, the relevant provision was section 11 of the Law of Ukraine \u201cOn Psychiatric Assistance\u201d, authorising forcible psychiatric assessments of persons manifesting real intention to commit acts putting others in danger. Lastly, the Government submitted that the lawfulness of the application of that provision in the first applicant\u2019s case had been confirmed by judicial authorities of two levels in the course of the contested proceedings."], "id": "9cf8bace-34b0-45ce-8bc3-e37080c79cc1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant argued that the interference in the present case had not been . Even assuming that the actions of the MADEKKI had pursued a legitimate aim in aiding the C\u0113sis hospital in the process of ascertaining the lawfulness of its employees\u2019 actions, it could have done so by using means less restrictive of individual rights. For instance, the C\u0113sis hospital could have forwarded the applicant\u2019s data to the MADEKKI without disclosing her name."], "id": "47d34dc3-cb9b-4e88-a156-428d3611007a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they considered that such interference had been and had been justified by the need to ensure public safety and to prevent any obstruction by the applicant of the investigation of the criminal case against him."], "id": "4b348d7d-dd2f-4357-9728-f4163b0c4672", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government submitted that Article 10 was not applicable in the present case. In any event they stated that the application of the KGB Act to the applicants served the legitimate purpose of the protection of national security and was in view of the applicants\u2019 lack of loyalty to the State. The applicants had not been punished for their views, be they views which they hold at present or views that they might have held in the past. The KGB Act had not imposed a collective responsibility on all former KGB officers without exception. The fact that the applicants were not entitled to benefit from any of the exceptions provided for in section 3 of the KGB Act showed that there had been a well-founded suspicion that the applicants had been lacking in loyalty to the Lithuanian State. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "ae6aed52-f283-4a3c-be36-e1a6cbf21fc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant maintained that the publication of the Commission\u2019s decision on its website before it had become final had been unlawful and not . The removal of such a decision from the Commission\u2019s website if the administrative courts had set it aside would not have offset the adverse effects it had caused. In that connection, he submitted articles from newspapers and online portals after the Commission had posted its decision on its website and before it had been served on him. Lastly, he argued that the impugned publication had not pursued any legitimate aim."], "id": "48e85581-9040-4a52-abdd-3d53d3526033", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government accepted that the residence prohibition interfered with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private and family life. In the Government\u2019s view, the measure at issue was justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention as being in accordance with the law, namely the relevant provisions of the 1992 and 1997 Aliens Act. In this respect they submitted that the applicant did not meet the requirements of Section 38 \u00a7 1 (4) of the 1997 Aliens Act, as he clearly had not grown up in Austria from an early age onwards since he had left Austria when he was only seven months old and did not return until he was ten. This had also been pointed out in the reasoning of the domestic authorities\u2019 decisions of 25 March and 27 April 1998 which dismissed his application for lifting the residence prohibition. The measure also pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder or crime. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the severity of the penalty, the Government argued that the measure had been , within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention and that the Austrian authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation. "], "id": "d7c69736-d8b7-4185-a43e-9ce938780581", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government accepted that the decision to withdraw, among other things, the applicants\u2019 right to determine the children\u2019s place of residence and the fact that their children had been subsequently forcibly separated from their parents had constituted interferences with the right to respect for the applicants\u2019 family life. The interferences had been, however, in accordance with the law and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the health, rights and freedoms of the applicants\u2019 children. Moreover, the interferences had been . The German authorities had established, based on the information available at the relevant time, that the best interest of the children had been at risk and that this fact had required the partial withdrawal of parental authority. Despite compulsory school attendance, the children had not attended a State school for years. The schooling by, in particular, their mother had had to be regarded as inadequate, since the children had been taught only for five hours a day, interrupted by a lunch break, and, notwithstanding their different ages, all children had been taught together and the same curriculum. In addition, the children had had no regular contact with society and hardly any opportunity to meet children of their own age, for example during music lessons or in sports clubs, or to acquire social skills. They consequently had grown up isolated within their own family enclave, in which the applicants had ensured that their children had established a strong attachment to them, to the exclusion of others. The courts had therefore correctly assumed that a \u201csymbiotic\u201d family system had emerged. Further information had not been available to the authorities as the applicants had persistently resisted and prevented the children\u2019s situation from being examined in detail by the youth office or the Education Authority. The domestic courts, in particular the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal, outlined these sufficient and relevant reasons in detail in their decisions. The courts had also assessed whether less severe measures had been available but had correctly concluded that, given the applicants\u2019 previous conduct and persistent rejection of schooling outside their own home, which could not even be changed by criminal sanctions, no other measures had been available. Moreover, as soon as the learning assessment had been undertaken and the applicants had agreed to send their children to a public school, the children had been returned to their parents."], "id": "f0311ee0-305a-4bfb-a6b3-42f329e5df16", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["113. The applicants contended that the Court could not be reduced to being an \u201caccountant\u201d of majoritarian domestic views. On the contrary, it had to be the guardian of the Convention and its underlying values, which include the protection of minorities (they referred in this connection to L. and V. v. Austria, nos. 39392/98 and 39829/98, \u00a7 52, ECHR 2003\u2011I, and Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, \u00a7 97, ECHR 1999\u2011VI). The applicants noted that bias was still present throughout Europe, and could be stronger in certain countries where prejudice against homosexuals was rooted in traditional, if not archaic, convictions and where democratic ideals and practices had only established themselves in recent times. The applicants noted that empirical evidence (submitted to the Court) showed that lack of recognition of same-sex couples in a given state corresponded to a lower degree of social acceptance of homosexuality. It followed that by simply deferring normative choices to the national authorities, the Court would fail to take account of the fact that certain national choices were in fact based on prevailing discriminatory attitudes against homosexuals, rather than the outcome of a genuine democratic process guided by the consideration of what is strictly ."], "id": "e6fb1479-afb0-4317-8e7f-39d4e4032ddf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government accepted that there had been an interference with the applicant's private life but maintained that this interference had been in accordance with the law and that it had been for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The purpose of the Paternity Act was to guarantee equality in law between children, irrespective of descent, and for this reason it was retroactive. The limitation of retroactivity to five years only concerned those cases where paternity was to be established by a court decision. According to the preparatory works of the Paternity Act, the requirement of legal certainty required rapid elimination of uncertainty about possible claims to be made against putative fathers. The restriction concerning the death of the man was justified on the grounds that it was no longer possible to obtain sufficient evidence of the man's paternity if he were deceased. The child welfare supervisor could only initiate paternity proceedings in respect of a child who had been born before the entry into force of the Paternity Act if the child was under fifteen years of age and the mother or the legal guardian had expressed the wish for such proceedings to be initiated."], "id": "7f6f41f3-847d-4e9d-8142-121bb77de810", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government argued that the letter contained factual allegations which the applicant had failed to prove, although she had been given an opportunity to do so in the domestic proceedings. The Government also submitted that the applicant did not complain about the amount she had been ordered to pay in compensation and that it was within the competence of the domestic authorities to determine other measures necessary to remedy the situation, including ordering the applicant to retract the statements by rescinding the impugned letter. Therefore, the Government stated that the interference had been and was proportionate."], "id": "6632fbc9-bf96-41af-bf74-ee6bcb9da812", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government argued that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression demanded from the user some duties and responsibilities, which could be subject to restrictions and penalties as were prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of \u2013 with respect to the present case \u2013 public safety, for the or crime, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others or for maintaining the authority of the judiciary. The statements made by the applicant were broadly reported by the mass media to whom he gave a press conference."], "id": "9989ffe7-318a-4b04-a760-f7060e8bc866", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that even if the expulsion order interferes with the applicant's family life, it discloses no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Given the seriousness of the offence which the applicant committed in Denmark the measure of expulsion was called for in the interest of public safety, for the or crime, and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The Government drew attention to the fact that the applicant has very strong ties with his country of origin since he was already an adult when he left Iran and had his entire school education in Iran. He masters the local language, he served part of his compulsory military service and he has family there. In comparison, the applicant does not have strong ties with Denmark. At the time the expulsion order was made he had resided for only eight years in Denmark. Moreover, in the Government's view, there is no evidence to prove that the applicant's spouse, the children of the marriage, and the spouse's child of another relationship will not be able to accompany the applicant to Iran."], "id": "6153be77-ebd7-4c3e-bded-68401caa64cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant argued that the measure constituted an interference with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention, which had also been conceded by the Austrian authorities. However, when applying the relevant provisions of the 1992 Aliens Act, the domestic authorities had wrongly found that the measure was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. In particular it did not correspond to a \u201cpressing social need\u201d for the or crime. Unlike the administrative authorities, the Juvenile Court, by suspending the major part of the sentence, had obviously made a positive prognosis in respect of the applicant. The Juvenile Court had taken into account the applicant\u2019s young age of eighteen years, the short period of time during which he had committed the offences, namely two and a half months, together with the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record. Further, the administrative authorities had grossly disregarded the applicant\u2019s high degree of integration in Austria, namely his lawful residence and that of his family for years, as well as his school education and completion of a vocational training on the one hand, and the lack of any family ties with Serbia and Montenegro after his grandparents\u2019 death on the other. Thus, the imposition of a residence prohibition of an unlimited duration was disproportionate to the aims pursued."], "id": "a54cbc95-1176-4dcf-b1c4-d2e2960f402d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that the limitation on the number of prison visits had been based on section 18 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act and had been proportionate to the legitimate aim of the and crime because the applicant had been held in custody on account of the gravity of the charges against him and his capacity for obstructing the establishment of the truth. Glass partitions were fitted in accordance with the Rules of Internal Order in Remand Prisons and served to prevent any objects from being passed between detainees and visitors and also to protect visitors from spontaneous dangerous acts on the part of detainees, as well as for the reasons of hygiene, to stifle the spread of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. In the Government\u2019s view, removal of partitions would require a greater number of supervising officers and a closer monitoring of detainees and visitors. This would probably reduce the privacy available to them and bring about a more serious interference with their right to respect for family life."], "id": "030df6e2-505d-4e8d-8f27-99c606386cc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, for the and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "b06b6f8d-c755-428b-b4de-3275963fdff6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["103. The Government maintained that, given the evidence before the High Court, that court's reasons for its detention orders and the conditions imposed by that court, there was no interference with the applicant's right to respect for his family or private life. Indeed, they argue that he did not have a family life for a considerable period of time prior to the relevant period of detention. Alternatively, any interference with his private or family life was in accordance with the law, had a legitimate aim (the protection of the applicant and others and the and crime) and was necessary in a democratic society: given the State's margin of appreciation, it was a proportionate response to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved."], "id": "e69f31b1-9970-4c86-bcc2-7a3d5e0b682f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government accepted that the residence prohibition interfered with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private and family life. In the Government\u2019s view, the measure at issue was justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention as being in accordance with the law, namely the relevant provisions of the 1992 and 1997 Aliens Act. In this respect they submitted that the applicant did not meet the requirements of Section 38 \u00a7 1 (4) of the 1997 Aliens Act, as he clearly had not grown up in Austria from an early age onwards since he had left Austria when he was only seven months old and did not return until he was ten. This had also been pointed out in the reasoning of the domestic authorities\u2019 decisions of 25 March and 27 April 1998 which dismissed his application for lifting the residence prohibition. The measure also pursued the legitimate aim of the or crime. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the severity of the penalty, the Government argued that the measure had been necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention and that the Austrian authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation. "], "id": "2cd1f2a4-3519-44a8-a2e5-a714494890a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicant in the present case committed a single offence and has produced reports indicating that his risk of reoffending was low (see paragraphs 11 and 14 above). Further, the AIT in its judgment of April 2007 accepted that there was a low risk that the applicant would reoffend (see paragraph 20 above). It is also of some significance that the deportation order served on the applicant in July 2004 did not refer to the aims of \u201cpublic safety\u201d or \u201cprotection of the rights of others\u201d. In light of these considerations, and in the absence of any specific observations from the Government to support their contention that the applicant\u2019s deportation would serve the additional aims to which they now refer, the Court considers that in the present case the intended deportation of the applicant pursued the legitimate aim of the \u201c or crime\u201d."], "id": "fc91eff1-cbe2-479b-b9d5-00c019114892", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["176. The applicant\u2019s case is troubling, since his intransigence has led to his spending a substantial period of time in prison for what is \u2013 in itself \u2013 usually a relatively trivial offence (see paragraph 100 above). However, the applicant\u2019s imprisonment is the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law in full knowledge of the consequences, through conduct which he knew full well not only goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society but also is liable to be alarming and morally and otherwise offensive to other, unwarned members of the public going about their ordinary business. Having regard to the considerations set out above and to the wide margin of appreciation, the Court finds that the reasons for the measures adopted by the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts, and in particular those adopted in respect of his arrest in 2011, were \u201crelevant and sufficient\u201d and that the measures met a pressing social need in response to repeated anti-social conduct by the applicant. It cannot be said that the repressive measures taken in reaction to the particular, repeated form of expression chosen by the applicant to communicate his opinion on nudity were, even if considered cumulatively, disproportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued, namely the and crime. In particular, Article 10 does not go so far as to enable individuals, even those sincerely convinced of the virtue of their own beliefs, to repeatedly impose their antisocial conduct on other, unwilling members of society and then to claim a disproportionate interference with the exercise of their freedom of expression when the State, in the performance of its duty to protect the public from public nuisances, enforces the law in respect of such deliberately repetitive antisocial conduct. Even though, cumulatively, the penalties imposed on the applicant undoubtedly did entail serious consequences for him, the Court cannot find in the circumstances of his case, having regard in particular to his own responsibility for his plight, that the public authorities in Scotland unjustifiably interfered with his exercise of freedom of expression. Accordingly, no violation of Article 10 of the Convention has been established."], "id": "c65c2396-2ef7-4033-b7d4-8bb62e5a1632", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government did not contest that the applicant\u2019s criminal conviction had interfered with his right to the enjoyment of his private and family life. They considered, however, that this interference had been justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 as being necessary in a democratic society in the interest of the and for the protection of morals."], "id": "1f574e84-7d9a-4f70-8ef5-a15a4c3036eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government firstly noted that the applicant had been allowed to attend the funeral. They agreed that there was an interference with his rights, which was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim for the or crime. They stressed that there had been no positive criminological prognosis as the applicant was a habitual offender sentenced to a long term of imprisonment and he could have tried to escape if no precautions had been taken. Consequently, the interference was also \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "5737e4ac-ee10-4249-a80b-ea2ddf46aa76", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government have not pointed to any concern regarding the applicant\u2019s conduct in the seven years since his release from prison and rely solely on the seriousness of the offence to justify concerns as to his continued presence in the United Kingdom and his risk to the public (see paragraphs 41-42 and 44 above). The Court reiterates that the factors to be taken into consideration in cases involving deportation following a criminal offence are partially designed to evaluate the extent to which the applicant can be expected to cause disorder or to engage in criminal activities (see paragraph 57 above). In particular, the fact that a significant period of good conduct has elapsed following the commission of the offence necessarily has an impact on the assessment of the risk which the applicant poses to society (see Boultif, cited above, \u00a7 51; Maslov, cited above, \u00a7 90; and A.W. Khan, cited above, \u00a7 41). Accordingly, the Court considers the present factor to be of particular importance when assessing whether the seriousness of the offence in itself is sufficient to justify the applicant\u2019s deportation for the or crime."], "id": "324b703f-ab6f-4946-b98a-a64a8dc3b6bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government accept that the residence prohibition interfered with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life. However, the measure at issue was justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8, being in accordance with the law \u2013 the relevant provisions of the Aliens Act \u2013 and having pursued the legitimate aim of the or crime. The Government further contend that measure was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention and that the Austrian authorities have not overstepped their margin of appreciation. "], "id": "3f95e197-f77d-40fb-884d-be6695df4694", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government admitted that the rejection of the applications for leave to attend the funerals constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they asserted that it was an \u201cinherent and unavoidable consequence ... of the detention on remand\u201d. Furthermore, the interference was in accordance with the law as it was based on Articles 59 \u00a7 1 and 88 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Enforcement of Sentences. In addition, it was necessary in a democratic society in the interest of public safety and for the or crime."], "id": "a8d2bbd5-6e31-4c2e-9910-a41039317a41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government contested the allegation of a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. Reference was made to sections 7(1), 10(1) and 11(3) of the Aliens\u2019 Domicile and Residence Act as well as to Article 16 \u00a7 3 of the ordinance implementing the Act, all of which had been duly published and which provided a sufficient legal basis for the interference. According to these provisions, the residence permit of the foreign spouse of a Swiss citizen would not be renewed if there was a ground for expulsion. The Swiss authorities were called upon to examine the proportionality of the measure. Given the offences which the applicant had committed in Switzerland, there could be no doubt that the refusal not to renew the residence permit was called for in the interests of public safety, for the or crime and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "995f2425-4a97-4f94-8369-f7123417a4f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life, but that that interference had been justified by at least two legitimate aims: the or crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. According to the Government, the interference complained of had been proportionate in the light of the requirements set forth in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. Furthermore, the strip searches had been performed in the presence of two officers of the same sex with no third persons present. The applicant had not been treated in a humiliating way and nobody had used abusive or offensive language towards him."], "id": "cd6624d8-e70f-4a9f-83fe-387fc2a44053", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant complaints were only in respect of \u201cfield plots\u201d and not in respect of her \u201chome\u201d. Moreover, she was no longer living in the area where she alleged she had had her \u201chome\u201d. In any event, the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with her rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, for the and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "e5371a90-912f-4a7d-9e42-b4c192fd1556", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government further submitted that the interference complained of had been justified in order to safeguard order and security within the penitentiary, which included preventing criminal offences and thwarting escape attempts. The interference thus pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public safety, the or crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as set out in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "1c8d5543-9af6-4617-bb85-d6a8f61e5f06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government replied that the reason for the refusal to record the particulars of the US birth certificates in the French register of births, marriages and deaths was that this would have given effect to a surrogacy agreement, which was formally forbidden under a domestic public-policy provision and constituted a punishable offence if performed in France. French law accordingly reflected ethical and moral principles according to which the human body could not become a commercial instrument and the child be reduced to the object of a contract. In their submission, the \u201clegitimate aims\u201d of the interference were the or crime, the protection of health and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. They added that the reason the public prosecutor\u2019s office had requested that the particulars of the birth certificates of the third and fourth applicants be recorded was precisely to enable it to request subsequently that these entries be annulled. In doing so it had complied with Article 511 of the general circular on civil status of 11 May 1999, which prescribed automatic registration where public policy was concerned, particularly where it was necessary to annul a civil-status document concerning a French national that had been drawn up abroad in accordance with local procedures."], "id": "44a8691e-de37-4d9c-9bf9-1ea5f88fecfb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that, to the extent that the drafting of the report was to be regarded as an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 of the Convention, it had been in accordance with the domestic legislation in force at the material time. Furthermore, it had been necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety and the ."], "id": "88ec7c0d-0fa7-425a-8f17-7423e1d7a26e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government further stated that the interference was necessary and proportionate for the legitimate purpose of the or crime and/or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. It was of vital importance that law enforcement agencies took full advantage of available techniques of modern technology and forensic science in the prevention, investigation and detection of crime for the interests of society generally. They submitted that the retained material was of inestimable value in the fight against crime and terrorism and the detection of the guilty, and provided statistics in support of this view. They emphasised that the benefits to the criminal-justice system were enormous, not only permitting the detection of the guilty but also eliminating the innocent from inquiries and correcting and preventing miscarriages of justice."], "id": "548f777a-ee09-4674-82ab-0bc292307ecd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted that if the Court concluded that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, which they disputed, then the alleged interference had been in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of national security and the or crime. Additionally, the alleged \u201clegislative interference\u201d had been justified in the interests of public safety and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as set forth in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "4c2be673-36c4-4153-a39f-f18518ca463a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the decision to deport the applicant was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, namely, the protection of health and morals and the and crime. The Government relied on the Court\u2019s jurisprudence, which had recognised the serious nature of drugs offences and found that they were capable of justifying \u201cgreat firmness\u201d on the part of the State (El Bouja\u00efdi v. France, 26 September 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VI; Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, ECHR 1999\u2011VIII; Dalia v. France, 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I)."], "id": "d292d73e-10aa-4559-bc1b-8e6815e69536", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government acknowledged that the search of the applicant\u2019s home interfered with his right to respect for his private life. They submitted that it was justifiable under the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention as being necessary in a democratic society for the or crime. The Government further submitted that the search warrant was executed in compliance with the procedural requirements set out in Articles 227, 228 and 230 of the CCP."], "id": "b3f7825e-bf81-4614-9c4d-2a599e796543", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government pointed out that on a case-by-case basis the applicant had been provided with the opportunity to make extra phone calls to his daughter. Providing him with unrestricted access would have amounted to favouritism to the detriment of other inmates. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s correspondence with his daughter was not restricted. Therefore the Government were of the opinion that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life in this respect did not go beyond what was inherent in the pre-trial detention and was not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, that is, the and the protection of the rights of others."], "id": "220dbec3-4275-4146-9ff5-8f73a3c5d477", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his expulsion led to a separation from his wife and children. While the measure might have had a legitimate aim, namely the and crime, it had not been necessary in a democratic society. In this respect he stressed that he \u2013 having lived for more than 27 years in Germany \u2013 had fully integrated into German society and that he did not have any remaining links to Turkey other than his nationality, also lacking sufficient knowledge of the Turkish language. He maintained that he had been employed during the major part of his adult life and that he had been working in Germany from January 2001 until his second deportation in August 2003. His children could not be expected to accompany him to Turkey, as they would not be able to follow school there because of their poor knowledge of the Turkish language."], "id": "7c8b7d8a-4cfb-4227-8e03-03a2f047acef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government acknowledged that the use of closed overalls amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private life. The interference had a basis in national law, especially in Section 9d of the Act on Execution of Sentences and in other orders and rules in force at the relevant time, and it pursued the legitimate aims of public safety, or crime and protection of health and rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "237faa08-a0ec-46ba-9a24-b42953164fb7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, for the and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "e1cc066d-6d5d-46b0-accf-61aec81fa0dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government maintained that the imposition of special conditions relating to the applicant\u2019s attendance at the funeral of his daughter did not deprive him of the effective possibility of attending the funeral. They submitted that the applicant could have attended the funeral in plain clothes. This issue was regulated by law and the Director of the Detention Centre could not have decided otherwise. The applicant and his sister must have misunderstood the Director. They further stressed that the applicant was young and very strong and therefore he would have had to wear handcuffs without, however, having to be restrained by joined shackles (\u201cprowadnice\u201d). They agreed that there was an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights, which was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim for the or crime. They were of the opinion that the applicant could have tried to escape if no precautions were taken during the funeral of his daughter."], "id": "8f8a6d5b-ad82-40a1-8fa9-350dd96fab80", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant challenged the submission that the ban in question satisfied the condition laid down in paragraph 2 of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention of necessity in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the , the protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. With regard to the aim of \u201cliving together\u201d in a democratic society, it was the opposite reasoning \u2013 that of openness and tolerance \u2013 which should take precedence in a pluralist democratic society as was evidenced by the tolerance that there had always been of dress codes rejecting the living together principle. At best, it could be regarded as a praiseworthy political objective, but one that could not be achieved by some stigmatising by-laws that were contrary to the Convention. In her submission, the factors justifying the ban on safety grounds had been advanced exclusively with regard to the full-face veil, were non-existent and the real aim being pursued by the by-laws was the prohibition of the full-face veil in public places. She argued, lastly, that the issue of dignity and gender equality was irrelevant to justification on grounds of \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d since the exercise of the freedom and wishes of women themselves was hindered."], "id": "5471f296-ae40-49ce-baa2-66eae18fe2f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant was no longer living in the area where he allegedly had had his \u201chome\u201d. In any event, the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, for the and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "f0bc0ffa-dd87-48cd-80e0-06a5d8c6517d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["689. The Government contended that the search of the homes and offices of certain applicants, and the confiscation of personal items and files, was in accordance with the law, namely Article 11 of the Law on the State of Emergency No. 2935, Article 3 of Decree No. 430 for the state of emergency region and Articles 90 to 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were necessary under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in the interests of national security, public safety, for the and crime, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others from terrorist attack. Furthermore, these matters did not raise any issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as any interference with the applicants' property was justified in the public interest, within the meaning of that provision. In this connection, the Government emphasised that the searches in the present case were part of an operation against the PKK, an illegal terrorist organisation responsible for thousands of atrocious murders and maimings, as well as serious economic and social losses."], "id": "0da566a7-bc04-4c61-8e3a-5fea8a581d82", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of disorder", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["116. The Government submitted that the secret surveillance of the applicant\u2019s telephone conversations was justified for the purpose of investigating the information received at the NSS suggesting that the organisation led by the applicant was carrying out activities aimed at overthrowing the government through unconstitutional means. The interference was in accordance with the law since the grounds and the procedure for it were prescribed by the CCP. It pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in the interests of national security and for the and crime."], "id": "72218d04-ad74-4a09-9ab2-4f15bdc8eea5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government accept that there has been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life as guaranteed by Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. However, the measure was justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2, being in accordance with the law - Section 176 of the Civil Code - and having pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of health or morals and the . The Government further contend that the measure was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 and that the Austrian authorities have not overstepped their margin of appreciation."], "id": "194ebdb1-5b98-4ce3-86ef-688eae23142a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government further stated that the interference was necessary and proportionate for the legitimate purpose of the prevention of disorder or crime and/or the . It was of vital importance that law enforcement agencies took full advantage of available techniques of modern technology and forensic science in the prevention, investigation and detection of crime for the interests of society generally. They submitted that the retained material was of inestimable value in the fight against crime and terrorism and the detection of the guilty, and provided statistics in support of this view. They emphasised that the benefits to the criminal-justice system were enormous, not only permitting the detection of the guilty but also eliminating the innocent from inquiries and correcting and preventing miscarriages of justice."], "id": "e525f960-d886-4dd8-b09b-c8d9bc63e6bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that even if the expulsion order interferes with the applicant's family life, it discloses no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Given the seriousness of the offence which the applicant committed in Denmark the measure of expulsion was called for in the interest of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, and for the , and was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The Government drew attention to the fact that the applicant has very strong ties with his country of origin since he was already an adult when he left Iran and had his entire school education in Iran. He masters the local language, he served part of his compulsory military service and he has family there. In comparison, the applicant does not have strong ties with Denmark. At the time the expulsion order was made he had resided for only eight years in Denmark. Moreover, in the Government's view, there is no evidence to prove that the applicant's spouse, the children of the marriage, and the spouse's child of another relationship will not be able to accompany the applicant to Iran."], "id": "1342c32d-f7ff-487a-8e7f-6821df1167fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, for the prevention of disorder and for the ."], "id": "a310427b-9ac0-41eb-9119-eb5424b61e54", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted that if the Court concluded that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, which they disputed, then the alleged interference had been in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of national security and the prevention of disorder or crime. Additionally, the alleged \u201clegislative interference\u201d had been justified in the interests of public safety and the , as set forth in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "42aaaae7-67e7-4430-8bea-47e6740d8024", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government considered that this interference could be regarded as satisfying at least two of the legitimate aims provided for in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The family-affairs judge had certainly been required to take account of the , because the applicant\u2019s alcoholism had been considered as part of the cause of the violence he had been inflicting on his wife at the time, and the judge had also had a duty to protect the health and morals of the children, in respect of whom a right of visiting and staying contact had been granted to their father."], "id": "21d5c1c5-3111-4eef-918a-7030904da612", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant challenged the submission that the ban in question satisfied the condition laid down in paragraph 2 of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention of necessity in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of disorder, the protection of health or morals or the . With regard to the aim of \u201cliving together\u201d in a democratic society, it was the opposite reasoning \u2013 that of openness and tolerance \u2013 which should take precedence in a pluralist democratic society as was evidenced by the tolerance that there had always been of dress codes rejecting the living together principle. At best, it could be regarded as a praiseworthy political objective, but one that could not be achieved by some stigmatising by-laws that were contrary to the Convention. In her submission, the factors justifying the ban on safety grounds had been advanced exclusively with regard to the full-face veil, were non-existent and the real aim being pursued by the by-laws was the prohibition of the full-face veil in public places. She argued, lastly, that the issue of dignity and gender equality was irrelevant to justification on grounds of \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d since the exercise of the freedom and wishes of women themselves was hindered."], "id": "0254b3fb-8a12-4b77-a7b9-ea77a797630c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government contended that any interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 \u00a7 1 was justified within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2. The local authority\u2019s decisions to procure a notice to quit from his wife and subsequently to commence possession proceedings were taken in accordance with the law and pursued a number of legitimate aims, namely (a) the protection of the rights of the authority as owner of the property with responsibility for the management of its social housing stock; (b) the on the authority\u2019s waiting list to be provided with housing out of the authority\u2019s stock of homes to meet their needs; and (c) the promotion of the economic well\u2011being of the country. Furthermore, given that it was necessary in a democracy to have in place clear and certain rules governing property rights, and in view of the fact that under ordinary property law the authority had an absolute right to recover the property in question, the Government submitted that the interference which arose by virtue of the recognition and implementation of those rights by the courts was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."], "id": "13f66b0e-af68-48d8-b10c-c76d1b3f0455", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, for the prevention of disorder and for the ."], "id": "33ab9d32-705c-424d-8e08-ff459369d979", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government stated that the measures against the applicant had been lawful and necessary in a democratic society for the maintenance of ordre public and the . Emphasising that the applicant had owed significant amounts in taxes and had refused to pay, contesting her debt, the Government considered that the measure against the applicant had been imposed on an individual basis, taking into account her behaviour. Also, the applicant had owned and managed a firm in Austria, not in Bulgaria, which allegedly meant that no security for payment had been available. The principle of proportionality had been respected."], "id": "036318f0-e825-41d0-b2c3-8e8efeb0b106", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government contested the allegation of a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. Reference was made to sections 7(1), 10(1) and 11(3) of the Aliens\u2019 Domicile and Residence Act as well as to Article 16 \u00a7 3 of the ordinance implementing the Act, all of which had been duly published and which provided a sufficient legal basis for the interference. According to these provisions, the residence permit of the foreign spouse of a Swiss citizen would not be renewed if there was a ground for expulsion. The Swiss authorities were called upon to examine the proportionality of the measure. Given the offences which the applicant had committed in Switzerland, there could be no doubt that the refusal not to renew the residence permit was called for in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime and for the , within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "e81e0d20-e820-4599-979e-2da119f1d8c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["689. The Government contended that the search of the homes and offices of certain applicants, and the confiscation of personal items and files, was in accordance with the law, namely Article 11 of the Law on the State of Emergency No. 2935, Article 3 of Decree No. 430 for the state of emergency region and Articles 90 to 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were necessary under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in the interests of national security, public safety, for the prevention of disorder and crime, and the from terrorist attack. Furthermore, these matters did not raise any issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as any interference with the applicants' property was justified in the public interest, within the meaning of that provision. In this connection, the Government emphasised that the searches in the present case were part of an operation against the PKK, an illegal terrorist organisation responsible for thousands of atrocious murders and maimings, as well as serious economic and social losses."], "id": "49674af4-c70c-477b-a674-5e910a46e1c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant complaints were only in respect of \u201cfield plots\u201d and not in respect of her \u201chome\u201d. Moreover, she was no longer living in the area where she alleged she had had her \u201chome\u201d. In any event, the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with her rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, for the prevention of disorder and for the ."], "id": "b062ec22-36c1-49aa-b434-cbaabf23c183", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government contended that the interference complained of had been in accordance with the law, both domestic and international, and legitimate in its aim of serving the interests of public safety and the . As regards its proportionality, they submitted first of all that execution of the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment of 2010 had been complicated by difficulties in establishing the applicant\u2019s address and identifying the items seized in 2009 that belonged to him. As he had been advised at the domestic level, it was open to him to claim restitution of further items provided he could establish title to them. As for the re-seizure, the Slovakian authorities had been implementing an Austrian letter rogatory, knowing that the items in question had been in the possession of the applicant\u2019s lawyer. They had opted for a request that he surrender them, which was a less stringent measure than its alternative, physical seizure. It was true that the lawyer had been threatened with a fine and with disciplinary proceedings. However, such a fine was appealable and the PPS did not in fact have disciplinary authority in relation to the lawyer. In view of the digital form of the information that had been seized again, it had not been possible without the applicant\u2019s assistance to distinguish which part of it was business related and which was private. Such a distinction could only be made by the Austrian authorities in the proceedings for the purposes of which that material had been seized again. As to the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment of 2010, it could not be seen as constituting an absolute obstacle to the re\u2011seizure of the material originally seized in 2009, in particular on grounds of lawyer-client privilege, since no such matters had been addressed in the 2010 judgment. In sum, the Government argued that the Slovakian authorities had preserved a fair balance between the various interests at stake."], "id": "e7891993-d745-49ab-9c6a-d0a785d691e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government submitted that the prosecutorial requests for information had served the purpose of preventing criminal acts, and this was not challenged by the applicant. The Court accepts that the interference aimed to investigate a criminal act and thereby served the legitimate aims of the prevention of crime, the , and also the economic well-being of the country (compare M.N. and Others v. San Marino, cited above, \u00a775)."], "id": "f93cf287-5558-4099-bfa2-c5c92be60a2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government further submitted that the interference complained of had been justified in order to safeguard order and security within the penitentiary, which included preventing criminal offences and thwarting escape attempts. The interference thus pursued the legitimate aims of protecting public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime and the , as set out in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "9c3fd757-4ba1-4810-9564-def532ed7a11", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government accepted, on the other hand, that the applicant enjoyed private life in the United Kingdom and that his deportation would represent an interference with that private life. However, that interference would be justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8, being in accordance with law and taken in pursuit of the legitimate aims of protecting public safety, the prevention of crime, and the . The Government also contended that the interference was proportionate given the nature and seriousness of the applicant\u2019s offences, which were, for the most part, drugs offences, which the Government considered to be particularly grave given the issues of public protection that they raised. The Government pointed in particular to the fact that the applicant\u2019s last offence had been of sufficient gravity to attract a sentence of three years\u2019 imprisonment. The applicant had committed his offences when he was already an adult and his case could therefore be distinguished from that of the applicant in Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, 23 June 2008, whose offences by contrast could be characterised as \u201cjuvenile delinquency\u201d. The Government considered the young age at which the applicant had entered the United Kingdom and the fact that he had stronger ties with that country than with Nigeria to be relevant factors, but maintained that his deportation would have a relatively minor impact on the applicant given that he did not have family life in the United Kingdom and could re-establish private life in Nigeria. In this regard, the Government pointed to the applicant\u2019s good health, high intelligence and the fact that he had lived alone since the age of eighteen with little support. As such, and having regard to the importance of protecting the public from drugs-related crime, the Government were of the view that the applicant\u2019s deportation to Nigeria would represent a proportionate interference with his private life in terms of Article 8."], "id": "722b6022-08e5-4058-bdd6-2ce6ad5702f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant was no longer living in the area where he allegedly had had his \u201chome\u201d. In any event, the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, for the prevention of disorder and for the ."], "id": "30c5e981-49f8-446a-b37d-33ab363d30ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the applicant\u2019s circumstances were not capable of coming within the ambit of private life under Article 8 of the Convention as the provision did not provide a right to choose the country in which a person sought to reside and work without regard to that country\u2019s immigration laws. Even assuming that the applicant had established private life in the United Kingdom and that it had been interfered with, such interference was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim, namely the maintenance and enforcement of immigration control, inter alia, for the preservation of the economic well\u2011being of the country, the protection of health and morals and the and was proportionate in the circumstances."], "id": "3c242e69-639e-4644-9df6-b2f72d6dbe6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life, but that that interference had been justified by at least two legitimate aims: the prevention of disorder or crime and the . According to the Government, the interference complained of had been proportionate in the light of the requirements set forth in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. Furthermore, the strip searches had been performed in the presence of two officers of the same sex with no third persons present. The applicant had not been treated in a humiliating way and nobody had used abusive or offensive language towards him."], "id": "f095b4a6-ed89-4fb6-8e1b-4b8b228f1e61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government replied that the reason for the refusal to record the particulars of the US birth certificates in the French register of births, marriages and deaths was that this would have given effect to a surrogacy agreement, which was formally forbidden under a domestic public-policy provision and constituted a punishable offence if performed in France. French law accordingly reflected ethical and moral principles according to which the human body could not become a commercial instrument and the child be reduced to the object of a contract. In their submission, the \u201clegitimate aims\u201d of the interference were the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health and the . They added that the reason the public prosecutor\u2019s office had requested that the particulars of the birth certificates of the third and fourth applicants be recorded was precisely to enable it to request subsequently that these entries be annulled. In doing so it had complied with Article 511 of the general circular on civil status of 11 May 1999, which prescribed automatic registration where public policy was concerned, particularly where it was necessary to annul a civil-status document concerning a French national that had been drawn up abroad in accordance with local procedures."], "id": "de3faa35-803d-4d45-bd69-837981f1191c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government accepted that the judgments of the Austrian courts on the applicants request for visiting rights constituted an interference with their right to respect for their family life. That interference was in accordance with the law, that is, it was based on Article 148 (4) of the Civil Code, and it also served a legitimate aim, namely the , that is, the child concerned and his biological mother. The interference was also necessary in a democratic society. The Austrian courts had carefully balanced the interest of the applicants in further personal contact with their former foster child against the interest of the biological mother of the child in re-constituting and protecting an undisturbed and fruitful mother-child relationship, as well as taking into account the welfare of the child himself. Austrian law attributed a particularly high priority to the welfare of the child in decisions on family-law matters and the interests of adults had often to give way to this priority."], "id": "e0da979c-c3d4-4fd1-a7b1-efa1e645202b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government accepted that there had been an interference with the applicant's private life but maintained that this interference had been in accordance with the law and that it had been necessary in a democratic society for the . The purpose of the Paternity Act was to guarantee equality in law between children, irrespective of descent, and for this reason it was retroactive. The limitation of retroactivity to five years only concerned those cases where paternity was to be established by a court decision. According to the preparatory works of the Paternity Act, the requirement of legal certainty required rapid elimination of uncertainty about possible claims to be made against putative fathers. The restriction concerning the death of the man was justified on the grounds that it was no longer possible to obtain sufficient evidence of the man's paternity if he were deceased. The child welfare supervisor could only initiate paternity proceedings in respect of a child who had been born before the entry into force of the Paternity Act if the child was under fifteen years of age and the mother or the legal guardian had expressed the wish for such proceedings to be initiated."], "id": "1a895466-ee7d-4065-838f-312e4f1b8e50", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government emphasised that it was not in dispute that from 1980 until 1991 the applicant had worked as a driver in the KGB. Furthermore, the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life was in accordance with law and it was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety and for the . The Government pointed out that for the transfer from a totalitarian regime to a democratic system, Estonia took various measures which, in aggregate, had to ensure the development and security of the democratic system. Criminal liability for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed under the totalitarian regime was established and an obligation to take an oath of conscience was introduced for those seeking the highest offices in the country. The Disclosure Act dealt with the persons who had not committed any crimes but had been employed by or collaborated with the intelligence or counterintelligence authorities of the States which had occupied Estonia. It was found that such persons had to come to terms with their past and not to try to forget, conceal or be silent about it. There was also a significant public interest in the publicity of information relating to the past; this had to guarantee transparency and clarity as well as overall internal peace in the society. Obtaining complete information about the members and agents of the security and intelligence authorities which had operated on the territory of Estonia was also important for the protection of independence and security of the Republic of Estonia. Estonia was lacking the relevant information; such information, including the lists of persons who had worked in the KGB, was in the hands of foreign States. There could be attempts to recruit former staff of the security authorities and make them perform security or intelligence tasks, or they could be subject to blackmailing. Such situation was dangerous and damaging for Estonia. The Government referred to recent cases where former employees or collaborators of the KGB had provided a foreign country with state secrets leading to their conviction of treason."], "id": "b4998bdd-0725-4428-b5ed-dae4f53220d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government submitted that the interference with the first applicant\u2019s rights was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for the . The Government considered that deprivation of parental authority emanated from the issuance of the care order, which once in place transfers the exercise of powers with respect to care and custody to the Minister. It was therefore not the judgment of the Criminal Court that caused the interference. Thus, the Government considered the interference to have arisen from the issuance of the care order, which they submitted was in the best interests of the children, since at the time the first applicant had not been in a position to take proper care of her children. Moreover, her situation was subject to constant monitoring and review, which resulted in her having increased access to the children as approved by the Minister. This went to prove that all attempts were being made for an eventual reunification. In their view M.D. still enjoyed all remaining rights save for care and custody, which included visitation rights in accordance with her Article 8 rights."], "id": "cf255c17-73b6-4e79-ae9f-d8ae0ca5f87c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they considered that such interference had been necessary in a democratic society and had been justified by the need to ensure and to prevent any obstruction by the applicant of the investigation of the criminal case against him."], "id": "151278d6-57e3-413a-a448-8553650e88df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["193. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to bring a relevant challenge in the domestic courts by way of judicial review within the procedural time-limits. The courts had refused to grant permission to seek judicial review on well-established principles reflecting the importance of legal certainty having regard to the delay in bringing the challenge and the consequent prejudice and detriment to good administration that would have been caused by allowing their challenge to proceed so long after the grant of the permissions. The applicants\u2019 allegations regarding were not such as to override the public interest considerations, particularly having regard to the assessments carried out by the HSE and MHPA. Thus the refusal by the courts to allow the applicants to proceed out of time was for a legitimate public interest purpose and was proportionate."], "id": "f7847ac3-7e1f-447b-9a39-7d700f140ca1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government emphasised that it was not in dispute that from 1980 until 1991 the applicant had worked as a driver in the KGB. Furthermore, the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life was in accordance with law and it was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government pointed out that for the transfer from a totalitarian regime to a democratic system, Estonia took various measures which, in aggregate, had to ensure the development and security of the democratic system. Criminal liability for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed under the totalitarian regime was established and an obligation to take an oath of conscience was introduced for those seeking the highest offices in the country. The Disclosure Act dealt with the persons who had not committed any crimes but had been employed by or collaborated with the intelligence or counterintelligence authorities of the States which had occupied Estonia. It was found that such persons had to come to terms with their past and not to try to forget, conceal or be silent about it. There was also a significant public interest in the publicity of information relating to the past; this had to guarantee transparency and clarity as well as overall internal peace in the society. Obtaining complete information about the members and agents of the security and intelligence authorities which had operated on the territory of Estonia was also important for the protection of independence and security of the Republic of Estonia. Estonia was lacking the relevant information; such information, including the lists of persons who had worked in the KGB, was in the hands of foreign States. There could be attempts to recruit former staff of the security authorities and make them perform security or intelligence tasks, or they could be subject to blackmailing. Such situation was dangerous and damaging for Estonia. The Government referred to recent cases where former employees or collaborators of the KGB had provided a foreign country with state secrets leading to their conviction of treason."], "id": "0fd4a05a-0e79-4b1a-a65d-085db8d39ffc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["174. The applicant did not appear to deny that the impugned restrictions were imposed in pursuit of legitimate aims. The Court finds it established that those restrictions pursued one or more of the legitimate aims enumerated in Article 8 \u00a7 2: firstly, they sought to prevent crime, and, secondly, as the relevant Security Council resolutions had been adopted to combat international terrorism under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter (\u201cAction with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression\u201d), they were also capable of contributing to Switzerland\u2019s national security and ."], "id": "fa1a8b18-63ce-4569-838a-9d1078f492c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant argued that the decision to revoke his permanent residence permit and to order his expulsion constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for family life. He submitted that the criminal courts were of the opinion that the homicide he committed and his guilt were not serious as they sentenced him to five years and three months\u2019 imprisonment while the maximum penalty possible was twenty years\u2019 imprisonment. Moreover, he was twenty years old at the time he committed that offence on which the expulsion order was mainly based. The circumstances of the offence, a car race, were typical of an offence committed by adolescents. He claimed that he had matured since, also due to a therapy he underwent and relied on expert reports stating that there was a low risk that he would reoffend. The applicant emphasised that he had not offended in the years between the commission of the offence in 2000 and the commencement of his prison sentence in 2006 and that he served his sentence in a semi-custodial regime (offener Vollzug). All of these factors bore testimony to the fact that he did not constitute a threat to . He also argued that the length of time between the commission of the offences in 2000 and the first service of the expulsion order in 2009 had to be taken into account."], "id": "802bb96c-cb14-4963-9018-776b17ee482d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government contended that the interference complained of had been in accordance with the law, both domestic and international, and legitimate in its aim of serving the interests of and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. As regards its proportionality, they submitted first of all that execution of the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment of 2010 had been complicated by difficulties in establishing the applicant\u2019s address and identifying the items seized in 2009 that belonged to him. As he had been advised at the domestic level, it was open to him to claim restitution of further items provided he could establish title to them. As for the re-seizure, the Slovakian authorities had been implementing an Austrian letter rogatory, knowing that the items in question had been in the possession of the applicant\u2019s lawyer. They had opted for a request that he surrender them, which was a less stringent measure than its alternative, physical seizure. It was true that the lawyer had been threatened with a fine and with disciplinary proceedings. However, such a fine was appealable and the PPS did not in fact have disciplinary authority in relation to the lawyer. In view of the digital form of the information that had been seized again, it had not been possible without the applicant\u2019s assistance to distinguish which part of it was business related and which was private. Such a distinction could only be made by the Austrian authorities in the proceedings for the purposes of which that material had been seized again. As to the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgment of 2010, it could not be seen as constituting an absolute obstacle to the re\u2011seizure of the material originally seized in 2009, in particular on grounds of lawyer-client privilege, since no such matters had been addressed in the 2010 judgment. In sum, the Government argued that the Slovakian authorities had preserved a fair balance between the various interests at stake."], "id": "38f22778-e3b4-40b0-880a-7e5cde0cb53e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government acknowledged that the use of closed overalls amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private life. The interference had a basis in national law, especially in Section 9d of the Act on Execution of Sentences and in other orders and rules in force at the relevant time, and it pursued the legitimate aims of , prevention of disorder or crime and protection of health and rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "17eb9003-f2d1-4031-a7a8-67ea37dcdf93", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government admitted that the rejection of the applications for leave to attend the funerals constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they asserted that it was an \u201cinherent and unavoidable consequence ... of the detention on remand\u201d. Furthermore, the interference was in accordance with the law as it was based on Articles 59 \u00a7 1 and 88 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Enforcement of Sentences. In addition, it was necessary in a democratic society in the interest of and for the prevention of disorder or crime."], "id": "91070776-7e28-42d3-81c6-0e975e2eb599", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, , for the prevention of disorder and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "836167e8-511d-4a6b-88e3-ab793982bda2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant expressed the view that the criminal charge brought against him in 2006 should not have been taken into account by the Swiss authorities when assessing whether he constituted a risk to because the criminal proceedings had ended in a nolle prosequi and he had been declared innocent. He added that the domestic authorities and the Government had given too much weight to his conviction and the criminal charges brought against him, while disregarding all other elements. He maintained that his expulsion from Switzerland had not been necessary in a democratic society under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "73213492-3bab-4cde-9133-3add2d1ebb07", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government argued that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression demanded from the user some duties and responsibilities, which could be subject to restrictions and penalties as were prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of \u2013 with respect to the present case \u2013 , for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others or for maintaining the authority of the judiciary. The statements made by the applicant were broadly reported by the mass media to whom he gave a press conference."], "id": "a2963c60-f881-4559-8fb4-2c7c8f4a1ce1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government submitted that the decision ordering the demolition of the house in which the applicants lived was lawful. It had been judicially reviewed and upheld. It was also necessary for the protection of . The national authorities had a wide margin of appreciation to tackle the problem of illegal construction. The impossibility to legalise unlawful buildings had been put in place in view of the strong public interest to ensure the safety, hygiene and aesthetics of construction. The demolition of a building because it had been erected without a permit was a proportionate measure required in all cases and not capable of being eschewed at the discretion of the building control authorities. Those authorities had acted straight away when apprised of the illegality of the house inhabited by the applicants, and had not tolerated an illegal situation for a long time: the applicants had started inhabiting the house at the earliest in 2009 and the demolition procedure had started in 2011. The applicants had constructed the house knowing full well that they had not obtained the required permit. All such buildings, unless falling under the transitional amnesty provisions of the 2001 Act, were subject to demolition; the courts had inquired into that point in the applicants\u2019 case. The authorities had allowed the first applicant to comment on the intended demolition, and had invited her to comply with the demolition order of her own accord. In as much as she argued that she had no other place to live, it had to be noted that in June 2013, after the beginning of the demolition proceedings, she had donated a flat that she owned in Burgas and that, although the authorities did not have an obligation to provide the applicants, who did not belong to a particularly vulnerable group, with alternative accommodation, they had explored the possibility of settling them in a municipal flat. The second applicant was in receipt of a sufficiently high pension and the first applicant was able to work. They could thus afford to pay market rent in Sinemorets, and their personal circumstances were not as dire as they sought to paint them. The authorities had endeavoured to take all these matters into account when sending a social worker to interview the first applicant. It was equally possible to have the proportionality of the demolition reviewed in proceedings under Article 278 of the Code of Administrative Procedure 2006. The interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their home was therefore proportionate. Article 8 of the Convention could not be construed as precluding the enforcement of the building regulations in respect of those who sought to flout them, or as requiring the authorities to provide persons in the applicants\u2019 situation with a place to live."], "id": "a567160a-090d-467c-ad30-936e33f15179", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, , for the prevention of disorder and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "965c037e-bbe0-414d-b79d-17220a5414df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicants argued that since the domestic law did not define any clear criteria and procedure for allocating a convicted person to a penal facility by the federal penal authority, which was left completely to the discretion of the latter, no court action under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure had offered them any prospects of success. Therefore, they had not had any domestic remedies to exhaust. The applicants considered that their allocation to penal facilities far from home constituted a continuing situation, because they continued to suffer the negative consequences of the interference with their rights under Article 8 of the Convention, and that the six-month time-limit for lodging their complaint with the Court had been complied with. The applicants submitted on the merits of the case that their placement in penal facilities far from their home region had amounted to an interference with their right to respect for their family life. The interference had not been in accordance with the law, since the law did not satisfy the \u201cquality of law\u201d requirement, and had not pursued a legitimate aim. Even if there had been no appropriate penal facilities in the Chechen Republic there should have been such facilities in the adjacent regions. The applicants pointed to the existence of at least one facility in the Chechen Republic, IK-2, which, although a normal-security prison, had a high-security wing. Furthermore, it was unclear how their allocation to remote penal facilities could have served to protect in the Chechen Republic. Even assuming that the interference had pursued a legitimate aim, it had been disproportionate as it had unnecessarily limited their opportunity to preserve family and social ties after their conviction."], "id": "db993628-ba26-4369-b21c-830f8a6b8424", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government acknowledged that after his release on parole, the applicant had made efforts to reintegrate into society and to take control of his life. He had regularly attended interviews with the cantonal authorities, which attested to his willingness to collaborate, he had continued his psychiatric treatment and had paid the victim compensation as ordered in the criminal judgment, and he had found a job as a chauffeur. However, he had not proven that his behaviour had changed in the long term. In the Government\u2019s view, the new charge brought against him in 2006 weighed heavily, especially as it related again to offences against the sexual integrity of persons incapable of resistance and showed that, despite his psychiatric treatment, the applicant still had difficulties in controlling his sexual behaviour towards women in vulnerable situations. Although the public prosecutor had discontinued the criminal investigations, those facts could be taken into account as they had either been recognised by the applicant himself or established by evidence. In the light of those circumstances, the Government concluded that the applicant was still a threat to in Switzerland."], "id": "22ab172a-3c8c-4e4b-b0f8-b67a757e9aaf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government acknowledged that the use of this device interfered with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private life. They submitted that it was justifiable under the second paragraph of Article 8 as being necessary in a democratic society in the interests of , for the prevention of crime and/or for the protection of the rights of others. They referred, inter alia, to the serious nature of the crime under investigation, the fact that B. was regarded as being surveillance-conscious, rendering conventional forms of surveillance insufficient, and that the conversations proved that an armed robbery was being planned. They recalled, however, that in Khan v. the United Kingdom (no. 35394/97, \u00a7\u00a7 26-28, ECHR 2000-V), the Court found that the Home Office Guidelines governing such devices did not satisfy the requirement of \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and recognised that the Court was liable to reach the same conclusion in the present case."], "id": "c8732f0a-0b7e-48ec-af02-ec39a4b47e4f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["87. The Government submitted that the interception of the applicant\u2019s telephone communications had been ordered by a court as required by law. It transpired from the court orders that the police had intelligence information about the applicant being the leader of a criminal gang. The transcripts of his telephone conversations had been admitted as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him. The tapping of his telephone had therefore been lawful and proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting and the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "26b860c6-cb27-4bdd-bbcd-1ca7c04b546e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that, to the extent that the drafting of the report was to be regarded as an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8 of the Convention, it had been in accordance with the domestic legislation in force at the material time. Furthermore, it had been necessary in a democratic society in the interests of and the prevention of disorder."], "id": "6f028324-2919-4706-bda6-afc1ad099e9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government acknowledged that the applicant was enjoying family life with his wife and children in Switzerland. Arguing that the decision to revoke his permanent residence permit and order his expulsion constituted a justified interference with his family life, they submitted that the applicant was convicted of criminal offences several times, including in 2007 while serving his prison sentence. They emphasised that the homicide committed by the applicant was characterised by a high degree of recklessness, as he engaged in a car race and drove his car at a speed of at least 170 kilometres per hour, posing a threat to . They argued that the domestic courts had thoroughly assessed expert reports on the risk of the applicant\u2019s reoffending and submitted that these reports did not entirely exclude the possibility that he would engage in a car race again and commit similar offences, despite his maturation process."], "id": "567b11ea-61d7-4f2c-bc2b-49fe9f5dfceb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["689. The Government contended that the search of the homes and offices of certain applicants, and the confiscation of personal items and files, was in accordance with the law, namely Article 11 of the Law on the State of Emergency No. 2935, Article 3 of Decree No. 430 for the state of emergency region and Articles 90 to 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were necessary under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention in the interests of national security, , for the prevention of disorder and crime, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others from terrorist attack. Furthermore, these matters did not raise any issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as any interference with the applicants' property was justified in the public interest, within the meaning of that provision. In this connection, the Government emphasised that the searches in the present case were part of an operation against the PKK, an illegal terrorist organisation responsible for thousands of atrocious murders and maimings, as well as serious economic and social losses."], "id": "4c6b20fa-15d4-4fef-aba2-905a7c6b01aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s family life. However, they considered that such interference was justified. They maintained that the issue of authorisation for family visits was foreseen by the domestic law, namely Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The refusal to allow such family visits during the investigation stage was in the interests of and was necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "9d10c970-3468-450c-be48-816239e88990", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant challenged the submission that the ban in question satisfied the condition laid down in paragraph 2 of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention of necessity in a democratic society in the interests of , for the prevention of disorder, the protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. With regard to the aim of \u201cliving together\u201d in a democratic society, it was the opposite reasoning \u2013 that of openness and tolerance \u2013 which should take precedence in a pluralist democratic society as was evidenced by the tolerance that there had always been of dress codes rejecting the living together principle. At best, it could be regarded as a praiseworthy political objective, but one that could not be achieved by some stigmatising by-laws that were contrary to the Convention. In her submission, the factors justifying the ban on safety grounds had been advanced exclusively with regard to the full-face veil, were non-existent and the real aim being pursued by the by-laws was the prohibition of the full-face veil in public places. She argued, lastly, that the issue of dignity and gender equality was irrelevant to justification on grounds of \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d since the exercise of the freedom and wishes of women themselves was hindered."], "id": "2dc61bfd-65c1-4293-90dc-97476863a98d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s dwelling was \u201cinspected\u201d rather than \u201csearched\u201d. This action was governed by Article 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, which allowed the police to enter and inspect a dwelling on the basis of its resident\u2019s consent. The inspection in the present case was lawful, as prior written consent had been received from the applicant, and pursued the legitimate aim of investigating a crime. Regard being had to the suspicions that the applicant had engaged in sexual activity with minors in the venue at issue, this inspection was justified in the interests of and did not constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant\u2019s rights."], "id": "70b2a3df-5a45-4907-87cc-dcf5e81ddfae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government admitted that there was an interference with the applicant's family life. However, they considered that such interference was justified. They maintained that the issue of allowing family visits was foreseen by the domestic law, namely Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The refusal to allow such family visits during the investigation was in the interests of and was necessary in a democratic society. They further noted that after the applicant's conviction he was allowed to see his mother and his wife on numerous occasions."], "id": "c69741df-f188-4a31-869f-9cd9eef87ac9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the interference in question had been prescribed by law and had pursued a number of legitimate aims, namely the protection of national security, territorial integrity, , public order and prevention of crime. They also claimed that the restriction had been necessary in a democratic society because it had been carried out as a result of a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. They concluded that, in the exercise of their discretion, the prison authorities had decided not to allow the impugned letter to be sent outside."], "id": "19d5f5c2-7174-4d66-b7bc-c8921741ee2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government submitted that any interference was \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d in that it fell within section 163 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (\u201cthe 1994 Act\u201d) and section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 (\u201cthe 1972 Act\u201d), both of which provisions complied with the Convention's \u201cquality of law\u201d requirements. They added that any interference pursued a legitimate aim: as accepted during the judicial review proceedings, the Council's intention in installing and operating the CCTV system and in disclosing footage to the media was the detection and prevention of crime, thereby securing and private property."], "id": "73c5bcd9-cf3d-4a15-9544-06e001cd9846", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government agreed that the refusal to grant the applicant leave to attend his grandmother\u2019s funeral amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his private and family life. They argued, however, that this interference had been in accordance with the law, as it was based on Article 141a of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences and pursued a legitimate aim of protecting and preventing disorder or crime."], "id": "f3f0f6e1-26fa-423d-bbf9-441a2842964a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant was no longer living in the area where he allegedly had had his \u201chome\u201d. In any event, the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with his rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, , for the prevention of disorder and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "5f668ce2-b439-48c3-a023-b5e6900855f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government maintained that the State authorities had had no intention to insult or degrade the applicant. He had been kept behind bars on a legal basis, namely the Instruction on the Procedure for Escorting Accused or Convicted Persons to and from, or in, the Courts at the Judicial Authorities\u2019 Request, and solely in the interests of . The bars were intended to separate defendants upon whom a preventive measure of detention had been imposed from the judges\u2019 bench and from those present in the courtroom, so that such persons were guarded securely during hearings."], "id": "24757368-736c-4dd0-9b2e-7f7c24b51089", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government noted that the necessity of the measure had been assessed twice, with a possibility of rejection \u2013 first by the Attorney General and subsequently by the Vilnius Regional Court. The contested operational measure had been necessary and had been applied in the interests of national security, and the prevention of crime. The authorities had had operational information about the applicant\u2019s possible involvement in criminal activities. The applicant had close connections with J.B. and persons from J.B.\u2019s milieu. Most importantly, in the course of the operational investigation in respect of J.B., the authorities had learned about his threats to the State President. That information had later been confirmed when intercepting the applicant\u2019s telephone conversation with J.B., in which the latter used psychological pressure and demanded that his requirements be reported to the head of State. Subsequently, J.B. had been convicted of having threatened the State President. The Government also observed that both J.B. and the applicant had had close relations with the State President and had played a significant role in the political activities of the President\u2019s political party and his electoral campaign; at the time of surveillance the applicant had been a member of the Vilnius City Municipal Council. In this connection the Government also referred to the Court\u2019s judgment in Craxi v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 25337/94, \u00a7 64, 17 July 2003), submitting that politicians inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny by both journalists and the public at large. Therefore, even acknowledging that no investigation had been carried out by the SSD in order to reveal the circumstances in which the journalists had obtained the recording of the intercepted conversation, the question of fulfilment of the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention could not arise."], "id": "59e1e1a0-e59e-442f-b03c-63638b5132bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government agreed that the refusal to grant the applicant prison leave in order for him to attend his father\u2019s funeral had interfered with his right to family life, as guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention. This interference had, nonetheless, been based on law and had pursued the aim of furthering the interests of , preventing crime and protecting the rights or freedoms of others. According to the Government, this restriction had been based on an individual assessment, as after an inmate had served a certain proportion of the sentence, a special body could decide to transfer him to a lower-security prison. It also drew the Court\u2019s attention to the opinion of the Ombudsperson emphasising the dangerous nature of the inmates to whom this restriction applied (see paragraph 14 above). Furthermore, in the light of the cases of Laduna v. Slovakia (no. 31827/02, ECHR 2011) and Dickson v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 44362/04, ECHR 2007\u2011V) a wide margin of appreciation applied in questions of prisoners, penal policy and social strategy and, according to Khoroshenko v. Russia ([GC], no. 41418/04, ECHR 2015), the gravity of a sentence could be tied, a least to some extent, to a type of a prison regime. Hence, the Government considered that this interference had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aim, thereby being justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "ebeb95f8-7d01-42f0-a78c-d786703afba9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government further submitted that the interference complained of had been justified in order to safeguard order and security within the penitentiary, which included preventing criminal offences and thwarting escape attempts. The interference thus pursued the legitimate aims of protecting , the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as set out in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "fc831615-8b01-4c29-83c7-a7ed617b7d0e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government also alleged that the applicant\u2019s father had, on the applicant\u2019s instructions, assisted him in removing incriminating evidence in relation to the crime for which he was serving a sentence at the time of his failure to return from home leave. Accordingly, they argued that the interference pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring and the prevention of crime and disorder."], "id": "3aaba337-b11b-4c76-95b9-01df63ad7124", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted in the alternative that any interference with the applicant\u2019s right under Article 8 had been carried out on the basis of section 48(A)(5) of Law no. 657 on Civil Servants. They provided the Court with extracts of this provision containing the amendments of 2008 (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above). The Government also relied on section 39(1) of the Regulation on Private Tutoring Centres. They further contended that the applicant\u2019s dismissal had pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining national security, territorial integrity, , public order and preventing crime, and that it had been necessary in a democratic society in the circumstances of the case."], "id": "c7a7c0bf-5b5c-406f-acc1-b69208804130", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government accepted, on the other hand, that the applicant enjoyed private life in the United Kingdom and that his deportation would represent an interference with that private life. However, that interference would be justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8, being in accordance with law and taken in pursuit of the legitimate aims of protecting , the prevention of crime, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government also contended that the interference was proportionate given the nature and seriousness of the applicant\u2019s offences, which were, for the most part, drugs offences, which the Government considered to be particularly grave given the issues of public protection that they raised. The Government pointed in particular to the fact that the applicant\u2019s last offence had been of sufficient gravity to attract a sentence of three years\u2019 imprisonment. The applicant had committed his offences when he was already an adult and his case could therefore be distinguished from that of the applicant in Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, 23 June 2008, whose offences by contrast could be characterised as \u201cjuvenile delinquency\u201d. The Government considered the young age at which the applicant had entered the United Kingdom and the fact that he had stronger ties with that country than with Nigeria to be relevant factors, but maintained that his deportation would have a relatively minor impact on the applicant given that he did not have family life in the United Kingdom and could re-establish private life in Nigeria. In this regard, the Government pointed to the applicant\u2019s good health, high intelligence and the fact that he had lived alone since the age of eighteen with little support. As such, and having regard to the importance of protecting the public from drugs-related crime, the Government were of the view that the applicant\u2019s deportation to Nigeria would represent a proportionate interference with his private life in terms of Article 8."], "id": "f701ccec-87e8-436d-96d8-94ab221a86a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government contested the allegation of a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. Reference was made to sections 7(1), 10(1) and 11(3) of the Aliens\u2019 Domicile and Residence Act as well as to Article 16 \u00a7 3 of the ordinance implementing the Act, all of which had been duly published and which provided a sufficient legal basis for the interference. According to these provisions, the residence permit of the foreign spouse of a Swiss citizen would not be renewed if there was a ground for expulsion. The Swiss authorities were called upon to examine the proportionality of the measure. Given the offences which the applicant had committed in Switzerland, there could be no doubt that the refusal not to renew the residence permit was called for in the interests of , for the prevention of disorder or crime and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "039269d4-23a0-4562-90bc-97a0d8a7c892", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government acknowledged that those who used the telephone had an expectation of privacy in respect of the numbers which they dialled and that obtaining detailed billing information concerning that telephone constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8. The obtaining of the information was, however, necessary in a democratic society in the interests of , for the prevention of crime and/or the protection of the rights of others, as the investigation concerned a very serious crime, the applicants had guns for use in the intended robbery and, as B. was surveillance-conscious, conventional surveillance would not suffice. The only use of the information was to corroborate the times recorded by police officers in respect of the covert listening device in the flat. "], "id": "5cbe4e37-0498-42cc-bc1c-0fce2534c9fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government submitted that if the Court concluded that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, which they disputed, then the alleged interference had been in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of national security and the prevention of disorder or crime. Additionally, the alleged \u201clegislative interference\u201d had been justified in the interests of and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as set forth in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "a0aea9ec-100c-4a8d-bee0-f1deb51352af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant further argued that the interference did not pursue a legitimate aim. The authorities did not seek to protect national security, or the economic well-being of the country, or to prevent disorder or crime. As to the protection of the health and morals of others, there was no indication that the applicant represented a threat to the rights of third parties. Finally, with regard to the applicant himself, the Government did not suggest that the incapacitation had had a therapeutic effect on the applicant. Nor was there any evidence that the authorities had sought to deprive the applicant of his capacity because he would otherwise have carried out actions which would result in a deterioration of his health. With regard to his own pecuniary interests, the protection of a person\u2019s own rights is not a ground listed in Article 8 \u00a7 2, and it cannot therefore serve as a justification for interfering with a person\u2019s rights as protected under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In sum, the interference with his private life did not pursue any of the legitimate aims listed in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "e3286bbf-9647-4296-af7f-9034465751f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government submitted that even if the expulsion order interferes with the applicant's family life, it discloses no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Given the seriousness of the offence which the applicant committed in Denmark the measure of expulsion was called for in the interest of , for the prevention of disorder or crime, and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The Government drew attention to the fact that the applicant has very strong ties with his country of origin since he was already an adult when he left Iran and had his entire school education in Iran. He masters the local language, he served part of his compulsory military service and he has family there. In comparison, the applicant does not have strong ties with Denmark. At the time the expulsion order was made he had resided for only eight years in Denmark. Moreover, in the Government's view, there is no evidence to prove that the applicant's spouse, the children of the marriage, and the spouse's child of another relationship will not be able to accompany the applicant to Iran."], "id": "0b996635-8905-4ac9-bbb2-84c4bbcb734d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant complaints were only in respect of \u201cfield plots\u201d and not in respect of her \u201chome\u201d. Moreover, she was no longer living in the area where she alleged she had had her \u201chome\u201d. In any event, the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged interference with her rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, , for the prevention of disorder and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "d53d69c0-d99d-4852-adf5-90823308b4fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["183. The applicant further argued that her ability to build and sustain relationships had also been limited due to restrictions placed on her capacity to receive visitors and telephone calls. The applicant has had very little contact with members of the community outside the facility. Outsiders\u2019 visits are generally limited and most visitors may not be received in private. The director of the K\u0117dainiai Home had in the past restricted visits from outsiders after the applicant\u2019s institutionalisation, upon a request from her guardian. The list of visitors maintained by the K\u0117dainiai Home showed that between 2 August 2004 and 25 December 2006 only the applicant\u2019s adoptive father had visited her, with few exceptions. Before the applicant got her own mobile phone, she had had to use the facilities provided by the institution. At that time, she had only been able to receive calls through the K\u0117dainiai Home\u2019s switchboard. She relied upon the under the above-cited Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "6fbc89b0-b7a1-42ed-b2be-068b15a2c38b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicants complained of a continuing violation of their as a result of the issuing of permits for two feasts a year in their locality. The CoP had failed to consider the area a restricted area for the relevant law purposes, against the relevant experts\u2019 advice on the matter. Moreover, this procedure denied them the opportunity to make submissions on the matter. Thus, they considered that the recurring firework displays close to their residence (minimum 150m) constituted undue interference with their right to respect for private and family life."], "id": "c8d40fe1-97fe-4989-892e-ff5248c1d664", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant maintained that deportation interfered with his . He contended in particular that he was a young adult who had not yet founded a family of his own and argued that his relationship with his mother and sisters constituted family life. He further disputed that the interference with his private and family life was limited."], "id": "36c6303d-bc84-47d1-8a30-b23a20537040", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant maintained that the relevant passage of the High Court's judgment amounted to an affirmation of suspicion that he had committed sexual abuse. Referring to a medical statement of 7 June 2003 (see paragraph 21 above) the applicant submitted that, having been labelled a sexual abuser, he had suffered serious psychological and social problems. He also invoked a psychiatrist's statement of 4 September 2006 (see paragraph 22 above). The impugned passage entailed an unjustified interference with his in violation of Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "8dc078a7-c057-412c-bad6-f2bf8c527366", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["232. The applicants essentially requested the Grand Chamber to reverse the Chamber\u2019s finding in so far as the Chamber had declared the application inadmissible with regard to Mr Petre\u0161 and Mr Jovanovi\u0107. The mere regularisation of their legal status after many years of unlawful interference with their could not be considered to afford \u201cadequate\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d redress for their complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention (they cited Aristimu\u00f1o Mendizabal v. France, no. 51431/99, \u00a7 79, 17 January 2006). The two applicants were also unable to seek adequate reparation before the domestic courts or the State Attorney\u2019s Office for the damage sustained over a long period of time."], "id": "d6421e24-e6d8-483c-aadf-c351dca6955d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government acknowledged that the decisions to order the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination and to arrest her constituted an interference with her . However, they considered that the interference was in accordance with the law, namely Article 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1969, and was justified and proportionate to the legitimate aim of enforcing lawful court orders, in compliance with the Convention. Furthermore, the Government submitted that all applications for leave to visit the applicant lodged by the members of her family were allowed."], "id": "42bb3fe1-99f3-4e82-85a7-69518479a6f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government conceded that the right of parents not to be separated from their children, unless this was justified in the child's interests, formed part of the . They cited in that connection the judgment in K.A.B. v. Spain (no. 59819/08, 10 April 2012, \u00a7\u00a7 95-96). They further observed that the Court's task was not to take the place of the domestic authorities, but rather to review under the Convention the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation. They referred in that regard to the case-law set forth in paragraph 71 below."], "id": "b055b2a8-5789-4f04-a299-a80cb4d80b1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicant complained that his , as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, had been breached in view of his proposed deportation and the uncertainty of his situation owing to judicial proceedings which started in 2004 and ended only in 2010. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant further argued that the delay in resolving his case had been caused by political pressure on the courts."], "id": "92e861bb-bb37-4afe-bc9a-d280faa6ef03", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants disputed the Government's argument that their case fell outside the scope of protection of Article 8 of the . They pointed out that the first and second applicants had been married during the period when a stay of execution had been granted in respect of the first applicant's expulsion and were thus lawfully residing in Norway. A marriage, even if entered into in breach of the criteria for contracting marriage, should be regarded as having been legally contracted and as implying the same rights as other marriages entered into in Norway. Spouses of Norwegian citizens who had applied for family reunion had a right to make such an application from Norway and to live with their spouse in the country pending final decision on their application. Thus the first applicant had established and enjoyed family life with a permission to reside in Norway, which was sufficient to trigger the protection of Article 8 of the Convention. Referring to the Court's case-law in this area (notably Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, ECHR 2006\u2011...; and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, ECHR 2006\u2011...), the applicants argued that the Article 8 guarantees applied also where the person concerned did not hold a formal residence permit but nevertheless lived and had family life in the respondent State."], "id": "c41ebc8e-c91a-42af-9b72-eb4dbfbcfc6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["402. The applicants submitted that the deliberate destruction of their homes, property and possessions and the resulting arbitrary expulsion from their homes and village represented a serious violation of their and of their right to respect for their home, as well as a serious interference with their way of life. They further claimed that the destruction of their homes and family life was part of a practice and that, therefore, they had suffered an aggravated violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "db954f87-e0dd-4e4b-b971-cc4f7fa4ede2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that, following his decision to move to the North of Finland in order to live with his former foster parents, the powers of his mentor had been enlarged to encompass matters pertaining to his person. His wishes had not been respected and it had been impossible to have his mentor replaced in matters concerning his place of residence and his education, even though he had lost confidence in her. All these measures violated his ."], "id": "36e2e915-3fa0-4c89-80cd-0c84c9cb75b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants maintained that the first and second applicants had had a relationship since the spring of 2001 and had been married since 2 February 2003. On 20 September 2006 a child had been born from their union, the third applicant. In the event of the first applicant's being expelled to Nigeria it would not be possible for the second and third applicants to follow him to settle there. The expulsion of the father would lead to the family being split, which would have particularly adverse consequences for the wife and the child and would amount to a disproportionate interference with the applicants' ."], "id": "e1b27eaf-f2b5-4086-8c35-cead50b4d26f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government agreed that there could have been an interference with the applicant's in view of his detention. However, in their opinion this interference was justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They further submitted that during the applicant's detention he had had regular contact with his family. Between 8 June 2007 and 2 May 2008 the applicant had been visited by his wife on twelve occasions, that is, once a month on average. Between 19 September 2006 and 15 April 2008 the applicant had also been visited by his daughter on fifteen occasions. Lastly, he had been visited by his parents on 22 November 2006 and 12 July 2007. In addition, the Government stressed that on sixteen occasions the applicant had contacted the members of his family by telephone. They concluded that there was no violation of Article 8 in the present case."], "id": "99bfb410-fea9-4962-9657-77e19c5f74e2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the eviction order of 14 April 2010 had infringed their right to respect for their private and family life. On 15 August 2017 the applicants asked the Court to take into account that there had also been an interference with the of children born after the application had been lodged with the Court in 2011 (see paragraph 30 above)."], "id": "bd5ad32b-f9e6-4c43-b325-97970bb3386f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant disputed the Government\u2019s claim that his marriage to a German national would be capable of remedying what he regarded, for his part, as a serious and flagrant breach of Article 8: in his view, the was not a correlative right but a predicate, individual right, which should be recognised regardless of the marital situation, failing which any termination of marriage would necessarily entail the loss of the right to respect for private and family life."], "id": "78eb6297-4a70-41e6-9384-f03a3e712312", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "right to respect for private and family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant complained that the investigations carried out by the child welfare services, despite a first such investigation showing that his former wife's allegations were groundless, had constituted an unjustified interference with his under Article 8 of the Convention. He moreover complained that, because of dismissal of his case by the Norwegian courts, and hence their refusal to review the merits of his case, he had been denied access to a court and an effective remedy, in breach of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, respectively."], "id": "c82618b7-859a-4dfd-8298-6946fac48e76", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government further contended that an action for damages in the administrative courts under section 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code would have constituted an effective remedy in the instant case. Under that provision, the State was obliged to provide redress for damage caused by the acts or omissions of its organs in the exercise of . The sole condition was that the act or omission had to be unlawful, that is to say, it had to infringe a rule of law establishing a specific individual right or interest. In the present case the applicants could have complained before the domestic courts under Articles 57, 914 and 932 of the Civil Code, read together with section 105 of the Introductory Law, of a breach of their personality rights and of their social marginalisation on account of their exclusion as same-sex couples from the scope of Law no. 3719/2008. In the Government\u2019s view, this remedy would have enabled the applicants to claim compensation for any damage caused by the impugned legislation and at the same time to challenge its constitutionality. They observed that, according to the case-law of the domestic courts, the latter could interpret the constitutional principle of equality broadly, extending a legislative provision favourable to a specific category of persons to cover another category in a similar situation. As authority, the Government cited two judgments of the Court of Cassation (nos. 60/2002 and 9/2004) concerning the salaries and allowances of different categories of employees, an issue that the court had examined from the standpoint of the equality principle."], "id": "c2769ca5-21c5-4afb-9d73-4fa339f560bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["85. The Government noted moreover that, at the material time, teachers of religious education received their pay directly from the Catholic Church, to which the State paid the necessary funds in the form of grants. Even though the legal regime of religious-education teaching had changed and salaries were now paid directly by the , one essential factor had not changed, namely the need for a certificate of suitability issued by the Church, without which the teacher could not be appointed to a post. The Government were of the view that this was merely a feature of the way in which the State organised the financing of the teaching of various religions in Spain and also that a wide margin of appreciation should be afforded to States in the organisation of their education systems."], "id": "ed7769a2-74fc-41e3-a02d-917718954013", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["88. The applicant also appeared to suggest that the BBC, acting under Royal Charter, was a as was Anglia Television which acted under the authority of the ITC constituted under the Broadcasting Act 1990. Even assuming that those media could rely on their rights under Article 10 of the Convention, their broadcasts, he argued, also constituted unjustified interferences with his private life. The Government did not consider that the applicant had, in fact, made that submission and, in any event, denied that either the BBC or Anglia Television could be regarded as State bodies or public authorities within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. They relied, inter alia, on relevant domestic provisions and the conclusions to be drawn from the inclusion in Article 10 of the Convention of the phrase concerning the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. "], "id": "8381ee7c-5f42-4f7a-ab61-f1e327705d37", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government maintained the position that there had been no interference by a . The police had merely indicated to Mrs S. a way of obtaining evidence against the applicant, and had provided technical assistance. At the decisive moments Mrs S. had acted of her own free will. She had not performed any actions that, in the context of a criminal investigation, were reserved for the police or the criminal justice authorities. There had been nothing to prevent her from using a cassette tape recorder to record her telephone conversations with the applicant."], "id": "0403631f-183f-4d0b-8b91-7629f365e36a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicants argued that the impugned legislation constituted a direct interference with their rights under Article 8 because, in the absence of such legislation, the medical treatment they were seeking \u2013 in vitro fertilisation with donated ova or sperm \u2013 was a common and readily available medical technique. In the Government\u2019s view, the question whether the measure at issue should be deemed to be an interference by a or an alleged breach of a positive duty could be left open because both obligations were subject to the same principles."], "id": "463c67f1-2976-4d06-99f5-b1e28f93da65", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicants refer to the inquiry report's findings of various failures of one to pass on to another information about the risks Richard Linford presented. In particular, although the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the magistrates were all aware that he was dangerous and prone to violence, no formal warning was passed on to the prison, nor was any information made available about his past criminal or medical records. In addition, the positive obligation imposed by Article 2 rests on all public authorities, not only the prison authorities. The test should not be construed narrowly to focus on the particular agency or officer dealing with the victim at the time of the incident, but should take into account systemic failure involving a number of different authorities."], "id": "335b70b3-5ec3-486c-b7e5-1900c8741ce0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants contended that there was no opportunity before the County Court to test the proportionality of the interference with their Article 8 rights because the gateway (b) defence (see paragraph 20 above) was insufficiently broad to permit the issue of proportionality to be considered by the county court and because, in any event, the facts relevant to the issue of proportionality were not determined by the court. The only defences available in a case such as the applicants' were that the relevant law was incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention or that the decision of the to recover possession was one that no reasonable person would consider justifiable, which set a higher threshold than that required under the Article 8 \u00a7 2 test of proportionality."], "id": "5c99dd15-5484-4f21-9fa8-44c6388b584a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["97. The applicant further stated that matters relating to pregnancy and delivery and the extent of women\u2019s freedom in this regard also raised significant gender issues. Women\u2019s reproductive rights stood for an inherently feminine area which had been oppressed by men, inter alia through the relocation and transformation of childbirth by the medical profession, thus weakening women\u2019s natural responsibilities. This relocation had brought a new notion of hierarchy into the field of pregnancy and childbirth, such a notion being at odds with midwife-based care arising from a holistic, feminine approach to childbirth. In the masculine-driven field of biomedical obstetrics, a woman\u2019s body forfeited its fundamental privacy and became vulnerable when faced with a male medical expert acting as a sort of ."], "id": "d83f3c0c-5c1b-40c3-ad93-59c737267828", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government have argued that, as subsequent case-law demonstrated, the gateway (b) test in Kay (that the decision of the to recover possession was an improper exercise of its powers at common law on the ground that it was a decision that no reasonable person would consider justifiable \u2013 at paragraph 110 of Lord Hope's opinion) was wide enough to ensure respect for occupiers' Article 8 rights."], "id": "30d307b6-bb22-472f-808b-3aa1de805abd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government submit that the proper approach is for the Court to examine the full range of remedies which were available. The applicants had a combination of mechanisms by which the responsibility of any for the death of their son could be established, in particular the independent inquiry, which provided a thorough and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death. The applicants could have brought a claim for negligence against the prison or other authorities on behalf of his estate. The applicants also had a remedy available for any loss of dependency. They argue that the fact that a person could not bring a case because of legal advice that it was not economic did not mean that an effective remedy was not available or that the Contracting State had failed to comply with its obligation under Article 13. Nor, in their view, was there any right to a particular form of remedy or any particular amount of compensation. Article 13 left a certain discretion to the Contracting States as to how they complied with its requirements. "], "id": "aab97865-c77c-4919-9090-7ec7e69aeb4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["176. The Government finally noted that the IPT's ruling was issued before the Court's judgment in Association for European Integration and Human Rights, cited above, \u00a7 106, in which the Court reached the conclusion that Article 6 \u00a7 1 did not apply to such proceedings. It was clear that secret powers of interception which were used solely in the interests of national security or in order to prevent and detect serious crime formed part of the \u201chard core of prerogatives\u201d, such that it was inappropriate to classify any related rights and obligations as \u201ccivil\u201d in nature (citing Ferrazzini, \u00a7 29; and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, \u00a7 61, ECHR 2007\u2011IV)."], "id": "93c86f3d-4fa0-469a-9f7d-d7d7223476b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government contended that the interference with the applicants' rights under Article 8 was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. They submitted that the effect of the decision of the House of Lords in Kay was that while an eviction would involve an \u201cinterference\u201d for the purposes of Article 8 \u00a7 1, such interference would ordinarily be justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 in circumstances where the person was evicted in accordance with the domestic law of property and contract. However, a defence in eviction proceedings could be available where: (1) the occupier challenged the domestic law itself as being incompatible with Article 8; or (2) the occupier challenged the decision of the to seek possession as being unlawful on public law grounds. As to the nature of the public law challenge under (2), the Government referred to Lord Hope's comments in Kay (paragraph 114), where he noted:"], "id": "669ce326-db79-4acb-a10b-acd5858594dd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["77. The Government submitted the interference was justified as necessary in a democratic society and was proportionate to its objectives. The applicant had agreed to occupy the plot on the terms that neither he, his family nor guests would cause a nuisance and he had been warned by the Council that he was in breach. In the circumstances, the Council was entitled to revoke the licence. Similar terms would have applied to a secure housing tenant. Though the licence did not require the Council to give the applicant the opportunity to challenge the allegations of nuisance made against him, it was a obliged to act lawfully, reasonably, fairly and for the proper purposes for which its powers were conferred. Its decisions were therefore amenable to judicial review and the applicant, who was legally represented, was able to challenge the decision in judicial review proceedings where the High Court found no evidence to doubt the reasonableness and procedural fairness of the Council\u2019s decision. The Council had also taken into account the needs of the applicant and his family in the decision-making process. If there had been no proper basis for the eviction or the applicant had mounted a substantial factual challenge to the asserted justification, the domestic courts would have been able, through their scrutiny, to provide a remedy against arbitrary action. There was however no substantial dispute as to the primary facts as the applicant did not appear to deny that his sons and guests were causing a nuisance. This procedure therefore provided the applicant with a series of important safeguards. In addition to the remedy of judicial review, occupiers had, since 2000, a right of action under the Human Rights Act 1998, pursuant to which the courts can consider directly claims of violation of the Convention (see, for example, Somerset County Council v. Isaacs, paragraphs 47-50 above)."], "id": "96d5c386-2e12-476b-b8f3-5e6ce2ed68e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant further stated that due to his asylum status in Austria, his links with Chechnya had weakened considerably. Finally, compared to the offences committed in the cases of Amrollahi and \u00dcner (see Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, \u00a7 15, 11 July 2002, and \u00dcner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, \u00a7 18, ECHR 2006\u2011XII), the applicant\u2019s convictions for aggravated bodily harm, for which he received a twelve-month prison sentence, and for resistance to , for which he received an eight-month sentence, must be considered less severe."], "id": "cd52f869-f05a-432b-8a3c-a5d865a497d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicants further emphasised the ambiguity over the scope of conventional judicial review grounds. Lord Hope in Kay (at paragraph 114 of that judgement \u2013 see paragraph 21 above) suggested that such grounds extended to consideration of whether the measure was disproportionate but Lords Walker and Mance in Doherty clearly saw a distinction between conventional judicial review grounds and human rights grounds as being critical to the difference between the majority and minority approaches in Kay (at paragraphs 107 and 133 to 136 respectively of the House of Lords judgment\u2013 see paragraphs 35 and 36 above). Although the distance between conventional judicial review grounds and Human Rights Act grounds appeared to be narrowing, the extent to which conventional judicial review grounds could be said to encompass proportionality remained unclear. Accordingly, the scope of the defence that the Government allege was open to the applicants remained uncertain even after Doherty. In the applicants' view, the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Doran and Taylor had added to the general confusion at domestic level as to the approach to be taken in possession cases. They pointed to the different approach taken by Waller LJ in Taylor, compared to Toulson LJ's approach in Doran, as regards the relevance of personal circumstances and the extent to which the was required to inquire before seeking a possession order (see paragraphs 38 to 43 above). They emphasised that the lower courts were required to apply both of these decisions, notwithstanding the divergent approaches. In any event, clarifications in post-Kay judgments were of limited assistance and relevance to consideration of the applicants' cases."], "id": "0c3b8b98-4784-496d-aa33-527bc285139a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government thus submitted that, even though the non-renewal decision in the present case had been taken by the , it constituted a \u201cmandatory decision\u201d. The public authority could not ignore the failure to fulfil one of the prerequisites for renewal, namely the Catholic Church\u2019s nomination and declaration of suitability. The public authority\u2019s decision had therefore been a mere formality."], "id": "4b756c6f-c026-4408-b145-e9961100f80a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant also pointed out that the amount of compensation and the procedure for claiming damages from a on account of an unlawful administrative act or unlawful action by a public authority were prescribed by the Law on compensation for damage caused by public authorities and not by the Civil Law. An action under the former law, however, would also have been time-barred."], "id": "2f5ff5dd-5d25-4616-be45-19085b3ee93d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government agreed that there was an interference by a with the exercise of the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression on account of the coercive measures taken against them. In their view the interference was prescribed by law. As the seizures mainly served the purpose of obtaining evidence the Freedom of the Press Act was not applicable. The conditions for the search as prescribed by the Coercive Measures Act were met, given that the investigation concerned suspected public defamation which carried a maximum sentence of two years\u2019 imprisonment. It was true that the records of the coercive measures taken in the homes of Ms Soini and Ms Mikola only referred to \u201cother investigations\u201d. This deficiency \u2013 due to the number of different offences of which a large number of persons were suspected \u2013 was corrected in the proceedings before the District Court."], "id": "7651bd41-a4fc-4a91-8641-d3f684709349", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government submitted that Article 8 of the Convention was inapplicable on the grounds that at the material time or at the time of introduction of the application the SNCF could not be regarded as a within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8 and that there had been no interference with the exercise of the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of that provision."], "id": "8b023cc2-ea4b-4b93-9f27-448b317f0657", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicant pointed to paragraph 9.3 of the Revised Code, which provided that each had to ensure that arrangements were in place for the secure handling and destruction of material obtained through directed or intrusive surveillance. This was the function of the PSNI Service Procedure, which went much further than the Code in providing for limits on dissemination, storage, access, retention and destruction. However, it was not in force at the relevant time and, in any case, the applicant contended that such important matters should not be left to the discretion of the individual public authorities."], "id": "d938a75a-a25d-4345-8dae-9f2f7df3b95e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public authority", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicants pointed to the fact that the Article 8 issue came before the courts by way of an application that it be struck out of the pleaded defences on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success after the decision of the House of Lords in Qazi. They argued that such an application would ordinarily be dealt with by consideration of the pleaded material and oral argument. They contended that in their cases, the proportionality issue should have been determined by the court hearing the possession proceedings after it had carried out a fact finding exercise: the authority would advance reasons for seeking possession and the applicants would refer to facts which they alleged rendered the decision to seek possession disproportionate. The factual issues likely to be raised by the applicants included their lengthy occupation of the properties, the improvement works carried out by them, their personal and family circumstances, the factual correctness (or otherwise) of the authority's reasons for seeking possession and whether there was a need for vacant possession. However, in their cases no oral evidence was given and there was no cross-examination or determination of the facts relevant to the Article 8 issues. The county court had simply to accept the facts as found by the landlord. The applicants argued that the Government's contention that it was sufficient that there existed the possibility for a court to consider whether a local authority had come to a decision which no reasonable authority would consider justifiable did not accord with this Court's decisions in Connors v. the United Kingdom and McCann v. the United Kingdom, both cited above."], "id": "070d6cc4-11b6-4074-9f35-d082acfca335", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "economic well-being of the country", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government pointed out that, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, a State had the right to control the entry of non-nationals into its territory as a manifestation of the interest of the . The Government noted that the Danish model of society was based on a universal welfare state with generous welfare schemes, such as free healthcare and education at all levels for everyone and considerable financial support for families with children, childcare and old-age care. These welfare services were financed to a small extent by insurance schemes and user charges and to a very great extent by general taxes and duties, which were among the highest in the world. Welfare spending on individual citizens would therefore be higher than the citizen\u2019s tax payment in many cases, depending on which of the welfare services offered were used by the individual citizen. By no means were all taxpayers net contributors to the national economy. This also applied to spouses who had been reunited as a family, where the resident spouse provided financial security for the maintenance of his or her newly arrived spouse. The willingness of the Danes to finance the universal welfare state and the high degree of redistribution was based on values such as a strong spirit of solidarity and community in Danish society. Consequently, if a large number of people were not financially and/or socially well-integrated into society, this might affect support for the existing Danish model of society in the long term. These circumstances gave rise to particular issues with regard to immigration control and integration, and in this connection great importance was attached to the prospect of the successful integration of newcomers, both in each individual case and seen from a more general perspective. The rules on ties with Denmark as a condition for family reunion had to be understood in this light, among others."], "id": "c9ae5724-d5fb-458a-8b0f-6243525f6971", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "economic well-being of the country", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant was ordered to vacate the flat in question by the national courts under Croatian laws regulating specially protected tenancy, in particular section 99(1) of the Housing Act. The aim of that provision was to terminate specially protected tenancies held by individuals who no longer lived in the socially owned flats allocated to them, with a view to subsequently redistributing such flats to others in need. It was therefore intended to satisfy the housing needs of citizens and thus pursued the legitimate aims of promoting the and protecting the rights of others."], "id": "94e8674d-f25e-4f76-a503-e3b3643b4557", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "economic well-being of the country", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant further argued that the interference did not pursue a legitimate aim. The authorities did not seek to protect national security, public safety or the , or to prevent disorder or crime. As to the protection of the health and morals of others, there was no indication that the applicant represented a threat to the rights of third parties. Finally, with regard to the applicant himself, the Government did not suggest that the incapacitation had had a therapeutic effect on the applicant. Nor was there any evidence that the authorities had sought to deprive the applicant of his capacity because he would otherwise have carried out actions which would result in a deterioration of his health. With regard to his own pecuniary interests, the protection of a person\u2019s own rights is not a ground listed in Article 8 \u00a7 2, and it cannot therefore serve as a justification for interfering with a person\u2019s rights as protected under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. In sum, the interference with his private life did not pursue any of the legitimate aims listed in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "921b8269-f01e-4d9c-a32a-6c08f3b1dd4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "economic well-being of the country", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government further contended that, even assuming that they had owed any duty vis-\u00e0-vis the applicant under Article 8 of the Convention, they had taken all reasonable actions to ensure a fair balance between her interests and those of the community. Firstly, K. Street had served as a through road since 1983. In 1998 the street\u2019s status as part of the motorway had merely been confirmed during the stocktaking project. The Government should therefore not be held responsible for the decision to route the traffic via K. Street. Secondly, following the entry of the Convention into force, the authorities had been contemplating the construction of a new through road, bypassing residential streets. However, they had had no choice but to use the existing road until the necessary funding could be found, as closing it off would have caused considerable detriment to the . Contrary to the applicant\u2019s argument, the use of the road had not been at odds with applicable law, because paragraph 1.9 of the State Construction Guidelines had recommended, but had not required, that major motorways be constructed outside populated communities."], "id": "e5a6666f-737e-4d97-9427-3bc704836da5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "economic well-being of the country", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government submitted that the prosecutorial requests for information had served the purpose of preventing criminal acts, and this was not challenged by the applicant. The Court accepts that the interference aimed to investigate a criminal act and thereby served the legitimate aims of the prevention of crime, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and also the (compare M.N. and Others v. San Marino, cited above, \u00a775)."], "id": "c4a54eeb-903b-40ce-94a0-55cffad5bdc8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "economic well-being of the country", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant maintained her complaint. She submitted that the psychiatrists had acted in response to the letter they had received from the police. Neither the police nor the Government had shown that there had been any actual complaints about the applicant\u2019s behaviour. The interference with her private life had neither been in accordance with law nor necessary in a democratic society. The head of the police department had acted in contravention of the Federal Police Act, which contained an exhaustive list of the circumstances allowing the collection of personal data by the police. The applicant\u2019s situation had not fallen within the ambit of the relevant provisions. The applicant had not been a threat to national security or public order or to the . Nor had the authorities been in possession of any information to the contrary. The aim of the police had been to put an end to the applicant\u2019s activities. For years she had been a human rights activist. She had lodged many complaints about inactivity and corruption of the municipal authorities acting in the interests of the persons living in the area. As regards the wording of the letter of 15 January 2014, the applicant submitted that, according to the Ozhegov Dictionary of the Russian Language, the term \u201cto examine (check) (\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0442\u044c)\u201d meant"], "id": "c2b6e4ed-1262-4458-a089-a645b9d37636", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "economic well-being of the country", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicants repeated their submission before the Chamber that for Danish citizens applying for family reunion with their non-Danish spouse living abroad, the 28-year rule did not pursue a legitimate aim because, allegedly, it had been introduced to target Danish citizens of non-Danish ethnic or national origin. The applicants thus called into question the argument that the aim had been to assist the integration of newcomers or to control immigration. They also disagreed with the argument that the aim related to the . In their view, spousal family reunion had no financial implication for the State, because the resident spouse was obliged to provide for the other spouse."], "id": "11b33f3c-1a40-4df0-ad17-c02aba2a234b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "economic well-being of the country", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant was ordered to vacate the flat in question by the national courts under Croatian laws regulating ownership, which allow an owner to seek repossession of his or her property when the possessor has no legal grounds for possession. The Court, noting that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 17, \u00a7 57), is thus satisfied that the national courts' decisions ordering the applicant's eviction were in accordance with domestic law and in particular the relevant legislation related to the disposal of the housing stock (see \u00a7\u00a7 17-19). The interference in question therefore pursued the legitimate aim of the ."], "id": "3a682e41-0835-429a-8572-b3b12374870c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["118. The applicants alleged, however, that the applicable law lacked the clarity and required by the concept of lawfulness as enshrined in the Convention, since it authorised the Ministry of the Interior to deport persons who had never been convicted or investigated on the basis of orders issued without examination of evidence, without the possibility of adversarial proceedings, and without giving reasons."], "id": "ae340c09-0196-4c24-97cd-39befc1a0abd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["147. The applicant further argued that section 28(6) identified a broad range of circumstances in which covert surveillance of consultations with an appropriate adult could take place, and those circumstances were ill-defined in the legislation; the statutory scheme entitled an extensive number of public authorities to engage in such surveillance and therefore reduced the level of in terms of an individual being able to regulate their conduct; the number of individuals within those public authorities who could authorise the use of directed surveillance was not narrowly circumscribed; there were no meaningful limitations on the circumstances in which such material could be deployed; and there was a significant absence of any limits in relation to the retention, storage, transmission, dissemination and destruction of such material."], "id": "6280c468-b4e8-4a91-8d30-04486a22b6b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government's observations focus on the existence and quality of the domestic law authorising the taking of video film of suspects for identification purposes, submitting that an adequate basis for the measure existed in the provisions of PACE and its Code which set out detailed procedures and safeguards. While the police were required to obtain authorisation under the Home Office Guidelines (a form of instruction found in previous cases not to satisfy requirements of and accessibility), they sought to distinguish the procedure for the police to obtain consent to use the camera as such from the statutory authority for the taking and use of the film."], "id": "40a063fc-378c-4546-b143-3d71601d13a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant further argued that the prohibition order complained of was based solely on an internal instruction issued by the Burgomaster to the police. This instruction had not been published. Members of the public could therefore not be aware of the nature of the conduct likely to induce the Burgomaster to issue a prohibition order, nor could they be aware that sanctions in the nature of prohibition orders even existed. Moreover, since issuing the instruction in 1983 the Burgomaster had never made public any decision declaring that an exceptional situation existed in any particular area. The only information available was that supplied in individual cases by police officers. In these circumstances the requirement enshrined in the concept of \u201claw\u201d had not been met."], "id": "198c436e-3ea3-42bf-b0be-273024b92726", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["121. The applicants submitted that their claims concerned a civil right recognised under domestic law, namely, that the local authority carried out its duties in a manner so as to prevent foreseeable damage to those to whom it was responsible. The proceedings brought by the second applicant concerned a dispute of a genuine and serious nature concerning the exercise of a right and determined that right. However, as a result of the immunity conferred on local authorities by the House of Lords in X. and Others v. Bedfordshire County Council ([1995] 3 AER 353), the second applicant\u2019s case was struck out. This disclosed a denial of access to court, which did not pursue a legitimate aim and was disproportionate, in particular since the immunity applied regardless of the damage alleged or the of the damage. They referred to the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of Osman v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII)."], "id": "0d0b4f14-657a-47ba-83ba-d990a77ba237", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["131. The applicant did not dispute that the surveillance of internal communications in the United Kingdom had a basis in domestic law, namely the provisions of RIPA. Nor did he dispute that both the relevant legislation and the Code were publicly available. However, he argued that the RIPA provisions, and in particular sections 5, 8 and 15 on the issuing of warrants and the relevant safeguards, were not in accordance with the law as required by Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention as they did not meet the requirement set out in the Court's jurisprudence. In particular, he alleged that section 8(1) RIPA, which stipulated the basic contents of an interception warrant, did not indicate with sufficient clarity how decisions as to which individuals were to be put under surveillance were made; that RIPA did not define the categories of persons who could have their telephones tapped; and that it did not clarify the procedures in place to regulate the interception and processing of intercept material. He contended that the safeguards referred to in section 15 RIPA were inadequate as they were subject to unknown \u201carrangements\u201d considered necessary by the Secretary of State. The other procedural safeguards in place including the possibility of launching proceedings before the IPT, were, in the applicant's view, also inadequate to protect against abuse."], "id": "57d922a3-af38-450e-87fe-d0db72457702", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["111. The Government further submitted that the relevant legal framework ensured legal certainty and as it laid down unambiguous and precise requirements that had to be fulfilled when assisting at any planned delivery, regardless of whether such assistance was provided by a midwife or a doctor. Contrary to the Hungarian law which had been criticised by the Court for its lack of foreseeability in the case of Ternovszky v. Hungary (no. 67545/09, 14 December 2010), the Czech legislation provided that health professionals, including midwives, could assist at deliveries only in adequately equipped premises with clearly defined requirements that had to be fulfilled for the provision of such health care."], "id": "9f219e77-0cdb-4cea-9dd9-9724db4da0de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government argued that, even assuming that the surveillance of the applicant via GPS was considered an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life, that interference had been justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8. It had been based on Article 100c \u00a7 1 no. 1 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a legal provision which met the necessary qualitative requirements, in particular that of . They took the view that the principles developed in the Court's case-law on the law's foreseeability in the context of cases concerning the interception of telecommunications could not be transferred to the present case concerning the surveillance via GPS as the latter interfered to a much lesser extent with the private life of the person concerned than telephone tapping. As had been confirmed by the domestic courts, it had been sufficiently clear that the term \u201cother special technical means intended for the purpose of surveillance\u201d under Article 100c \u00a7 1 no. 1 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the legislator intended to authorise the use of future surveillance techniques, covered a surveillance via GPS."], "id": "3a5549b8-9fa9-42b0-b3b2-b009aa9186db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant questioned whether a search and seizure at a law firm\u2019s offices was at all allowed under Swedish law, in particular the Code of Judicial Procedure. In any event, the relationship between the Coercive Measures Act and the applicable laws and regulations regarding the protection of information subject to client confidentiality was allegedly unclear, resulting in the law failing to meet the requirements of and compatibility with the rule of law. Even if there was a domestic legal basis for the search of the applicant\u2019s office, the applicable legislation had not been precise enough."], "id": "f5a996a0-6e7c-495e-baa4-3c50b569f2b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant submitted that the employment tribunals had carried out an insufficient assessment and balancing of the interests at stake. This was consistent with an automatic judicial policy that existed in such matters for the benefit of the Churches, which, in his view, enjoyed a privileged status in German law that was not granted to any other charity-type association. His rights to respect for his private life or his private sphere had not been examined by the employment tribunals. In the applicant\u2019s submission, Article 8 of the Convention conferred on him the right to discontinue a particular way of life and to begin a new one. He argued that, whilst he did not call into question the right of the Churches to manage their affairs autonomously, that right could not go as far as forcing their employees to observe precepts outside the occupational sphere. He asserted that the employment tribunals had extended their case-law in a totally unforeseeable manner, as until then a dismissal had only been endorsed in the event of remarriage, and not on account of a private extramarital relationship. In view of the large number of ecclesiastical precepts, there was a lack of in this connection and the decision to dismiss ultimately depended solely on the view of each human resources manager. The role of the employment tribunal was thus limited to upholding the wishes of the employing Church. According to the applicant, as a consequence of this tendency the employer and the employment tribunal were increasingly scrutinising the employee\u2019s private life in order to establish and assess the facts on which the dismissal was based. Moreover, the fact that a particular employee failed to comply with certain ecclesiastical precepts to the letter would not undermine the credibility of the Church, but would merely be a manifestation of the individual\u2019s human condition."], "id": "ab81b451-cd19-481f-b20e-64ecfdae2020", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["85. The applicants submitted that they should each be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the light of the circumstances of the case. The manner in which the hospital authority chose to handle the differences of view which arose between the second applicant and the medical professionals unnecessarily complicated the first applicant's care. Furthermore, the position of vulnerability in which the first applicant was placed argued in favour of an award of compensation in his own right. The second applicant, for her part, suffered great anxiety and was subjected to unnecessary tension and stress as a result of the hospital authority's handling of the first applicant's treatment. Moreover, she had been left with feelings of injustice and apprehension as to what might happen to the first applicant in the future, given the lack of clarity and in current domestic practice."], "id": "6ffc7aa6-6ce1-4c08-90f5-da83edc100e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["155. The applicant failed, in the context of his written submissions under Article 10, to explain the nature of his challenge to the legality of the measures taken against him. Having regard to the Court\u2019s finding in Lucas v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39013/02. 18 March 2003, that the definition of the offence of breach of the peace as stipulated in Smith v. Donnelly (see paragraph 100 above) was sufficiently precise to provide reasonable of the actions which might fall within the remit of the offence, the Court is satisfied that the interference in the present case both had a sufficient legal basis in domestic law and was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d in the wider sense of having the quality required of \u201claw\u201d in a democratic society."], "id": "baa396bd-52e8-429a-a31a-cc8ad3604457", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["96. The applicant acknowledged that the search and seizure had had a legal basis in Finnish law but argued that the quality of that law was questionable due to the lack of . In the Sallinen case (see Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, \u00a7 87, 27 September 2005) the Court had found that the relevant provision of the Code of Judicial Procedure was unclear as it did not state with requisite clarity whether the notion of \u201cpleading a case\u201d covered only the relationship between a lawyer and his or her clients in a particular case or their relationship generally."], "id": "491b9651-0d85-41c4-85b5-fb0c64c6f5ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["289. The Government pointed out, first of all, that the relevant applicants had not adduced any documents proving their title to the houses, or any detailed description of the property allegedly lost by them. The Government argued that it was incumbent on the relevant applicants to have their property rights confirmed under domestic law by the competent national authorities. They further argued that the alleged interference with the relevant applicants\u2019 rights secured by Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been lawful, as the counter-terrorism operation in the Chechen Republic, in the context of which the strikes of 19 October 1999 had been executed, had been launched and carried out on the basis of Presidential Decrees nos. 2137, 2166 and 2155c of 30 November and 9 December 1994 and 23 September 1999 respectively, Governmental Decree no. 1360 of 9 December 1994, and the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998. In the Government\u2019s submission, the aforementioned decrees, except for certain provisions, had been found compatible with the Russian Constitution by the Russian Constitutional Court. The Government insisted that all the aforementioned legal instruments had met the requirements of and accessibility."], "id": "6b25675a-4381-472c-b566-71eb5fc9201a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant agreed with the Government that Czech law had not allowed assisted home births at the time of her delivery in May 2012. However, she pointed out that during most of her pregnancy she had been bound by the pre-April 2012 legislation. The applicant reiterated in that connection that prior to 1 April 2012, there had been no statutory restriction on midwives providing health care during home births. In order to provide care, a midwife needed, inter alia, an \u201coperational\u201d licence authorising her to be regarded as a non-governmental medical facility. After the adoption of Decree no. 221/2010, which required midwives to have equivalent human, material and technical resources to those available in a delivery room in maternity hospitals, no midwife had been granted such a licence. However, although it had imposed extensive requirements on midwives in terms of equipment, the Decree had not automatically terminated the operational licences already issued. As a result, while they were still bound by the availability of compulsory equipment, there were midwives who theoretically could carry on their activities in line with the previous regulations, or rather the previous legal vacuum. As a result, pregnant women lacked legal certainty as to whether they could enjoy the assistance of a midwife during a home birth, and similarly midwives lacked the same certainty as to whether they could legally provide such assistance. Such a situation contravened the notions of and absence of arbitrariness."], "id": "f7820aba-a98d-483f-845b-a075673a17f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government submitted that decisions to initiate or continue seclusion were predicated on careful medical judgments, which involved a careful weighing of matters such as the mental well-being of the patient and the chance that he might assault others. In such circumstances, an absolutely certain body of rules would be neither achievable nor desirable. Furthermore, such decisions had to be taken quickly in response to emergency situations, making a relatively wide discretionary power appropriate (X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, \u00a7 41, Series A no. 46). The of seclusion at Ashworth was guaranteed by the clear written guidelines set out in Ashworth\u2019s policy. The requisite protection against arbitrary interference was provided by both the detailed provisions of the Code of Practice, by the hospital\u2019s policy and by the availability of judicial review. In addition, under section 139(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 a patient could bring civil or criminal proceedings in respect of any act purporting to be done in pursuance of the Act where that act was done in bad faith or without reasonable care."], "id": "bf012223-eb86-42e5-8852-c8e6cd26e6eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "35d7f08a-7f62-4340-96cb-2ed5c5f9c790", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government first expressed the view that the impugned measure had been in accordance with the \u201claw\u201d, namely the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980, which satisfied the criteria of and accessibility that had emerged from the Court's case-law; on this point they cited the Tiemann v. Germany and France decision of 24 April 2000. They noted that the first applicant was familiar with the provisions of the Hague Convention since she herself had relied on Article 13 (b) in asserting her rights."], "id": "74e4a715-4b6a-4611-bac0-224d7dcd5516", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant maintained that the Finnish law did not contain at the relevant time provisions governing restrictions on a bankrupt\u2019s right to the secrecy of his correspondence. Neither the Bankruptcy Act nor the Postal Service Decree (which was not even in force at the relevant time) provided for any such restrictions. In the absence of relevant legislation, the interference with his rights was not \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d. In this connection the applicant recalled that in order to be a law, the rule had to be accessible and written in a form sufficiently precise to ensure . As encroachment upon the right protected by Article 8 involved a serious invasion of privacy and violation of secrecy of correspondence, it should, therefore, be based on a law which was especially precise. It should clearly define the persons covered and the conditions in which the secrecy of correspondence could be interfered with. The internal instructions for the authorities, such as the repealed Postal Service Decree which was applied as an internal instruction within the postal service, did not meet the requirements of accessibility and foreseeability."], "id": "2559cdcf-0ab0-4e47-b2c7-eb4a4474766f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["115. The Government sought to resolve this by noting that, in the applicant\u2019s case, the question of must be solved on the basis of Chapter 4, section 2 of the Coercive Measures Act and Chapter 17, Article 23 of the Code of Judicial Procedure and that since the precedent decisions of the Supreme Court, the expression \u201cpleading a case\u201d has been given a precise meaning."], "id": "3172b538-c41a-4bb9-a369-19c76f8114c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant maintained her complaint. She considered that the interference with her right to have family visits while in detention had not been in accordance with law and that the applicable law had lacked clarity, certainty and as regards the authorisation of family visits in respect of people detained pending extradition. She further argued that the interference had not pursued a legitimate aim. It had placed a disproportionate burden on her and had not been necessary."], "id": "df8dc9ea-ff5c-44a8-8b7c-a4516d1f5e9e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["109. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "226e3de5-3844-4dee-859e-86528022a780", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["95. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "c4b9de6e-21f1-44c5-a5dd-72c1a5f0277a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant company submitted that there had been a disproportionate interference with its freedom of expression. At the end of the proceedings, it had had to pay Ms L. a very high sum in damages (more than fifty times the average annual wage in Ireland) as well as her high legal costs, including those incurred on appeal. It was a very far-reaching interference with its right to freedom of expression that was not \u201cprescribed by law\u201d within the meaning of this Court\u2019s case-law, since the domestic legal framework failed to meet the criteria of accessibility, and clarity. The domestic law in force at the time allowed the jury in a defamation case practically unlimited discretion in assessing damages. According to the applicant company, as seen in the present case, the trial judge was not permitted to offer any useful or meaningful guidance to the jury, such as relevant comparisons or even a range of figures. While the 2009 Act provided for guidance to be given to juries in relation to damages, it did not fundamentally alter the domestic system. There was even a risk that the amount given to Ms L. would be taken as setting a benchmark in future defamation cases."], "id": "0de5c332-e7da-4463-8eb6-3033ba1191a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government claimed that in any event the damage to the applicant's property was lawful, as section 21 of the Law on Suppression of Terrorism \u201cpermits the deliberate inflicting of damage on legally-protected interests, including property rights\u201d. In the Government's submission, the legal act had been duly published and therefore met the requirements of clarity, accessibility and . They also insisted that the interference in question had pursed a legitimate aim, as the counter-terrorist operation had been launched in order to suppress criminal and terrorist activity, ensure security of individuals, and protect their rights and freedoms."], "id": "2c5bb0a3-06fb-40ed-911e-9463ca27279c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant further argued that the prohibition order complained of was based solely on an internal instruction issued by the Burgomaster to the police. This instruction had not been published. Members of the public could not therefore be aware of the nature of the conduct likely to induce the Burgomaster to issue a prohibition order, nor could they be aware that sanctions in the form of prohibition orders even existed. Moreover, since issuing the instruction in 1983 the Burgomaster had never made public any decision declaring that an exceptional situation existed in any particular area. The only information available was that supplied in individual cases by police officers. In those circumstances, the requirement enshrined in the concept of \u201claw\u201d had not been met."], "id": "e4edb942-f2bc-4730-a64b-0fdb0c026a0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government maintained that the search and seizure had been in accordance with the law, namely Chapter 5, section 1 of the Coercive Measures Act. As to the quality of the law, the Government referred to the Court\u2019s findings in the Sallinen case (cited above, \u00a7 87) but maintained that the question of lack of of domestic law had to be assessed in another manner."], "id": "2286c6b6-ab3b-4091-aaae-c6bd4fdfe966", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicant argued that on 18 July 2005 the police had conducted an unlawful search of his home without first obtaining a court order. He submitted that the relevant domestic law lacked clarity and with respect to the meaning of the term \u201csearch\u201d, as opposed to the term \u201cinspection\u201d. The law was also unclear in defining the scope of police powers to examine a residence on the basis of the resident\u2019s consent."], "id": "5999483b-d6d9-46b7-ba38-64b0fcc05c85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government argued that the measure satisfied the criteria of paragraph 2 of Article 8. In their submission, it had been in accordance with the law, namely, Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002 published in the Official Gazette, and therefore fulfilled the condition of accessibility. The Government considered that the criterion of had also been satisfied in that section 83 of the above-mentioned ordinance provided that aliens could be banned from the country only in strictly defined circumstances, that is, if they had engaged, were engaged or had the intention of engaging in activities capable of endangering national security or public order."], "id": "f6baffd6-4dc4-412f-99b8-9e5063ad3310", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "6ec73b85-da5d-4f3f-84e6-820a35630d66", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government contended that Sweden had fulfilled its under Article 8 in the present case. The act in issue fell within the scope of the Swedish criminal legislation, notably the provisions concerning sexual molestation and the offence of child pornography, and there were no elements suggesting that the primary investigation and the prosecution had not been conducted effectively or in a manner otherwise incompatible with Swedish law or Article 8. The applicant\u2019s stepfather had been prosecuted for the act but could not be convicted on account of the lack of requisite evidence. Nevertheless, deterrent sanctions existed in this case and were backed up by effective law-enforcement machinery."], "id": "241ad2c8-0cab-45cf-baf1-755b0101b165", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["166. The Government further submitted that they strongly disagreed with the reasoning adopted by the Court in its judgment in the case of Tysi\u0105c v. Poland, concerning the potential threat to the pregnant woman\u2019s health caused by pregnancy and by the refusal of termination. However, even if the present case were to be assessed from the point of view of the principles developed in that judgment, no support could be found therein for the applicant\u2019s position. The question of voluntary termination of pregnancy for eugenic reasons, concerned in the present case, could not be derived from the State\u2019s to provide adequate medical care."], "id": "0dbf7604-0326-4178-a3dd-98f42c480bbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government initially pointed out that the Court had repeatedly stated that States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation with regard to ensuring adequate protection under Article 8, even in cases of very severe offences such as the rape of a minor (see, for example, M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, \u00a7 154, ECHR 2003\u2011XII), and that only significant flaws in legislation and practice, and their application, would amount to a breach of a State\u2019s under the said provision."], "id": "fce863e7-b1a7-4e37-9857-95951b03ac6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant contested these views, pointing out in particular that the Government had failed to expound what the phrase \u201cgranting [his request] would have contravened the purpose of the arrest\u201d actually meant. He argued that the restriction was disproportionate; and an acceptable \u2013 and proportionate \u2013 solution would have been to allow him to attend the funeral under police escort. This was the minimum that the authorities\u2019 in this field would have required in the circumstances."], "id": "b410e720-8e97-4174-9f45-c027b9b756b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["157. The applicant considered that the State had failed to provide him with access to information in violation of his rights under Article 8. The Court observes that, in addition to the primarily negative undertakings in Article 8 of the Convention, there may be inherent in effective respect for private life. In determining whether or not such a positive obligation exists, it will have regard to the fair balance that has to be struck"], "id": "13a31abe-d81f-4299-9f75-caadcdd03f8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government\u2019s main line of argument therefore was that they were not responsible under Article 1 of the Convention in the primary sense of that provision. As a dispossessed sovereign they had only limited responsibility, namely to fulfil their positive obligation to take all measures that were in their power to take and in accordance with international law (see Ila\u015fcu and Others, cited above, \u00a7 331). They argued that such depended on the factual circumstances of the case and were not to be construed in such a way as to impose a disproportionate burden on the State (ibid., \u00a7 332). The Government asserted that they had taken all general and individual measures they could be expected to take (see paragraph 210 below)."], "id": "413f33da-f83d-4b34-bb9b-920969190c73", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government were of the view that their could not extend to an obligation to ensure the applicant the exclusive custody of his daughter or unlimited access to her. In the present case the authorities had taken all possible measures in order to make it possible for the ties between the applicant and his child to develop. The obstacles the applicant encountered in respect of access to the child had stemmed from the mother's lack of cooperation, the responsibility for which could not be attributed to the State. The Government submitted that in their decisions the domestic authorities had essentially been guided by the interests of the child. Their decisions were also in accordance with applicable provisions of domestic law."], "id": "7ddc1e9a-44bc-46df-a431-4b4202af2a65", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicants complained that their right to respect for their family life, protected by Article 8 of the Convention, had been infringed, in so far as the courts ordering the return of the second and third applicants to Italy had failed to take into account the grave risk that they would be subject to physical or psychological harm at the hands of their father. For the same reasons, the applicants considered that, in failing to protect the children against the risk of abuse, the authorities had breached their enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention."], "id": "d1c0c623-fe2b-49ae-bc21-7e6c999e3829", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government did not accept that the Andorran courts had unduly prevented the applicant from having contact with his children. They argued that the State had complied with its under Article 8 of the Convention. It stressed that all domestic decisions had been based on the best interests of the children, both judges and public prosecutors having had regard to the children\u2019s psychological and emotional situation. In this regard, the different judges and courts that had been called upon to decide matters had ordered that a number of psychological examinations be carried out. Those examinations had always suggested that the care and custody of the children ought to be granted to their mother and that a further psychological examination or treatment of the children ought to be performed before their father should be granted physical contact with them."], "id": "848aaea4-8946-42d5-b827-cacab801033c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government noted that the applicant alleged a violation of the State\u2019s under Article 8 of the Convention. However, what was at stake in the present case was a weighing of the applicant\u2019s interests protected by Article 8 on the one hand against the freedom of the press to disseminate information protected by Article 10 of the Convention on the other. It followed that the principles developed by the Court\u2019s case\u2011law under Article 10 also had to be taken into account."], "id": "3c61ece3-8a3f-4ed2-abe5-229c498b7fb2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government argued that the Catholic Church, to which the parish church of Saint Lambertus belonged, in spite of its status as a public-law entity, was not part of government. Therefore there had not been any interference with the applicant\u2019s rights on the part of the public authorities. The alleged shortcomings of the employment tribunals could therefore be examined solely in terms of the State\u2019s . They submitted that since there was no common practice in this area among the member States, the margin of appreciation should be broad, especially as the issue was related to religious feelings, traditions and domains. The Government pointed out that the European Commission on Human Rights (in Rommelfanger v. Germany, no. 12242/86, Commission decision of 6 September 1989, Decisions and Reports (DR) 62, p. 151) had in fact confirmed the findings of the Federal Constitutional Court, as set out in its judgment of 4 June 1985, to which the Federal Employment Tribunal had referred in the present case."], "id": "df6c9f6a-f2c6-4ea5-9354-298da6ddadb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicants complained that the failure of the domestic authorities to provide adequate protection of the second applicant from alleged acts of sexual aggression perpetrated by his father, the first applicant\u2019s separation from her child by the second applicant\u2019s placement in a residential institution and her limited contact rights, as well as the lack of an effective remedy in respect of these issues, had amounted to a violation of the State\u2019s to protect the individuals\u2019 physical integrity, private and family life and to provide effective remedies in this respect."], "id": "fd62f261-cb56-44dc-9c49-c3b105e2c04a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["126. The applicants reiterated their view (see paragraph 104 above) that prosecuting the first applicant\u2019s father (only) for the criminal offence of inflicting bodily injury was not sufficient for the domestic authorities to meet their under Articles 3 and/or 8 of the Convention. Rather, he should have been prosecuted for the criminal offence of child abuse (see paragraph 86 above). By charging the first applicant\u2019s father with the less serious offence of bodily injury entailing a modest penalty the prosecuting authorities had acted in his favour. Besides, even those criminal proceedings had already been pending for more than four years, and there was no indication that they would be over soon and that he would be punished."], "id": "c3bc8f70-2dbf-4c9c-aefe-4aa4c6a0adaf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant complained that the facts of the case had given rise to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. Her right to due respect for her private life and her physical and moral integrity had been violated both substantively, by failing to provide her with a legal therapeutic abortion, and as regards the State\u2019s , by the absence of a comprehensive legal framework to guarantee her rights."], "id": "40a8b6cb-68a1-42cd-b9fc-d0e55464b03c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicants contended that where there are two irreconcilable versions of events, as in the present case, the State\u2019s under Articles 3 and 8 include a context-sensitive assessment of the credibility of the statements made and verification of all the surrounding circumstances. In the present case, however, the authorities fell short of Convention standards in this respect. According to them, not all relevant evidence was gathered in the criminal proceedings against Y.S., and the latter\u2019s explanations were accepted as true without criticism. In the decision to discontinue the proceedings of 5 October 2009 the prosecutor wrongly interpreted the evidence and credited expert opinions carried out later in time rather than those of the time immediately following the events; he also did not discuss the findings of some of the expert opinions and the statements of certain witnesses, and relied on expert opinions provided by several experts, one of whom was V.D.\u2019s private therapist. This cast doubts on the independence of the experts and the veracity of the conclusions."], "id": "0b2ff298-5cc2-4f8a-9f72-6dcbc67d2deb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the domestic authorities had conducted an inquiry and a subsequent official investigation into the applicant\u2019s allegations in strict compliance with the domestic law. The applicant had unlimited access to court and availed herself of all remedies to protect her rights and interests. She had brought her grievances to the attention of the competent court, which had assessed the lawfulness and compliance of the investigation. The investigators had carried out a wide range of actions aimed at identifying the alleged perpetrators. Numerous witnesses had been questioned. Forensic evidence had been collected and analysed. The fact that the perpetrators had not been established could not be interpreted as the authorities\u2019 failure to comply with their set out in Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention."], "id": "8e41b9a8-8cbe-456b-a48f-f038459fa8ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["72. The applicant submitted that the authorities should have taken urgent action in accordance with the arising out of Article 8 of the Convention. On the contrary, they had left her in a vulnerable situation despite being aware of the danger she faced. The initial inaction of the authorities and the subsequent inaction of the social services had thus deprived her of the protection she needed."], "id": "c777ee46-7500-4d44-95c1-312c19e8ce1c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government did not deny that Article 8 applied to the circumstances of the case but considered that there had not been any violation. They submitted that States enjoyed a margin of appreciation which allowed them to select on a case-by-case basis the course of action best designed to meet their . The Government maintained that the Portuguese authorities had taken every possible step to ensure compliance with the decisions of the French courts regarding the custody of the child."], "id": "fe485b83-7c60-488b-be90-ba0bddd3308c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["119. The Government also referred to the case of Guichard v. France ((dec.), no. 56838/00, 2 September 2003) where the removal of the child by the mother had not been considered to be \u201cwrongful\u201d within the meaning of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and where the Court had found that Article 8 of the Convention had not therefore imposed on the French authorities to secure the return of the child."], "id": "97835ef7-92fc-4b61-9544-166d2712beca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant also complained before various domestic authorities of a lack of diligence in the proceedings and about the possibility that the prosecution of I.\u0160. could become time-barred. These actions taken by the applicant should have been followed by the effective implementation of domestic criminal-law provisions by the domestic authorities which would satisfy the requirements of the State\u2019s under the Convention. However, the Court does not see how the possibility of lodging a criminal complaint against the state officials involved in the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant\u2019s complaint of a violent attack by another individual could be considered as having satisfied these requirements. Therefore, having in mind the actions taken by the applicant, the Court considers that the applicant was not required to lodge a criminal complaint as suggested by the Government."], "id": "148ab55b-5034-45d6-8056-bdb9e0875664", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government argued that the Convention did not guarantee the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third persons. They argued that in the present case the police had reacted promptly and submitted a request for minor-offences proceedings to be instituted against the attackers. In those proceedings all the relevant facts had been established and it had been concluded that the individuals in question had only verbally abused the applicant. They further maintained that the State\u2019s could not require the criminal prosecution of the attackers or their conviction. Therefore, the fact that the police had requested the institution of minor-offences proceedings had been sufficient."], "id": "55183ebe-ef65-4b8e-8d76-f9988806c5f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government further argued that the present case was similar to the case of Guichard v. France ((dec.), no. 56838/00, 2 September 2003) where the applicant had not been able to rely on the protection afforded by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and where the Court had found that Article 8 of the Convention had not therefore imposed on the French authorities to secure the return of the child. Lastly, the Government submitted that the present case was also similar to the case of Petersen (cited above) where the Court had found that the child\u2019s interest in temporarily moving abroad with his mother and his new family had overridden the applicant\u2019s interests. The Government\u2019s argued that in the present case too a prohibition on leaving Russia would have violated the children\u2019s freedom of movement guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. Given that the residence order had been granted in favour of the mother, the children could not have been separated from her merely because she had decided to move to Germany and to establish her family life there with a new husband. V. and N. had been moreover entitled to maintain contact with their younger half-brother born in Germany."], "id": "a51e961a-8427-4487-9b6d-fabce1977ac5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicant complained that the United Kingdom had violated its under Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone and taken together with Article 13, by failing to impose a legal duty on the News of the World to notify him in advance in order to allow him the opportunity to seek an interim injunction and thus prevent publication of material which violated his right to respect for his private life. The Government contested that argument"], "id": "abb8093c-9c35-4d00-a463-426610421fa5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["111. The applicant complained that, by failing to secure regular contact with her sons, which was necessary to maintain family ties between them, the domestic authorities had breached their and thereby violated her right to respect for her family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. She also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that she had not had an effective remedy by which to complain about that violation. The relevant part of those Articles reads as follows:"], "id": "79ef4c7b-2ad4-4415-91ef-a54710704560", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to apply relevant, in particular criminal-law, measures against the participants of the anti-Roma rallies so as to discourage them from the racist harassment that eventually took place. She also maintained that by failing to properly investigate this incidence of racist verbal abuse, the authorities had neglected their . She relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which provides as follows:"], "id": "559c2e39-46b2-46f8-9c2e-02e96727035a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government submitted that they had complied with their to ensure the effective protection of children from sexual abuse: there were domestic criminal-law provisions which prohibited the relevant offences and those provisions were effectively implemented in practice. The Government emphasised that the domestic authorities had had to deal with a complex case, the victim of the alleged offence had been only three years old at the time of the events, and there had been a lack of direct evidence. Nevertheless, the authorities had taken all possible measures to conduct the investigation effectively. The present complaint therefore did not give rise to a violation of the Convention."], "id": "daa15f48-3df7-4551-afa4-2c07360625f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicant submitted that the authorities\u2019 under Article 8 of the Convention were activated immediately when the situation of a child at risk was brought to their attention. In her case, this had applied from the moment the police had entered her home to arrest her parents. The police had questioned the applicant and had seen her identity document, from which it had been clear that she was a minor. When her parents had been arrested, there had been no one else in the apartment who could have been asked to inform the competent authorities to arrange for the applicant\u2019s care."], "id": "e6f39f3d-acd5-48c9-a6c7-b63347b4a8fe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government said in conclusion that the child's persistent refusal to see her mother was the only reason why the access arrangements had not been complied with. It would be going beyond the State's under Article 8 of the Convention to take coercive measures to force the child to meet her mother. Therefore, even assuming that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for her family life, it had been justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8."], "id": "8b5c7c77-1da4-4678-b0d2-917f0a37de33", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["210. The Government contended that even if Article 8 gave rise to on the authorities to consider the marine risks, the obligation extended only to conducting appropriate investigations and studies so that the effects of the activities that might damage the environment and infringe individual rights could be predicted and evaluated in advance and a fair balance could accordingly be struck between the various interests at stake."], "id": "ca90b27c-3f37-4c9e-83cc-1512fd237a96", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["19. The Government argued that the environmental problems suffered by the applicant had arisen essentially due to a toll introduced by a private motorway company and the State had responded with various measures to protect the inhabitants of Als\u00f3n\u00e9medi from the level of environmental harm proscribed by the Court's case-law under Article 8, thus complying with its in this field."], "id": "b7fb7357-136c-4c29-aaf3-44b2fca017fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant\u2019s first complaint was that the authorities had not done enough to enable him to inform his family of his arrest and placement in detention. This raises an issue under the authorities\u2019 flowing from Article 8 of the Convention. The Court has had occasion to hold that in view of the deep anxiety that the disappearance of a family member can cause, even for a short period, and the consequent importance for someone who has been arrested to be able to get in touch with his or her family promptly, there is an obligation under that Article to enable an detainee to contact them rapidly after being taken into custody (see Sar\u0131 and \u00c7olak v. Turkey, nos. 42596/98 and 42603/98, \u00a7\u00a7 33-37, ECHR 2006-V (extracts)). In some cases this can also amount to an important safeguard to prevent arbitrary detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, \u00a7\u00a7 122-24, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III). Indeed, in Bulgaria such an obligation is set out in section 243 of the 2009 Act (see paragraph 26 above). As evidenced by that provision, as well as the other relevant provisions of Bulgarian law, European Union law and international law (see paragraphs 23 to 27 above), that obligation takes on an added importance when the detainee is an alien whose family may be in a different country."], "id": "2c4f340e-3367-48d7-90db-14c8a91779f4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government argued that the case should be examined exclusively from the perspective of . They observed that the law in force did not prohibit childbearing women from giving birth at their private home, and that no sanctions were imposed by the authorities in such cases. Accordingly, in the Government\u2019s view, the core question in the present case was whether the State should broaden the current scope of health care provided to women giving birth in the Czech Republic. The provision of health care in general was an area where regulation was the default, so that the State could guarantee a certain quality and standard for both private and public health care. In order to \u201callow\u201d the assistance of health professionals at home births, the Government would have to put in place a considerable legislative and administrative framework, in addition to other facilities, including a change to the system of emergency care."], "id": "632186c1-0581-44a9-aac0-9eef8ae66a32", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicant maintained that the Constitutional Court had refused to provide redress to him. The relevant law permitted the District Court to issue, of its own initiative, an injunction allowing the applicant temporarily to meet his son. By failing to issue such an injunction the District Court had disregarded the incumbent upon the respondent State under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "410aab01-f0e1-4005-9653-d153ee263395", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["2. The applicants initiated a set of proceedings challenging the failure of the police to intervene during what was clearly a hate- and violence-inciting demonstration (on this aspect I cannot but agree with the majority) and to initiate a criminal investigation into the offences of incitement to hatred against members of an ethnic group, the Roma community, and of violence against members of that group. The administrative proceedings against the police were to no avail. The ensuing criminal investigation in respect of the participants in the demonstration was subsequently discontinued as regards the charges of incitement against an ethnic group, and one of the perpetrators was convicted of violence against a member of an ethnic group. The applicants complained that the domestic authorities had not observed their under Article 8 to intervene during the demonstration (to disperse the event) and to apply criminal measures against the alleged perpetrators (to pursue criminal proceedings into the racially motivated criminal offences)."], "id": "3a2ecf56-cf54-4359-83dc-e82a1a6d5ecc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["85. The Government maintained that the cemetery had been built in the interests of the villagers of Tatariv, as there had been absolutely no other place in the mountainous region near the village that could be used for a cemetery. They further stated that while it was true that the cemetery had been built in breach of environmental health laws and regulations as it had lacked the health protection zone required by law, the authorities had done all they could to prohibit burials and to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be re-housed, even though such an obligation to resettle had not existed in law. According to them, he had continuously rejected such proposals. In this respect they supplied letters of 10, 15 and 16 December 2009 from Tarariv Council and the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional State Administration, in which the municipal authorities stated that the applicant was not interested in resettlement (see paragraph 34 above). The Government accepted that the fact that the cemetery was placed on the VL plot engaged State\u2019s under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "de222e05-d181-4014-8e3a-706d21e5656c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government noted that the necessity of the measure had been assessed twice, with a possibility of rejection \u2013 first by the Attorney General and subsequently by the Vilnius Regional Court. The contested operational measure had been necessary and had been applied in the interests of national security, public safety and the prevention of crime. The authorities had had operational information about the applicant\u2019s possible involvement in criminal activities. The applicant had close connections with J.B. and persons from J.B.\u2019s milieu. Most importantly, in the course of the operational investigation in respect of J.B., the authorities had learned about his threats to the State President. That information had later been confirmed when intercepting the applicant\u2019s telephone conversation with J.B., in which the latter used psychological pressure and demanded that his requirements be reported to the head of State. Subsequently, J.B. had been convicted of having threatened the State President. The Government also observed that both J.B. and the applicant had had close relations with the State President and had played a significant role in the political activities of the President\u2019s political party and his electoral campaign; at the time of surveillance the applicant had been a member of the Vilnius City Municipal Council. In this connection the Government also referred to the Court\u2019s judgment in Craxi v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 25337/94, \u00a7 64, 17 July 2003), submitting that politicians inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny by both journalists and the public at large. Therefore, even acknowledging that no investigation had been carried out by the SSD in order to reveal the circumstances in which the journalists had obtained the recording of the intercepted conversation, the question of fulfilment of the State\u2019s under Article 8 of the Convention could not arise."], "id": "ab207bdb-f477-46df-8b58-d0281236a411", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained that the attack on her on 24 October 2000 by a pack of stray dogs constituted a breach of her right to physical integrity. The attack had had severe consequences for her state of health, which, having regard to her advanced age and lack of financial means to pay for medical care, had caused her serious physical and mental suffering. She alleged that the incident and its consequences were due to the lack of action on the part of the Romanian authorities to solve the problem of stray dogs and ensure the safety and health of the population. Accordingly, the State had failed in its under Article 8 to protect the applicant\u2019s physical and moral integrity and prevent intrusion into her private life."], "id": "629d0621-98bd-4e21-a349-7f30f05db4ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government further submitted that even assuming that the State\u2019s in respect of the private and family life of the applicant and her son were engaged in the present case, Russia had complied with its positive obligations. The domestic courts had examined the applicant\u2019s claims under Article 152 of the Civil Code and had come to the conclusion that the information contained in the booklet had not adversely affected the applicant\u2019s honour, dignity and reputation."], "id": "e87b3ab6-b7b7-4be7-9bf5-af7e7327aa50", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The applicant furthermore underlined that the mani pulite campaign had been conducted in an unfair way and pursuing a political aim. In particular, a number of violations of the secrecy covering the investigations were committed in order to attract the attention of the media. He concluded that by releasing the interceptions into the public domain the Italian authorities had failed to respect the imposed on them by Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "d12bc15f-774a-4379-bf91-1fea2e484c2c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government drew attention to the minimum threshold bringing Article 3 of the Convention into play, which in their view had not been reached, and to the limited extent of the State\u2019s under that Article. They pointed out that there had been no intention to deny the applicants access to safe medicinal products. The experimental product that they wished to use had not been authorised in any country, and had not undergone clinical trials. Its safety and efficacy had not been established. Not being given the opportunity to use it could not therefore be regarded as inhuman treatment. On the contrary, its use, which would have amounted to a medical experiment, might have resulted in a breach of Article 3."], "id": "24a13ba9-8171-497c-8cdc-f101e4447c59", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant argued that the State authorities had failed in their under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention in respect of the acts of violence committed against her by B. She maintained that although the national courts, in both criminal and minor offences proceedings, had imposed certain sanctions and ordered certain measures, most of these had not been enforced, thereby seriously undermining any meaningful purpose of those proceedings. The national courts had also misapplied the relevant provisions of the applicable substantive and procedural law."], "id": "a6f267c5-3e9f-4136-b398-da416cd2e2b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant\u2019s complaint concerned the respondent States\u2019 alleged failure to secure contact with her estranged daughter. It is not disputed that these matters pertain to \u201cfamily life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention and that this provision is applicable. On the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the primary interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life may not be attributed to either of the respondent States but rather to the actions of the child\u2019s grandparents, third parties, who had retained the child in Bulgaria (see R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, \u00a7\u00a7 56-57, 21 July 2015; L\u00f3pez Gui\u00f3 v. Slovakia, no. 10280/12, \u00a7 85, 3 June 2014). It therefore remains to be ascertained whether there were any on the part of the respondent States with a view to securing the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life and, if so, whether any such positive obligations have been complied with by the respondent States."], "id": "b39b346d-77af-4cbb-8990-033a105f5644", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government denied that the State authorities bore any responsibility for the destruction of the applicants' houses. Therefore, the State had only under Article 8, obligations which had been fulfilled in this case by granting aid to the applicants to rebuild their homes. In any event, the Government considered that there was no obligation under the Convention to provide a home to persons who were in difficulties. They relied in this connection on the cases of Buckley v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011IV), and Chapman v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 27238/95, \u00a7 99, ECHR 2001\u2011I)."], "id": "d8fc4ad0-8665-48c6-b24e-533e560a46df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government were of the view that their could not extend to an obligation to ensure the applicant the exclusive custody of his son or unlimited access to him. In the present case the authorities had taken all possible measures in order to make it possible for the ties between the applicant and his child to develop. The obstacles the applicant encountered in respect of access to the child had stemmed from the mother's lack of co-operation, the responsibility for which could not be attributed to the State. They noted that between May 1997 and August 1998 the applicant had made it impossible for O. to see her son. The Government submitted that in their decisions the domestic authorities had essentially been guided by the interest of the child. Their decisions were also in accordance with applicable provisions of domestic law."], "id": "ee910b1e-38e9-47ee-93b6-eed38fa1592e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicants claimed that State officials had been involved in the destruction of their homes, including police officers and a deputy mayor, the latter having been convicted of a criminal offence in the case. They pointed out that the State had under Article 8, and relied in that connection on a number of cases, for instance Burton v. the United Kingdom (no. 31600/96, Commission decision of 10 September 1996), Marzari v. Italy (decision, no. 36448/97, 4 May 1999) and Fadele v. the United Kingdom (no. 13078/87, Commission decision of 12 February 1990). The applicants alleged that the State also had positive obligations under Article 3, and claimed that it was incumbent on the Romanian Government to provide sufficient compensation to restore the applicants to their previous living conditions. Moreover, local officials were responsible for the management or mismanagement of the reconstruction funds and efforts, and had made decisions not to rebuild particular homes in retaliation for perceived \u201cbehavioural problems\u201d. The applicants also claimed that the houses rebuilt by the State had been badly constructed and were largely uninhabitable."], "id": "b16b8246-f7c4-4b52-9cc6-492055022592", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["99. The Government pointed out that Bulgarian law made provision for \u201ccompassionate use\u201d of unauthorised medicinal products. However, they emphasised that such products carried serious risks, which required them to be carefully regulated. The State was entitled to refuse permission for the use of an unauthorised medicinal product, and this did not breach the right to life, but safeguarded it. The under Article 2 of the Convention had limits, and could not exceed what was reasonable. The applicants had been given conventional medical treatment. There was no further duty to allow them to use a product which was not authorised in any member State of the European Union or had not been subjected to a clinical trial. A State could not be obliged to make available all possible drugs, let alone products whose contents and origins were not clearly known, and which had not been authorised in developed countries with strong health care systems. The product at issue did not comply with the requirements for \u201ccompassionate use\u201d under Article 83 of Regulation (EC) no. 726/2004. If its producer met the applicable requirements, the authorities could envisage allowing its use in the future. In that sense, the applicants were not left with no hope at all."], "id": "03a43736-ac92-44c4-8fb2-2bddd6315628", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicant complained that Bulgarian law and practice did not provide effective protection against rape and sexual abuse, as only cases where the victim had resisted actively were prosecuted, and that the authorities had not investigated the events of 31 July and 1 August 1995 effectively. In her view, the above amounted to a violation of the State's to protect the individual's physical integrity and private life and to provide effective remedies in this respect."], "id": "16d21298-e2a3-47a6-9b1d-cfbb0e146de1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant argued that due to the deficient domestic legislative framework concerning the offence of domestic violence under the 2011 Criminal Code, she had not had an effective remedy at her disposal. In this connection, she stressed that it was the duty of the State authorities to effectively prosecute the acts of domestic violence perpetrated against her. In her view, it was unacceptable, from the perspective of the State\u2019s , to leave victims of domestic violence to pursue the prosecution of the perpetrator on their own initiative, without any assistance from the State."], "id": "efd6eac2-44c1-4c6f-8785-14d095895b37", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants noted that they were seeking damages arising from death and grievous bodily harm which were not the result of normal torts such as a traffic accidents but which were a result of the Government\u2019s failure to fulfil their under the Convention, namely to safeguard a person\u2019s life, to investigate properly any death or harm for which the State was responsible, to provide information about any risk to life or health, and to identify the persons responsible for the violation. It followed that they were also entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage."], "id": "f5b1d43d-0c60-4966-992a-5b5d5100e872", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government considered the case as one regarding , in that the letting off of fireworks was carried out by third parties but it was the State which issued the relevant conditions, regulations and permits. Such measures regulated interference by third parties with a person\u2019s private rights, and required a balance to be reached between the religious and social expression of village communities and the interests of the applicants."], "id": "1edb517d-76bc-4983-a8ca-e49e09319eeb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government submitted that even if the Court found Article 8 applicable in this case, the domestic authorities had complied with their under that Article by properly policing the demonstration. Contrary to the applicants\u2019 allegations, this was not a case in which the police had stood by and done nothing: they had taken a wide range of preventive measures prior to the demonstration, including vehicle checks, identity checks and consultations with the representatives of the Roma minority. They had also considered that the most effective method to secure the demonstration had been for the force to act as a team and not to take measures against certain individuals. This operational decision fell within the ambit of legitimate police discretion, as confirmed by the domestic courts\u2019 decisions."], "id": "0a133668-f5dc-40fd-8db8-8b022f6d5a7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government noted that the applicant had alleged a violation of the State\u2019s under Article 8 of the Convention. However, what was at stake in the present case was a weighing of the applicant\u2019s interests protected by Article 8 on the one hand and the freedom of the press to disseminate information protected by Article 10 of the Convention on the other. It followed that the principles developed by the Court\u2019s case-law under Article 10 also had to be taken into account."], "id": "d3b8978e-d371-4409-a971-71ffc2c39142", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["89. The applicant alleged that the Austrian courts had failed to expeditiously take all the necessary and adequate steps in order to secure the children\u2019s return to France, and that the final decision not to enforce the order on the grounds of the passage of time, five years and six months after the return order had been issued, was entirely the Austrian courts\u2019 fault. They had therefore violated their to reunite the applicant with his children, and had gradually cut his family ties with them, resulting in irremediable consequences."], "id": "ca63dec1-a07a-4a35-9bd0-9fc42991febf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government referred to the Court\u2019s case-law to the effect that there were certain under the Convention which required States to draw up regulations compelling hospitals to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients\u2019 lives. They also required an effective independent judicial system to be set up so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession could be determined and those responsible made accountable (see Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000\u2011V). That positive obligation did not necessarily require the provision of a criminal\u2011law remedy in every case. In the specific sphere of medical negligence the obligation could, for instance, also be satisfied if the legal system afforded victims a remedy in the civil courts, either alone or in conjunction with a remedy in the criminal courts, enabling any liability of the doctors concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, \u00a7 51, ECHR 2002\u2011I)."], "id": "68fafc7b-1163-4a47-9db0-aaa80814db27", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government argued that the authorities had acted diligently, without delays and within the limits of their powers, and had thus complied with their under Article 8 of the Convention. They pointed out that the applicant had not complained about the assistance received from the bailiff and reiterated that the latter could not have forcibly taken the child away from the father. In their view, the person solely responsible for the non-enforcement was I.T."], "id": "398a5ce1-6705-4be7-8e54-85c39a2d3e12", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government denied, however, that the inability to adopt Hind constituted an \u201cinterference\u201d with the applicant\u2019s family life. The Court shares that view. It observes in this connection that the applicant did not complain of any major hindrance to the continuance of her family life but argued that to ensure respect for the latter it was necessary to equate kafala with full adoption and thus to recognise a legal parent-child relationship, this being excluded by Article 370-3 of the Civil Code where the child\u2019s country of origin prohibited adoption. In those circumstances, the Court finds it more appropriate to examine the complaint in terms of . In this connection, the Court would draw a distinction between, on the one hand, the situation in the present case, where the law of the respondent State merely refuses to equate kafala with adoption and refers to the child\u2019s personal law to determine whether such adoption is possible, and, on the other, the situation in the Wagner and J.M.W.L. judgment (cited above), where it decided that the Luxembourg courts, in refusing to grant enforcement of an adoption decision by a Peruvian court, had disregarded the legal status validly created abroad, in an unreasonable manner, and had thus breached Article 8 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that the notion of \u201crespect\u201d as understood in Article 8 is not clear cut, especially as far as the positive obligations inherent in that concept are concerned: having regard to the diversity of practices followed and the situations obtaining in the Contracting States, the notion\u2019s requirements will vary considerably from case to case and the margin of appreciation to be accorded to the authorities may be wider than that applied in other areas under the Convention. In determining whether or not a positive obligation exists, regard must also be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the general interest of the community and the interests of the individual, the search for which balance is inherent in the whole of the Convention (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, \u00a7 72, ECHR 2002\u2011VI)."], "id": "e6d787bf-140e-4a81-bd4f-3fda0e192364", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government considered that the preliminary inquiry and the ensuing investigation conducted by domestic authorities had been in compliance with the standards established in the Court\u2019s case-law. The investigators had identified and arrested eight alleged perpetrators. When questioned, all of them had denied the applicant\u2019s allegations. They had maintained their innocence in the applicant\u2019s presence. Neither the results of the genetic forensic examination nor the relevant mobile-telephone communications history had confirmed the applicant\u2019s allegations and the suspects had been released. In 2014, after the applicant had identified A.P. as another perpetrator, he had been questioned and had undergone a polygraph test, which had confirmed that A.P. had had sexual relations with the applicant. He had been charged with rape. However, once the genetic forensic expert examination had excluded the possibility of the sperm found on the wipe towels being A.P.\u2019s, the investigator had rightfully discontinued the criminal investigation against him. The Government furthermore pointed out that the applicant\u2019s behaviour had had an impact on the effectiveness of the investigation. She had only belatedly reported the alleged rape to the authorities. As a result, it had been impossible to find, collect and preserve traces of the crime. Nevertheless, the investigators had carried out a complete range of actions aimed at establishing the circumstances of the crime: they had (1) commissioned a forensic medical examination to determine any possible traces of violence on the applicant\u2019s body; (2) inspected the crime scenes in the applicant\u2019s presence; (3) taken all necessary measures to collect physical evidence, (4) carried out other forensic examinations; (5) held a confrontation between the applicant and the alleged perpetrators; and (6) obtained information concerning the history of mobile-telephone communications between the applicant and the alleged perpetrators. In the Government\u2019s opinion, there was nothing in the material contained in the case file to substantiate the applicant\u2019s allegation that the authorities had failed to comply with their , as set out in Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention."], "id": "5523a979-1a44-4f6a-828c-7d1eaa8caa7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant stated that her inability to effectively opt for any alternative model of childbirth and the requirement for her to surrender to the obstetric model of birth care in hospital \u2013 causing her to experience obstetric violence \u2013 represented a serious breach of her right to decide on the circumstances in which to give birth, and interference with her right to physical and psychological integrity under Article 8 of the Convention. Although she believed that the circumstances of her case called for an assessment primarily in terms of the Government\u2019s , the applicant intended to apply a holistic approach to the assessment of whether the damage sustained by her was justifiable in the light of the relevant principles of the Convention, bearing in mind that the underlying principles of legality, legitimacy and proportionality were inherent in both the positive and negative obligations of the State."], "id": "5484f395-6387-4d3e-8e0c-d29cc2b67581", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government contended that after 6 March 2014 it had been inappropriate to pursue the enforcement of the return order in view of the Ukrainian courts\u2019 decision that the child should continue to live with his mother (see paragraph 51 above). Taking into account the principles outlined above, according to which the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration, the Court accepts that a change in the relevant circumstances may exceptionally justify the non\u2011enforcement of a final return order (see Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, \u00a7 63, 24 April 2003). However, having regard to the State\u2019s under Article 8 and the general requirement of respect for the rule of law, the Court must be satisfied that \u201cthe change of the relevant facts\u201d was not brought about by the State\u2019s failure to take all measures that could reasonably be expected to facilitate the enforcement of the return order (see Sylvester, cited above, \u00a7 63 and S\u00e9v\u00e8re v. Austria, no. 53661/15, \u00a7 105, 21 September 2017). The Court notes that since his removal from the Czech Republic in 2009, the second applicant had been constantly living with his mother in Ukraine, separately from the first applicant. Therefore, the finding of the Ukrainian courts in 2014 that the child had adapted well to living in Ukraine was not surprising, having regard to the considerable period of time which had passed by that time. However, the Court considers that the passage of time leading to such a finding had been mainly imputable to the Ukrainian authorities who had not dealt swiftly with the return request and who had failed to take appropriate measures to enforce the return order. Accordingly, by the time of the court decisions referred to by the Government, the domestic authorities had already failed to ensure the effective protection of the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their family life."], "id": "e468eb7a-bb11-46a8-9bfe-7107e947e270", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant challenged the Government\u2019s arguments, observing that non-pecuniary damages could only be claimed under Article 179 of the Code of Obligations in cases falling under one of the categories listed therein, and that there was no indication that the domestic courts considered the of the State as belonging to one of these categories or, specifically, as personality rights. The applicant pointed out that the case-law submitted by the Government was not relevant to her case, and concluded that the remedy proposed by the Government was not established in practice. Moreover, the applicant took the view that in cases such as hers the protection afforded by civil law was insufficient, since an award of compensation could not satisfy the procedural requirements of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention."], "id": "f716883a-e1f6-44ab-8ef1-0c95d0d2751c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government submitted that there had been a pressing need for reforms to the prosecution of domestic violence as provided for under the 1997 Criminal Code. In particular, Article 215a of the 1997 Criminal Code had been vague and ambiguous, and had therefore raised an issue of legal certainty in its application. Moreover, it had opened the possibility of duplication of criminal and minor offences proceedings for the same acts of domestic violence, which had raised an issue from the perspective of the ne bis in idem principle as defined in the Court\u2019s case-law. The Government further stressed that although the 2011 Criminal Code had abolished the separate criminal offence of domestic violence, continuity of criminal responsibility had been secured through the criminalisation of acts of domestic violence as aggravating forms of other criminal offences, most of which had been subject to public prosecution. In the Government\u2019s view, in the case at issue the applicant had been provided with an effective opportunity to pursue private criminal proceedings against B.B. but she had failed to avail herself of that opportunity. The Government therefore considered that there had been nothing suggesting inadequacy of the domestic legal framework for the protection of victims of domestic violence from the perspective of the State\u2019s under the Convention."], "id": "d109d445-457e-467d-ae7c-34fcb4a818f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant argued that there was no public interest whatsoever militating against the interests of medically recognised transsexuals in completing their gender change and having it legally entrenched. Furthermore, the absence of necessary legislation was disproportionate to the protection of any purported countervailing interest of the community as a whole. Accordingly, the State had failed in its under Article 8 to complete the measures it had already envisaged to protect the applicant\u2019s human dignity and prevent intrusion into his private life."], "id": "10704c7d-d3d1-49f1-9119-0db95e07112d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government further took the view that, as the Chamber had found in paragraph 78 of its judgment, the present case had to be examined from the perspective of the State\u2019s (in the light of Rommelfanger v. Germany, no. 12242/86, Commission decision of 6 September 1989, Decisions and Reports 62). The Government argued that the State had fulfilled its obligations in the present case."], "id": "ba2a9625-721b-46d9-8a4a-44ae02e70f95", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["105. The Government inferred from the fact that the complaint fell to be examined from the standpoint of that \u201cit [was] unnecessary to examine whether the interference [had been] in accordance with the law\u201d. The refusal of the applicants\u2019 requests had pursued a legitimate aim as it had been guided by the French principle of the inalienability of civil status, according to which the decision to amend a birth certificate could not be a matter for the individual\u2019s choice alone, even though that choice fell within the sphere of respect for private life. It was because the reliability and consistency of French civil-status records were at stake, and in the interests of the necessary structural role of sexual identity within the country\u2019s social and legal arrangements, that a change of gender in civil-status documents could be permitted only when the irreversible nature of the gender reassignment process had been objectively established."], "id": "e1f3f096-801d-4e5b-a5ca-99645d46cef9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government conceded that, at the time, the operator of the Internet server could not be ordered to provide information identifying the offender. They argued that protection was provided by the mere existence of the criminal offence of malicious misrepresentation and by the possibility of bringing criminal charges or an action for damages against the server operator. As to the former, the Court notes that the existence of an offence has limited deterrent effects if there is no means to identify the actual offender and to bring him to justice. Here, the Court notes that it has not excluded the possibility that the State\u2019s under Article 8 to safeguard the individual\u2019s physical or moral integrity may extend to questions relating to the effectiveness of a criminal investigation even where the criminal liability of agents of the State is not at issue (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, \u00a7 128, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII). For the Court, States have a positive obligation inherent in Article 8 of the Convention to criminalise offences against the person, including attempted offences, and to reinforce the deterrent effect of criminalisation by applying criminal\u2011law provisions in practice through effective investigation and prosecution (see, mutatis mutandis, M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, \u00a7 153). Where the physical and moral welfare of a child is threatened, such injunction assumes even greater importance. The Court notes in this connection that sexual abuse is unquestionably an abhorrent type of wrongdoing, with debilitating effects on its victims. Children and other vulnerable individuals are entitled to State protection, in the form of effective deterrence, from such grave types of interference with essential aspects of their private lives (see Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, \u00a7 64, Reports 1996\u2011IV)."], "id": "24b3634e-e428-4cc0-9426-60dd62d50704", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["105. The applicants referred to the evolution which had taken place, as a result of which many countries had legislated in favour of some type of institution for same-sex couples, the most recent additions being Gibraltar and Malta, whose legislation enacted in 2014 gave same-sex couples grosso modo the same rights and duties applicable to married couples; registered partnership for same-sex couples had also been instituted in Croatia. They considered that there was no reason why those unions should not be provided for in Italy. They noted in particular that the Italian Constitutional Court itself had considered that the state had an obligation to introduce in its legal system some form of civil union for same-sex couples. They referred to the Court\u2019s jurisprudence concerning the inherent in an effective respect for private and family life, and reiterated that according to the Court, where a particular facet of an individual\u2019s existence or identity was at stake, or where the activities at stake involved a most intimate aspect of private life, the margin allowed to a State was correspondingly narrow (S\u00f6derman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, \u00a7 79, ECHR 2013)."], "id": "fb6f1769-37d2-491d-88c8-d2d2055b875f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicants alleged that the annulment of the first applicant\u2019s residence permit and subsequent imposition of an re-entry ban had adversely affected their right to , as the first applicant had to leave Russia, his wife and minor son staying to reside there. The first applicant stated that the real reason for his exclusion was the deterioration of relations between Russia and Turkey owing to the military aircraft incident, which was illustrated by the fact that the traffic violations he had allegedly committed had been registered after that incident (see paragraph 20 above), as well as the inspection of his farm which had led to his administrative punishment (see paragraph 14 above). Moreover, actual proof of that connection had clearly been confirmed by the representative of the Komi FSB at the court hearing on 24 February 2016 when he had stated \u201cthe international situation is complicated, therefore the attitude in Russia towards violations by foreign nationals has become stricter\u201d (see paragraph 21 above). However, despite the first applicant requesting that the courts verify his allegation that his exclusion had been caused by the deterioration of the political relationship between Russia and Turkey, the courts had not done so. The first applicant further pointed out that the copy of the Komi FSB\u2019s letter of 2 December 2015 requesting that his residence permit be annulled did not provide any information concerning either the factual basis or motives for the sanction against him. The Government had failed to provide the Court with the Komi FSB\u2019s decision of 27 November 2015 which had served as the basis for its request of 2 December 2015 to annul his residence permit (see paragraph 26 above). Given that no explanations for such a failure had been given, the first applicant, referring to Nolan and K. v. Russia, no. 2512/04, \u00a7\u00a7 51-57, 12 February 2009, invited the Court to draw inferences from the Government\u2019s failure to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court in its task of establishing the facts."], "id": "12cc0d76-1c76-4f1e-a71f-8d0a6e3c8b18", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicants complained, alleging a violation of their respective rights to on account of the lack of practical opportunities for prison visits stemming from decisions to allocate prisoners to remote penal facilities and their subsequent inability to obtain transfers to other facilities. They relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "8cfb7390-026a-4dba-a613-4eaa3ceebf24", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["88. The Government also asserted that the applicant could have brought a civil action for damages against the State for any non-pecuniary damage he had sustained as a result of the alleged violation of his right to . In support of their assertions, they submitted eleven domestic decisions in which a wide range of rights, including the right to respect for family life, had been recognised as \u201cpersonality rights\u201d capable of causing mental distress warranting compensation."], "id": "9a096cda-2fb2-4361-9103-ebe6577a54f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government also provided the Court with extracts of nine cases where domestic courts had not ordered administrative removal of persons found guilty of an administrative offence as, in the courts\u2019 view, their removal would violate their right to . They further stated that in the applicant\u2019s case the domestic courts duly took into account his family situation and the nature of the administrative offence, as well as the previously committed administrative offences, and reached a reasonable conclusion that his removal was necessary for the protection of the public interest so as to secure compliance with immigration laws."], "id": "8b0705ab-c756-4bb2-a3c4-5365637dc2f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant submitted that the refusal to grant her a residence permit and to impose an exclusion order constituted a disproportionate interference with her right to . In the applicant\u2019s view, she was entitled to expect that she would be granted a residence permit for the purpose of starting a family with her Dutch partner since her request for a provisional residence visa, which was assessed on the same criteria as a residence permit, had been granted. Emphasising that the actual point of requiring aliens to apply for a provisional residence visa in their country of origin is for the assessment of that alien\u2019s eligibility for a residence permit to take place in his/her home country rather than on Dutch soil, the applicant argued that in such a system it stands to reason that \u2013 once a provisional residence visa has been granted \u2013 a residence permit can only be denied in \u201cexceptional circumstances\u201d, as indeed provided for in Chapter B1 1.1.8 of the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000. Such situations usually involve a subsequent intervening change in circumstances such as loss of employment, the end of the relationship, new crimes committed etc."], "id": "57c9afb4-fac2-4d13-ac6c-55181778cb9d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant emphasised that the Austrian authorities, when examining the decision to lift his asylum status and to expel him, in respect of a possible interference with his right to overlooked the fact that his wife and the two children, born in 2004 and 2007, had independent asylum status in Austria. In those asylum decisions, the Independent Asylum Panel explicitly stated that the applicant\u2019s wife had a well-founded fear of independent persecution if she returned to the Russian Federation. It followed that the applicant\u2019s wife and children could not reasonably be expected to follow the applicant to the Russian Federation to maintain family life; in fact, an expulsion of the applicant to the Russian Federation would render any effective family relations impossible."], "id": "577c2b42-aa15-40a8-95fe-6459f3540589", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["359. The Government contested the applicants\u2019 argument. They submitted, firstly, that the complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. In their view, the relations between the US applicants and the children they sought to adopt constituted neither \u201cfamily life\u201d nor \u201cprivate life\u201d within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention and did not fall within the ambit of that provision for the purposes of Article 14 either. The Government pointed out that the right to adopt is not, as such, included among the rights guaranteed by the Convention and that Article 8 does not oblige States to grant a person the status of adoptive parent or adopted child (see X v. Belgium and Netherlands, no. 6482/74, Commission decision of 10 July 1975, and Di Lazarro v. Italy, no. 31924/96, Commission decision of 10 July 1997). Furthermore, according to the Court\u2019s case law, the right to presupposes the existence of a family and does not safeguard the mere desire to found a family (see Frett\u00e9 v. France, no. 36515/97, \u00a7 32, ECHR 2002\u2011I)."], "id": "18640441-86d9-4056-92a8-1ee0e55e032e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to was justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention. They essentially stated that the domestic courts had carried out an in-depth examination of the entire family situation and made a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of the child and both parents. In the circumstances of the case, the resulting decision not to order the child\u2019s return to Canada had undoubtedly been in his best interest."], "id": "d01c69a7-742c-4811-b378-89068ed20e2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government contested the allegation. They acknowledged that there was family life between the applicant and his daughter and that the impugned measure had constituted an interference with the right to . However, it had been in accordance with the law and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the health or morals and the rights and freedoms of the child. There was no indication that the law had been applied for any other purpose than to provide the child with safe and stable living conditions and to ensure a secure environment for her development. The measure had a basis in national law, according to which in case of dispute it was for the court to define the extent and the manner for the visits having regard to the best interests of the child. In the present case, the courts had received the Social Welfare Board's written opinion and evidence submitted by the parties. The courts had given relevant reasons. At the time of the proceedings, the girl had already been living with her mother in Finland for over five years. She had taken the view that she would like to see her father on her own when she grew older. If the parents agreed, nothing prevented the applicant and his daughter from meeting more often, as the visiting rights ordered by the courts were only a minimum."], "id": "a7c9c466-f180-4331-a914-1aa1175e56bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant claimed that there had been a continuing violation of his right to . On many occasions he had asked to be allowed to see his daughter without the presence of his former wife and the court-appointed guardian, however to no avail. He had repeatedly instituted several sets of proceedings aimed at providing him with the opportunity to have regular contacts with M. He further claimed that the child\u2019s mother had a negative influence on M. As a result, emotional ties between them loosened and he became in fact excluded from the process of bringing up his child. He concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8 in this respect."], "id": "3745421d-d9db-4469-bdf1-3d2a2620c891", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicants alleged that the disappearance of their relative had amounted to a violation of their right to . They also complained that the search carried out at their house on 4 February 2003 had been illegal and constituted a violation of their right to respect for their home. It thus disclosed a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. They also referred to the unlawful seizure of their property during the search and relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles provide as follows:"], "id": "528adc0b-95fd-4cd4-8ccf-de486a6f5885", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["129. The Government denied that there existed a structural problem concerning refusal of residence permits to HIV-positive non-nationals or declaring their presence undesirable in Russia. They firstly emphasised that, to this day, the Kiyutin judgment had remained the only judgment finding a violation of a foreign national\u2019s right to and of the prohibition of discrimination. The Government relied on a selection of approximately sixty cases in which the Russian courts granted challenges by HIV-positive non-nationals against the Federal Migration Service\u2019s and Consumer Protection Authority\u2019s decisions refusing them residence permits or declaring their presence undesirable. The courts had taken into account the individual circumstances of each case, including the duration of the non\u2011national\u2019s residence, the lawfully contracted marriage, the ages of any children, the absence of housing or family links in the country of origin, and so on."], "id": "2e2feb65-104d-4d68-9de8-f42f8c9a03d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the decision rendered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal did not constitute an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to . In this connection, the Government pointed out that at the time of the second applicant\u2019s removal, the first applicant had not had sole custody rights and the two spouses had not lived together since 23 January 2008, when a restraining order was issued against the first applicant. Furthermore, the Government pointed out that the first applicant had breached the restraining order."], "id": "838771ce-9049-40cc-af77-4e18414c6ce0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicants submitted that the German authorities had interfered with the applicants\u2019 right to not only by partially withdrawing parental authority and transferring those rights to the youth office but also by enforcing the decision and placing their children in a children\u2019s home for three weeks. Those interferences had not pursued a legitimate aim \u2013 in particular they had not aimed at the protection of the health, rights and freedoms of the children \u2013 as the children had been schooled and the removal from their parents and their family home had harmed them instead of protecting them. Moreover, the interferences had also not been necessary in a democratic society. Firstly, there had not been sufficient evidence of any risk to the children, let alone relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the removal and withdrawal of parental authority. Secondly, the authorities had not acted in the best interest of the children but had merely acted to prevent home schooling and to enforce the rules on compulsory school attendance. Thirdly, the authorities had not attempted less intrusive measures, had not worked towards reunification of the family and had not transferred the parental rights back to the applicants as soon as possible. Lastly, the decisions of the authorities had been based on misconceptions of home schooling and the wrong assumption that such schooling would lead to social isolation and a lack of education. These assumptions, however, had not been grounded in facts."], "id": "fa80716f-ca5c-4105-8f85-396c9bcd2b91", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant submitted that at the time of the child\u2019s birth he had no possibility to challenge his declaration of paternity as DNA tests were not widely used. The applicant referred to the Court\u2019s case-law stressing that required that biological reality should prevail over a legal presumption of paternity and that the domestic courts should have interpreted the existing legislation in the light of scientific progress (Tavl\u0131 v. Turkey, no. 11449/02, 9 November 2006)."], "id": "642abcd6-7fb8-4e27-9e8f-5dc76cbca15b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant\u2019s view on her right to was also disregarded by, for example, the Migration Service with reference to the fact that she had not seen her mother for four years; that it had been her mother\u2019s voluntary decision to send the applicant to Kenya; and that the applicant could still enjoy family life with her mother to the same extent as before. In the Court\u2019s view, however, the fact that the applicant\u2019s mother did not visit the applicant in Kenya, or that mother and child apparently had very limited contact for four years, can be explained by various factors, including practical and economical restraints, and can hardly lead to the conclusion that the applicant and her mother did not wish to maintain or intensify their family life together."], "id": "b7bfed3c-ee0f-4ac4-b79f-990d65f95808", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government denied that there had been interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 8. They made the point first of all that, in guaranteeing the right to , Article 8 presupposed the existence of a \u201cfamily\u201d. That concept encompassed on the one hand the relationship established by marriage and on the other the relationship between parents and their children. In particular, the latter relationship did not necessarily attract the protection of Article 8 without evidence of further elements of dependency. In the Government\u2019s view, the applicant had not provided evidence of a specific bond of dependency between herself and her adult son. The Government further submitted that, in immigration matters, Article 8 did not entail any general obligation on the part of the State to allow family reunification within its territory."], "id": "1aff7e9d-af6b-423c-b6d8-22df0c475f12", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government submitted that the decision rendered by the domestic courts did not constitute an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to . In any event, even if the Hague Convention proceedings did amount to an interference with the applicant\u2019s family life, that interference had a legal basis, namely Article 13 \u00a7 2 of the Hague Convention. It had also served the legitimate aim of protecting the children\u2019s best interests."], "id": "8be66322-a187-48ea-851e-a7c4655194e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government contested that argument. They argued that whereas the decision of 24 October 2011 had constituted an interference into the applicant\u2019s right to , it had been in accordance with the law, as it was based on the Foreigners Act and the Code of Administrative Offences. Furthermore, it was proportionate and \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d for the following reasons."], "id": "19587574-a0fb-4483-812c-ef80d7c8ad3c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant alleged that the revocation of her residence permit had adversely affected her right to , as it had deprived her of any legal basis to remain in Russia, made her liable to deportation with a five-year re-entry ban and disrupted her family life with her husband and minor child in Russia. She further submitted that the judicial review of the impugned measure by the domestic courts had not been attended by adequate procedural safeguards, as it had been limited in scope, had not been adversarial and had taken place after the measure had been carried out. Moreover, the courts had not conducted a meaningful balancing exercise between the national security interests and her right to respect for family life."], "id": "cf5f59bb-6ee6-4e32-962e-109f23997752", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant claimed that there had been a continuing violation of his right to . He had repeatedly instituted several sets of proceedings aimed at providing him with a possibility to have regular contacts with his son. Despite the fact that two court orders had been issued, none of them gave the applicant an effective opportunity to meet his son. He concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8 in this respect."], "id": "c99bff90-69f2-48c4-8b21-1f00f8b54954", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government considered that the AIT was correct to conclude that deportation would not interfere with the applicant\u2019s right to . They accepted, however, that deportation would constitute an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life but contended that the extent of the interference was limited. In particular, after deportation the applicant would be able to maintain his relationships with friends and family in the United Kingdom and would be able to continue attending church in Nigeria."], "id": "a381698b-4be9-4ced-bbd7-715fbc52e0ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants complained that the Migration Court of Appeal\u2019s decision not to grant the first, second and fourth applicants residence permits was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. They argued that although the third applicant was to be considered legally an adult, his health and development were at such a stage that he still had a right to with his parents."], "id": "7a64fdde-22f6-4ea1-901f-18f0c78e3701", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["154. The applicants complained that the search of their house carried out by Russian servicemen on 20 July 2004 breached their right to respect for their home. The fifth, seventh, eighth and tenth applicants complained that the killing of their father breached their right to . They relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "7887c7ef-e34b-4ddf-ab76-59ab9423cc58", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that Article 14 was not applicable in the present case. In their view, in S. v. the United Kingdom (no. 11716/85, Commission decision of 14 May 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 47, p. 274) and R\u00f6\u00f6sli v. Germany (no. 28318/95, Commission decision of 15 May 1996), the Commission had indicated that the protection of the family was a legitimate aim capable of justifying a difference in treatment and that a stable homosexual relationship between two men did not fall within the scope of the right to guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The Commission had also found that the deportation of an alien who was in a same-sex relationship with a person in the host State did not amount to an interference with the right guaranteed by that provision (see X and Y v. the United Kingdom, no. 9369/81, Commission decision of 3 May 1983, DR 32, p. 223; W.J. and D.P. v. the United Kingdom, no. 12513/86, Commission decision of 13 July 1987; and C. and L.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 14753/89, Commission decision of 9 October 1989)."], "id": "203252a6-9b63-4f7d-a911-26fbc1c5a4fa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant argues that the denial of citizenship prevented him from spending an unlimited time in Malta, which he could have devoted to fostering a relationship with his biological father. However, the Court notes that there currently exists no family life between the applicant and his father, who has evinced no wish or intention to acknowledge his son or to build or maintain a relationship with him. The Court finds that, in these circumstances, the denial of citizenship cannot be said to have acted as an impediment to establishing family life or otherwise to have had an impact on the applicant\u2019s right to . However, as the Court has observed above, even in the absence of family life, the denial of citizenship may raise an issue under Article 8 because of its impact on the private life of an individual, which concept is wide enough to embrace aspects of a person\u2019s social identity. While the right to citizenship is not as such a Convention right and while its denial in the present case was not such as to give rise to a violation of Article 8, the Court considers that its impact on the applicant\u2019s social identity was such as to bring it within the general scope and ambit of that Article."], "id": "7e078b5d-9d52-4050-a2c4-2e781732a268", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["99. The applicants submitted that they had no effective remedy for their above-mentioned complaints. The local authority complaints' mechanism and local government ombudsman had already been found by the Court not to be effective remedies in these circumstances (T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, ECHR 2001\u2011V (extracts)). They saw no reason why the courts should not have recognised a duty of care as existing before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force and submitted that their approach violated the applicants' Convention rights. They also pointed out that, even following the Human Rights Act, its provisions could not help parents who had to rely on the law of negligence as opposed to section 7 to vindicate their Convention rights. As regards the second applicant, it was not necessary to show damage in order to be a victim; therefore, in order for Article 8 to have been violated, it was not necessary to show the very specific kind of clinically diagnosed psychiatric damage required in English law. He had been entitled to a determination that the local authority had breached his right to and also the possibility of obtaining an enforceable award for compensation, yet because he could not demonstrate a recognised psychiatric disorder, he was unable even to obtain a determination that his rights had been violated. This deprived him of access to an effective remedy."], "id": "225192cd-0e2b-4f52-a455-d7f1562bd9b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicants complained that the German authorities had violated their right to as provided in Article 8 of the Convention by withdrawing parts of parental authority (Entzug von Teilen des elterlichen Sorgerechts) \u2013 including the right to determine the children\u2019s place of residence (Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrecht) \u2013, by transferring these parts to the youth office and by executing the withdrawal in the form of forcibly removing the children from the applicants and placing them in a children\u2019s home for three weeks. Article 8 reads as follows:"], "id": "76fdbf95-6562-45ef-98bc-54fbcc552d91", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["111. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention were intrinsically linked to her complaint about her right to , and thus did not merit a separate examination. The Government also pointed out that the applicant had not raised the issue of the absence of an oral hearing before the Supreme Court, and thus this complaint was inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies."], "id": "6c85dd38-bcd7-44a5-987c-42df949af6b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government noted that the respondent State's positive obligation, which was inherent in the effective , was not absolute. Referring to the Court's case-law, they admitted that domestic measures hindering the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company amounted to an interference with the rights under Article 8 of the Convention. Such interference constituted a violation of that provision unless it was \u201cin accordance with law\u201d, pursued an aim or aims that were legitimate under paragraph 2 of Article 8 and could be regarded as \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. The Government further stressed that in assessing whether or not a refusal of access to the non-custodial parent was in conformity with Article 8, the interests of the child predominated."], "id": "b845ff4e-1898-4c0a-a090-5ec4fb71243e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government then submitted that, while acknowledging that the States enjoyed a margin of appreciation regarding the protection of the traditional family, in 2010 the Court had started examining under Article 8 of the Convention forms of cohabitation between same-sex couples (see, inter alia, Kozak v. Poland, no. 13102/02, 2 March 2010). In the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (no. 30141/04, ECHR 2010) the Court had acknowledged that same-sex couples could rely on their right to , but pointed out that the Convention did not guarantee them the right to marry. It had also observed that where a State chose to provide same-sex couples with an alternative means of recognition, it enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation as regards the exact status conferred (see, inter alia, Gas and Dubois v. France, no. 25951/07, \u00a7 66, ECHR 2012)."], "id": "945d7e64-5b14-4963-99a4-ad7cc92b4ec8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government considered that the applicant had only lawfully lived in Lithuania since 12 March 2001, when he had been issued with a visa. That is to say, he and his wife had only lawfully lived together for slightly more than a year before the authorities decided not to renew his residence permit. Given the short time the applicant had spent in Lithuania, he could not have developed close personal, social and economic ties in the country. The applicant\u2019s wife was a Lithuanian citizen and, in her passport, her nationality was indicated as Lithuanian, not Armenian. Moreover, when the Migration Department adopted the decision to deport the applicant to Azerbaijan, there had been no military conflict with Armenia, that conflict having ended in 1994. Therefore it was possible to preserve the family unit by establishing the family\u2019s residence in Azerbaijan. It follows that the applicant\u2019s deportation to Azerbaijan had not interfered with his right to ."], "id": "04745b73-e262-46cd-9b26-abb812e08cb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicants contended that the proceedings in Romania had resulted in an interference with their rights to . In particular, the applicants argued that the hearings and the drafting of the Romanian courts\u2019 judgments had taken an excessive length of time, in breach of the Hague Convention. The Bucharest County Court had postponed the enforcement of its judgement for three months and the written version of that judgment was rendered three months after its delivery, leaving the applicants unable to appeal during this period. The overall length of the proceedings had thus largely exceeded the six weeks provided for under the Hague Convention and the Regulation."], "id": "d9cf21ac-24be-4d08-8903-302792df9d04", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant submitted that he had been treated differently due to his religious convictions in respect of the enjoyment of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention from other persons seeking access rights to their children following divorce or separation. In particular, he submitted that the domestic authorities\u2019 decision withdrawing his access rights in respect of his son on the basis of his religious beliefs had amounted to an unjustifiable interference with his right to ."], "id": "4b1a5c42-c005-489e-b6eb-a5a61d38fedb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained that he had been denied both short and long-stay visits during his time in the Khabarovsk remand prison and that, in the IK-56 facility, the number of visiting family members had been limited to two adults and short visits were conducted in the presence of a prison officer through a glass partition. The Court has established that denial of visits, separation barriers and other restrictive arrangements amount to an interference with the right to (see Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, \u00a7 247, 9 October 2008, and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, \u00a7 38, 13 February 2018). It remains to be seen whether they were applied \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d, pursued one or more of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, were \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "6fb32e13-d1e1-4895-b7d5-974556cf9c5c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["135. The applicants alleged that the disappearance of their relative had amounted to a violation of their right to . They also complained that the search carried out at their house on 11 January 2003 had been illegal and constituted a violation of their right to respect for their home. It thus disclosed a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. They also referred to the unlawful seizure of their property during the search and relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles provide as follows:"], "id": "d7795ce3-694e-4da3-adf4-46b9691bf5c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant argued that the decision to revoke his permanent residence permit and to order his expulsion constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to . He submitted that the criminal courts were of the opinion that the homicide he committed and his guilt were not serious as they sentenced him to five years and three months\u2019 imprisonment while the maximum penalty possible was twenty years\u2019 imprisonment. Moreover, he was twenty years old at the time he committed that offence on which the expulsion order was mainly based. The circumstances of the offence, a car race, were typical of an offence committed by adolescents. He claimed that he had matured since, also due to a therapy he underwent and relied on expert reports stating that there was a low risk that he would reoffend. The applicant emphasised that he had not offended in the years between the commission of the offence in 2000 and the commencement of his prison sentence in 2006 and that he served his sentence in a semi-custodial regime (offener Vollzug). All of these factors bore testimony to the fact that he did not constitute a threat to public safety. He also argued that the length of time between the commission of the offences in 2000 and the first service of the expulsion order in 2009 had to be taken into account."], "id": "44af9d8f-0a28-48a3-8d65-c802e0631bfb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant alleged a violation of his right to on account of the lack of practical opportunities for prison visits stemming from the decision to allocate him to a remote penal facility and his subsequent inability to obtain a transfer elsewhere. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:"], "id": "8ccbc69f-66c3-4140-8864-6d2a02c9c6a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government acknowledged in general terms that there had been interference with the applicants\u2019 right to under Article 8 of the Convention. They submitted that the lawfulness and necessity of the decision to annul the first applicant\u2019s residence permit had been duly examined by the domestic courts. The numerous administrative infractions by the first applicant had provided grounds for his exclusion. The domestic courts had found that he \u201chad not demonstrated loyalty to Russian law and order, had violated Russian laws, and had systematically and intentionally committed administrative violations, including those representing danger to third persons; [such behaviour] had shown that the decision to annul the residence permit had been justified, fair, proportionate and had not contradicted the case-law of the European Court\u201d. The first applicant had committed eighteen administrative infractions during the last three years that he had been living in Russia. The Government stressed that the procedural guarantees under Article 8 of the Convention had been complied with, which had been \u201cverified by [an] independent court\u201d."], "id": "6ca91865-bf1b-4cb0-8123-75eab5746cd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant alleged that the proceedings before Baden District Court, which ended with the decision of 17 February 2006, had, in a number of ways, breached his right to , as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. He claimed in particular that the court had clearly exceeded the six-week time-limit for reaching a decision on the child's return, as provided for by Article 11, second paragraph, of the Hague Convention, especially because it had merged the proceedings concerning the child's return with the divorce proceedings. He further claimed that the domestic courts had obliged him to prove, contrary to the clear wording of Article 13, first paragraph, of the Hague Convention, that he had not consented to the child's retention in Switzerland. He thus relied on Article 8 of the Convention, of which the relevant part reads as follows:"], "id": "1262a197-96d4-4126-a448-89de512950c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained that the denial of his access rights in respect of his son had been based on his adherence to the religious denomination Hit Gy\u00fclekezete, amounting to a differential treatment in respect of the enjoyment of his right to . He claimed in this respect a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention, both taken alone and read in conjunction with Article 14."], "id": "ca16454f-10f3-4894-8545-40acb78e0d92", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government argued that termination of parental status was compatible with the Convention where it had been proved that a child\u2019s \u201clegal\u201d father was not the biological father. According to the Court\u2019s case-law, required that biological and social reality should prevail over a legal presumption of paternity (the Government cited Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, \u00a7 40, Series A no. 297\u2011C, and Shofman v. Russia, no. 74826/01, \u00a7 44, 24 November 2005). Furthermore, the decision to terminate the applicant\u2019s parental status in respect of A. had had a basis in domestic law, namely Article 52 \u00a7 1 of the Family Code (see paragraph 40 above), which did not set any time-limit for bringing an action contesting the paternity of a child."], "id": "57748d77-7db3-46b1-be06-1461bcbb3fe6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government excluded the latter possibility, contending that the guarantee of the right to under Article 8 presupposed the existence of a family (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31). Although the case-law did not require cohabitation between the various members of the \u201cfamily\u201d, there had to be at the very least close personal ties. The existence of ties demonstrating an emotional relationship between two beings and a desire to pursue that relationship was essential so far as the Convention institutions were concerned. The Convention institutions had even held that in the absence of close personal ties between those concerned a mere biological link was insufficient to constitute family life within the meaning of Article 8. Thus, the Commission had expressed the opinion that the situation in which a person donated sperm only to enable a woman to become pregnant through artificial insemination did not of itself give the donor a right to respect for family life with the child (see M. v. the Netherlands, no. 16944/90, Commission decision of 8 February 1993, Decision and Reports 74, p. 120). In the instant case, the Government maintained that no family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention existed between the applicant and her natural mother, as the applicant had never met her mother, while the latter had at no point expressed any interest in the applicant or regarded her as her child. The applicant's natural mother had expressly manifested an intention to abandon the applicant and had agreed to her adoption by others. Only the applicant's family life with her adoptive parents could come within the scope of Article 8."], "id": "d61f5ab6-0086-40e6-8708-4cb8dc22ee10", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["190. The Government submitted that the applicant had been arrested in Russia following the extradition request by the Uzbek authorities, which had wanted him on criminal charges. The Government argued that extraditing the applicant, who had no Russian nationality, would not breach his right to , as it was aimed at the fulfilment by Russia of its international obligations under the Minsk Convention in matters of extradition. Thus, execution of the extradition order would be justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "8626549c-0c72-41d8-88b1-ddb6ea2c9c61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants complained that their right to had been violated by their separation from their child, that their right to moral and physical integrity under the private life aspect had been violated, that their right to reputation had been violated, affecting their right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and that they had been deprived of the right to have inherent procedural safeguards in place and observed to ensure the protection of the above rights. Article 8 of the Convention provides as relevant:"], "id": "842d77ec-447d-4ce2-9e69-8a2081bfdfbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government submitted that the adoption of the applicant's daughter by S.A. had been carried out in accordance with pertinent provisions of the Family Code. The applicant had not been involved in the upbringing of his daughter; he had, of his own will, moved far away from her. Thus, he had himself created the circumstances under which his consent for adoption had not been necessary. S.A. had been supporting and taking care of the applicant's daughter for about three years by the time the court rendered its judgment allowing adoption. A close relationship had developed between S.A. and A., the latter thinking of S.A. as her own father. The severance of these ties would have led to a violation of their right to , guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The adoption had been in the best interest of the child. In the Government's submission the courts had legitimately given priority to the child's interests over the interests of the applicant."], "id": "cc1d97e0-6c08-4eea-a1fe-43d9f543852f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["90. The applicant replied that he had been applying to different institutions, such as the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry, to help him to gain access to his daughter. Given that the national authorities had failed to enforce the contact order issued by them, he had seen no other possibility than to apply to the Court. Moreover, in his view, the domestic authorities had for fifteen years continuously violated his right to . The applicant claimed that a civil action for damages would only have added to that period another ten years of additional litigation. Lastly, he pointed out that the Court had frequently stressed the need to apply the exhaustion rule with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism."], "id": "fc6d2889-5109-4fbc-b1ef-c4d6a570df36", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant submitted that the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act, read in conjunction with section 235(1)(2) of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code, and the decisions of the domestic courts had infringed her right to as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "308d8b1b-be67-4707-b3b2-7f0239c1fb43", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to under Article 8 of the Convention. They submitted that the lawfulness of the decision and the necessity to revoke the applicant\u2019s residence permit had been duly examined by the domestic courts, which had found that the measure had been imposed by the proper authority and that the relevant procedure had been complied with. The interference had been lawful, had had a legitimate aim and had been necessary and proportionate; the public interests had been duly balanced against the private interests of the applicant. The Government illustrated the proportionality of the interference, referring to the case of Lupsa v. Romania (no. 10337/04, \u00a7 10, ECHR 2006\u2011VII), and stating that the five-year re-entry ban which could have been imposed on the applicant did not appear unreasonable in comparison with the ten-year ban imposed on the applicant in Lupsa on similar grounds."], "id": "174026b4-bee1-4707-a10f-cdb3b6dd4a77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for family life", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that the limitation on the number of prison visits had been based on section 18 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act and had been proportionate to the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder and crime because the applicant had been held in custody on account of the gravity of the charges against him and his capacity for obstructing the establishment of the truth. Glass partitions were fitted in accordance with the Rules of Internal Order in Remand Prisons and served to prevent any objects from being passed between detainees and visitors and also to protect visitors from spontaneous dangerous acts on the part of detainees, as well as for the reasons of hygiene, to stifle the spread of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. In the Government\u2019s view, removal of partitions would require a greater number of supervising officers and a closer monitoring of detainees and visitors. This would probably reduce the privacy available to them and bring about a more serious interference with their right to ."], "id": "3f38d761-de65-4e27-93ac-84064e0827af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicant did not assert that the decisions by the authorities to take her two minor children into care had not been based on a provision of statute law or had not pursued a legitimate aim. There is no indication in the case file that the first of these requirements, as interpreted in the Court\u2019s case-law, was not satisfied. Neither is there any evidence that the measures taken were not designed to achieve a legitimate aim, namely the or of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "02c2fed3-e9fe-417e-8cdf-a68bc9bdd22d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government acknowledged that the use of closed overalls amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private life. The interference had a basis in national law, especially in Section 9d of the Act on Execution of Sentences and in other orders and rules in force at the relevant time, and it pursued the legitimate aims of public safety, prevention of disorder or crime and and rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "ff784626-0357-4ab8-b11d-ee293c556ec4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the decision to deport the applicant was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, namely, the and morals and the prevention of disorder and crime. The Government relied on the Court\u2019s jurisprudence, which had recognised the serious nature of drugs offences and found that they were capable of justifying \u201cgreat firmness\u201d on the part of the State (El Bouja\u00efdi v. France, 26 September 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VI; Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, ECHR 1999\u2011VIII; Dalia v. France, 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011I)."], "id": "cac2cc8c-1807-473d-bd0a-e3fae9a506bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government replied that the reason for the refusal to record the particulars of the US birth certificates in the French register of births, marriages and deaths was that this would have given effect to a surrogacy agreement, which was formally forbidden under a domestic public-policy provision and constituted a punishable offence if performed in France. French law accordingly reflected ethical and moral principles according to which the human body could not become a commercial instrument and the child be reduced to the object of a contract. In their submission, the \u201clegitimate aims\u201d of the interference were the prevention of disorder or crime, the and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. They added that the reason the public prosecutor\u2019s office had requested that the particulars of the birth certificates of the third and fourth applicants be recorded was precisely to enable it to request subsequently that these entries be annulled. In doing so it had complied with Article 511 of the general circular on civil status of 11 May 1999, which prescribed automatic registration where public policy was concerned, particularly where it was necessary to annul a civil-status document concerning a French national that had been drawn up abroad in accordance with local procedures."], "id": "870631be-64e5-4875-9d4d-99fc3cef41b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government acknowledged that the impugned measures interfered with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life but submitted that they were \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and pursued the and morals of the children in question, namely to provide them with stable and safe living conditions and secure their development. They further submitted that the measures were necessary in a democratic society. They pointed out that the national authorities had the benefit of contact with the persons concerned and that a parent was not entitled under Article 8 to have measures taken which would harm a child\u2019s health or development."], "id": "0d7d59a1-a91e-4ef6-91cd-e92588742877", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["207. The Government accepted that the forced medication of the applicant had interfered with her right to respect for her private life. It had, however, pursued the legitimate aim of and the rights and freedoms of others. The impugned measure had been based on law, namely section 8 of the Mental Health Act, which had been both accessible and foreseeable. The Government also contended that the impugned measure had been necessary in a democratic society and that it fell, in any case, within the margin of appreciation accorded to the State."], "id": "aa52815d-c39f-4f11-8c17-6e9d07df6fbb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant challenged the submission that the ban in question satisfied the condition laid down in paragraph 2 of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention of necessity in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of disorder, the or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. With regard to the aim of \u201cliving together\u201d in a democratic society, it was the opposite reasoning \u2013 that of openness and tolerance \u2013 which should take precedence in a pluralist democratic society as was evidenced by the tolerance that there had always been of dress codes rejecting the living together principle. At best, it could be regarded as a praiseworthy political objective, but one that could not be achieved by some stigmatising by-laws that were contrary to the Convention. In her submission, the factors justifying the ban on safety grounds had been advanced exclusively with regard to the full-face veil, were non-existent and the real aim being pursued by the by-laws was the prohibition of the full-face veil in public places. She argued, lastly, that the issue of dignity and gender equality was irrelevant to justification on grounds of \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d since the exercise of the freedom and wishes of women themselves was hindered."], "id": "ed876170-ad2c-41e8-bda0-0d84ae487741", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government argued that, by carrying out the actions in dispute, the State had fulfilled its positive obligation under Article 8 in pursuing the legitimate aim of the and rights of its citizens. The authorities had acted in full compliance with the legislation then in force, which provided that the Ministry of Healthcare was entitled to request material from the Committee for Healthcare of the Administration of St Petersburg, and the Committee had a corresponding duty to submit to the Ministry detailed information in response. The Government referred to: the Regulations on the Ministry of Healthcare, approved by decision no. 284 of 9 April 2002 of the Government of the Russian Federation (see paragraph 28 above); the Regulations on the Committee for Healthcare, approved by order no. 46-r of the Governor of St Petersburg of 23 December 1996 (see paragraph 29 above); decree no. 2534-VII of 12 April 1968 of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR on the examination of complaints lodged by individuals (see paragraph 30 above); and the Regulations on the System of Departmental Control over the Quality of Medical Treatment, approved by joint order no. 363/77 of the Ministry of Healthcare and the Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund of 24 October 1996 (see paragraph 31 above)."], "id": "47838778-20ed-4ba4-a0a0-574d8f452a1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government argued that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their family life was justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It was prescribed by law, namely by Sections 176 and 176a of the Civil Code, and it pursued legitimate aims, namely the or morals and of the rights and freedoms of the second applicant."], "id": "bba64798-b3ed-409b-9c6e-801dcb2f87e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government emphasised that, in order to safeguard the public interest in the and life, one of the primary tasks of the State was to ensure and maintain a certain standard and quality of health care, regardless of whether it was provided on a public or private basis. The State should not therefore be forced to allow a form of health care which they did not consider safe."], "id": "30457a32-1e38-4f8b-bbbf-3e763093b093", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the applicant\u2019s circumstances were not capable of coming within the ambit of private life under Article 8 of the Convention as the provision did not provide a right to choose the country in which a person sought to reside and work without regard to that country\u2019s immigration laws. Even assuming that the applicant had established private life in the United Kingdom and that it had been interfered with, such interference was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim, namely the maintenance and enforcement of immigration control, inter alia, for the preservation of the economic well\u2011being of the country, the and morals and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and was proportionate in the circumstances."], "id": "a5f45beb-3f44-444c-9d86-382270993034", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government accept that there has been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her family life as guaranteed by Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. However, the measure was justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2, being in accordance with the law - Section 176 of the Civil Code - and having pursued the legitimate aims of the or morals and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government further contend that the measure was necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 2 and that the Austrian authorities have not overstepped their margin of appreciation."], "id": "898f675f-133c-415c-9acb-62cd11716e0d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for home", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["98. The applicant also complained that Z. had unlawfully moved into the house which she had constructed and that the authorities had failed to evict and prosecute Z. for the alleged fraud. She also complained about the supervisory review proceedings of 13 September 2001, arguing that they breached her rights to under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "02556361-5d3f-4aac-ba61-10e78d912135", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for home", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government stated that the interference complained of in the present case had been in accordance with the law. The right to was recognised by the Constitution as a fundamental right and the Criminal Code envisaged substantial sanctions for those acting in violation of that right. The interference in question in the present case had been based on sections 139-47 of the Tax Procedure Act, which regulated in detail the search of business premises within the context of tax evasion and the procedure to be followed during and after such a search."], "id": "25d1577d-680d-453f-a4ed-8ab18ca37fba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for home", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant noted that there had clearly been an interference with her right to and correspondence, and that that interference had had a basis in Finnish law. However, the quality of that law was problematic. There existed no legal safeguards whatsoever in this respect. Since very strict limits were called for as regards the conduct of searches without a warrant, the law in question did not fulfil the \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d requirements, as established by the Court. When searches were conducted in law offices, the safeguards against arbitrariness had to be particularly strong. It did not make any difference whether the applicant herself was suspected of an offence or not. Professional secrecy applied to all material in a lawyer's possession regardless of the capacity in which he or she had obtained it. The fact that the search had been conducted in an attorney's office only made the need for effective legal safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness more apparent."], "id": "61a774df-4ee6-45e0-ba81-fd8e948ae9a6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for home", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant disagreed. She submitted that the authorities had been obliged to take positive measures to protect her against interferences with her right to and referred to the Court\u2019s findings in L\u00f3pez Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303\u2011C and McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307\u2011B. In the circumstances of the case it was the task of the public administration to act as an arbiter and find, by way of taking necessary active steps provided for by law, the proper balance between the applicant\u2019s interests and those of her neighbour, taking also into consideration the interests of the community. The authorities had failed to do so. In these circumstances, the applicant should not be obliged to have recourse to the available instruments of civil law."], "id": "7cdbfa9e-fc5e-4283-b673-ff655520b0b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for home", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant noted that there had clearly been an interference with her right to and that that interference had had a basis in Finnish law. However, the quality of that law was problematic. There existed no legal safeguards whatsoever in this respect. Since very strict limits were called for as regards the conduct of searches without a warrant, the law in question did not fulfil the \u201cin accordance with law\u201d requirements, as established by the Court. According to Finnish law, a search might be conducted if there was reason to suspect that an offence had been committed. The threshold for \u201creason to suspect\u201d was very low and was always considered to be fulfilled when the investigative authority so decided. There existed no possibility to challenge a decision to open an investigation and to obtain a decision from a court finding that there had been no reason to suspect a person of an alleged crime following a search of his home. Moreover, the applicant's telephone number had been and still was listed in the public telephone directory. However, the authorities did not try to contact her and she had thereby been deprived of her right to be present at the time of the search. Accordingly, it had not been performed in accordance with the national law."], "id": "cbe33896-0684-4fa9-8176-c75e9a4ecb43", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for home", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["108. The applicant further insisted that the occupation of his estate had been in breach of national law, including the Constitution of Russia and other legal acts. The applicant stressed that none of the domestic legal instruments referred to by the Government allowed occupation of private property and housing during a counter-terrorist operation. In particular, the only limitation provided for by the Law on Suppression of Terrorism with regard to the right to and property was that enshrined in section 13 (1.4), which enabled State agents to access housing and other premises or land belonging to individuals or organisations \u201cwhile suppressing a terrorist act or pursuing persons suspected of committing such an act, when a delay may entail a real risk for human life or health\u201d. The applicant pointed out that the said legal provision did not provide any grounds for the State's occupation of private property for any period of time."], "id": "13841db9-fc7b-4d4c-92ff-139f45e8a836", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government, for their part, submitted that if the search carried out at the applicant\u2019s home had constituted an interference, it had been in accordance with the law, namely Articles 100-110 of the RCCP (see paragraph 46 above). The measure had been necessary, as it had related directly to the needs of the investigation, and proportionate to the legitimate aim of the . It had also involved appropriate procedural safeguards, being issued by a judge and therefore subjected to judicial scrutiny. The search had been based on a reasonable suspicion and its scope had been reasonably limited. Furthermore, it had been carried out in the presence of independent observers (the Government cited Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 65755/01, \u00a7 38, 22 May 2008)."], "id": "49f54765-bdd2-4304-9db6-9280dab90d46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government agreed that the search and seizure at the applicant's home constituted an interference within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. Because of the urgency of the matter, the search had been conducted on the basis of an order given orally by an officer with power of arrest only a few hours after the arrival in Finland of persons suspected of illegally entering the country. It had been necessary to conduct the search immediately to verify whether there had been other such persons in the applicant's home, and to ensure that no evidence of an offence had been destroyed. Therefore, in the Government's view, there had been a justified reason, as required by Chapter 5, section 5, subsection 2, of the Coercive Measures Act, to conduct the search at 10 p.m. The search had been performed for the purposes of the and it had therefore pursued a legitimate aim. It had not been possible to inform the applicant about the possibility to be present during the search as neither her telephone number nor that of her counsel had been known to the officers. The applicant had, however, been immediately informed about the search by a hand-written note left in her apartment, mentioning, inter alia, the contact details of the officers who had carried out the search. The written search warrant and the records of the seizure had been communicated to the applicant as soon as she had been located for the purposes of questioning, namely a day and a half after the search. The search and seizure had thus been carried out in accordance with the law."], "id": "3380380f-8d73-4936-a3f9-5ad65697b5ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government submitted that even assuming that there has been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to private life in the present case, such interference was prescribed by the law and it was necessary in a democratic society, as it was aimed at the protection of public order, namely the , at protecting health and the rights and liberties of others."], "id": "290cb441-0f8c-4100-bbfa-75aa8f12aaa7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government noted that the necessity of the measure had been assessed twice, with a possibility of rejection \u2013 first by the Attorney General and subsequently by the Vilnius Regional Court. The contested operational measure had been necessary and had been applied in the interests of national security, public safety and the . The authorities had had operational information about the applicant\u2019s possible involvement in criminal activities. The applicant had close connections with J.B. and persons from J.B.\u2019s milieu. Most importantly, in the course of the operational investigation in respect of J.B., the authorities had learned about his threats to the State President. That information had later been confirmed when intercepting the applicant\u2019s telephone conversation with J.B., in which the latter used psychological pressure and demanded that his requirements be reported to the head of State. Subsequently, J.B. had been convicted of having threatened the State President. The Government also observed that both J.B. and the applicant had had close relations with the State President and had played a significant role in the political activities of the President\u2019s political party and his electoral campaign; at the time of surveillance the applicant had been a member of the Vilnius City Municipal Council. In this connection the Government also referred to the Court\u2019s judgment in Craxi v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 25337/94, \u00a7 64, 17 July 2003), submitting that politicians inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny by both journalists and the public at large. Therefore, even acknowledging that no investigation had been carried out by the SSD in order to reveal the circumstances in which the journalists had obtained the recording of the intercepted conversation, the question of fulfilment of the State\u2019s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention could not arise."], "id": "1530ce6a-902a-472b-9e16-7f9346d5be7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government submitted that any interference was \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d in that it fell within section 163 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (\u201cthe 1994 Act\u201d) and section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 (\u201cthe 1972 Act\u201d), both of which provisions complied with the Convention's \u201cquality of law\u201d requirements. They added that any interference pursued a legitimate aim: as accepted during the judicial review proceedings, the Council's intention in installing and operating the CCTV system and in disclosing footage to the media was the detection and , thereby securing public safety and private property."], "id": "dc1a66d3-eb58-42b3-8bd2-26d8e5ba2721", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government conceded that there was an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their family life. As to the applicants\u2019 allegation that the interference was contrary to the Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey, the Government pointed out that the Administrative Court had dealt in detail with this submission but dismissed it on the ground that the applicant had failed to show that he fulfilled the conditions set out therein. Further, the Government asserted that the residence ban at issue served the and was proportionate, having regard to the first applicant\u2019s convictions for shoplifting, theft and various administrative offences, and the consideration that his family life as established at the relevant time could not weigh very heavily in the balance. In particular, he was not a second generation immigrant and was well acquainted with the language and society of his country of origin."], "id": "2c1092ef-23da-4342-b561-b7fa22b82168", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government maintained that the interference pursued one or more legitimate aims: the , in so far as the first applicant\u2019s own safety was concerned by the bomb threats, and the interests of national security with regard to all the applicants. In each case the interference was moreover \u201cnecessary\u201d for the achievement of the legitimate aim or aims pursued."], "id": "9c5cadbf-7377-4f2f-8e3e-5c55f8ab7148", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicant also maintained that the search-and-seizure order had not pursued any legitimate aim because the documents seized had been readily available from other sources. According to the Government, the search had served the legitimate aim of identifying and collecting evidence in the criminal case. The Court is ready to proceed on the assumption that the order was issued with a view to finding and seizing documents that could be used for a handwriting assessment; this pursued an aim which was consistent with the Convention, namely the ."], "id": "45b88c54-192b-4d44-9ee7-f319f13e20cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government also alleged that the applicant\u2019s father had, on the applicant\u2019s instructions, assisted him in removing incriminating evidence in relation to the crime for which he was serving a sentence at the time of his failure to return from home leave. Accordingly, they argued that the interference pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring public safety and the and disorder."], "id": "588561c4-d6a8-4685-a400-2304fccad8f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the interference in question had been prescribed by law and had pursued a number of legitimate aims, namely the protection of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, public order and . They also claimed that the restriction had been necessary in a democratic society because it had been carried out as a result of a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. They concluded that, in the exercise of their discretion, the prison authorities had decided not to allow the impugned letter to be sent outside."], "id": "0d2809d7-87ef-4db8-b7b4-6d9044420a1f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government submitted that the first applicant\u2019s expulsion would be justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 as being in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society. They emphasised that the applicant had been the subject of several criminal convictions and that his expulsion would pursue the legitimate aim of the and the protection of the rights of others."], "id": "fcd6f853-7f90-4115-a89a-0d62343f2b1a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government acknowledged that the use of this device interfered with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private life. They submitted that it was justifiable under the second paragraph of Article 8 as being necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the and/or for the protection of the rights of others. They referred, inter alia, to the serious nature of the crime under investigation, the fact that B. was regarded as being surveillance-conscious, rendering conventional forms of surveillance insufficient, and that the conversations proved that an armed robbery was being planned. They recalled, however, that in Khan v. the United Kingdom (no. 35394/97, \u00a7\u00a7 26-28, ECHR 2000-V), the Court found that the Home Office Guidelines governing such devices did not satisfy the requirement of \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and recognised that the Court was liable to reach the same conclusion in the present case."], "id": "02733a99-81b6-41b8-a485-6cb652bbf341", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government submitted that the prosecutorial requests for information had served the purpose of preventing criminal acts, and this was not challenged by the applicant. The Court accepts that the interference aimed to investigate a criminal act and thereby served the legitimate aims of the , the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and also the economic well-being of the country (compare M.N. and Others v. San Marino, cited above, \u00a775)."], "id": "8ada9771-f6d4-436e-ba1d-2805a098453c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government acknowledged that those who used the telephone had an expectation of privacy in respect of the numbers which they dialled and that obtaining detailed billing information concerning that telephone constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8. The obtaining of the information was, however, necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the and/or the protection of the rights of others, as the investigation concerned a very serious crime, the applicants had guns for use in the intended robbery and, as B. was surveillance-conscious, conventional surveillance would not suffice. The only use of the information was to corroborate the times recorded by police officers in respect of the covert listening device in the flat. "], "id": "55dfa7e2-81ed-4a04-878c-0c4bdbf07dad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government accepted, on the other hand, that the applicant enjoyed private life in the United Kingdom and that his deportation would represent an interference with that private life. However, that interference would be justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8, being in accordance with law and taken in pursuit of the legitimate aims of protecting public safety, the , and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government also contended that the interference was proportionate given the nature and seriousness of the applicant\u2019s offences, which were, for the most part, drugs offences, which the Government considered to be particularly grave given the issues of public protection that they raised. The Government pointed in particular to the fact that the applicant\u2019s last offence had been of sufficient gravity to attract a sentence of three years\u2019 imprisonment. The applicant had committed his offences when he was already an adult and his case could therefore be distinguished from that of the applicant in Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, 23 June 2008, whose offences by contrast could be characterised as \u201cjuvenile delinquency\u201d. The Government considered the young age at which the applicant had entered the United Kingdom and the fact that he had stronger ties with that country than with Nigeria to be relevant factors, but maintained that his deportation would have a relatively minor impact on the applicant given that he did not have family life in the United Kingdom and could re-establish private life in Nigeria. In this regard, the Government pointed to the applicant\u2019s good health, high intelligence and the fact that he had lived alone since the age of eighteen with little support. As such, and having regard to the importance of protecting the public from drugs-related crime, the Government were of the view that the applicant\u2019s deportation to Nigeria would represent a proportionate interference with his private life in terms of Article 8."], "id": "7e96823e-ef91-4d38-84c6-c3ec16e0fce1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his home. However, they considered it to have been in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention. The Government observed that the search of the applicant\u2019s home had been based on the judicial ruling of 19 May 2004 and that it had been necessary for the . While the aforementioned ruling had concerned a criminal investigation in respect of a different person, Mr B., it had become known to the investigator that the applicant might have been involved in the production and sale of illegal drugs. Accordingly, it had been legitimate to verify this information by way of a search. Lastly, the Government emphasised that the lawfulness of the search in question had been reaffirmed by the courts of three levels of jurisdiction in the course of the trial and appeal proceedings."], "id": "b4902332-4298-47c2-8643-e972f1363e22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prevention of crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted that the interference complained of was justified under Article 8 of the Convention. In their view, it was in accordance with the law and based on a reasonable suspicion that the first applicant had committed an offence, namely that he had been illegally distributing software. The first applicant had not been diligent in conducting his business, as was evident from the fact that he had already been warned by the police once and could have predicted the consequences of his behaviour. The Government went on to argue that the interference had the legitimate aim of and maintenance of fair competition. They claimed that the interference was also proportionate: the officers who had carried out the search and seizure had known where to search and what to search for, and the operation had been conducted in the presence of the applicants, a technician and two certifying witnesses. Also, the authorities had carefully listed the seized computers in the search-and-seizure record, retained the computers in accordance with the law and in connection with the ongoing criminal proceedings, and the content of the computers had not been made public. Furthermore, the approval of the record by the court had been an important safeguard and had served as a guarantee for the justification of the measure. Lastly, the Government pointed out that unlike the cases of Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria (no. 65755/01, 22 May 2008), Kopp v. Switzerland (25 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II) and Heino v. Finland (no. 56720/09, 15 February 2011), the search-and-seizure operation had not touched upon any privileged material."], "id": "943b6971-e246-420f-8a5b-734134d18b7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Prevention of Crime", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["67. The applicant also considered the obligation to report suspicions incompatible with the lawyer\u2019s duty of loyalty to his clients, enshrined in the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Havana, Cuba, from 27 August to 7 September 1990, and Recommendation No. R. (2000) 21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member States on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer, of 25 October 2000. It was alien to the very role and aim of the lawyer, and undermined the relationship of trust between lawyer and client."], "id": "dbfc12aa-f492-4771-a438-410e1156a6dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["146. The Government insisted that the applicant\u2019s detention pending included only the period of time from 11 January 2010 to 11 January 2011. They argued that this period of detention was lawful as it was based on detention orders issued by competent courts. While deciding on the extension, the courts had taken into account the progress of the extradition proceedings against the applicant. In compliance with Article 463 \u00a7 4 of the CCrP, the domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction had swiftly examined the applicant\u2019s appeals against the extradition decision within a month."], "id": "cd9b5a9b-7ea6-429e-9dfc-1bdc0b4df65d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant maintained her complaint. She considered that the interference with her right to have family visits while in detention had not been in accordance with law and that the applicable law had lacked clarity, certainty and foreseeability as regards the authorisation of family visits in respect of people detained pending . She further argued that the interference had not pursued a legitimate aim. It had placed a disproportionate burden on her and had not been necessary."], "id": "4a0afe0f-309c-4c87-a645-cc1297fc0a06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicant further argued that the diplomatic assurances of the requesting State were insufficient to discard the risk of ill-treatment. First, there was no control mechanism at the domestic level which would allow tracking the authorities\u2019 compliance with the assurances and holding them liable in case of a breach. Second, the information sent by the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office to their Uzbek counterpart following the request, such as the applicant\u2019s intention to apply for asylum in Russia and his criticism of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, made him particularly vulnerable to a risk of political persecution. Lastly, as the Court had established in a number of cases concerning extradition to Uzbekistan, assurances from the Uzbek authorities could not offer a reliable guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment, given that the practice of torture there was described by reputable international sources as being systematic."], "id": "9c2b7a7a-60cb-400c-b828-4d3f02b8e7bb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["190. The Government submitted that the applicant had been arrested in Russia following the request by the Uzbek authorities, which had wanted him on criminal charges. The Government argued that extraditing the applicant, who had no Russian nationality, would not breach his right to respect for family life, as it was aimed at the fulfilment by Russia of its international obligations under the Minsk Convention in matters of extradition. Thus, execution of the extradition order would be justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention."], "id": "89ee567a-c951-48f8-a274-f2cab226d4f5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["191. The applicant argued that execution of the order against him would entail \u201csignificant and irreparable\u201d consequences to his relationship with his wife and children, especially his daughter who required health care in Russia. The extradition order and judicial review decisions had not properly taken into account various aspects relating to his family life. In particular, the appeal court provided no reasoning in response to his related arguments. His extradition would not pursue any of the aims set out in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the Government\u2019s reference to their other international obligations being insufficient to outweigh their obligations under Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "ab7d4165-0db6-4aec-b6c1-3ce0a7d9ad7f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["58. The applicants submitted that they had lived in Moldova together with their families for long periods of time. After their to Turkey their families had remained in Moldova without sources of income. Their families could not return to Turkey for fear of reprisals and therefore all contact with them had been interrupted. Thus, there had been an interference with their private and family lives. That interference had not been in accordance with the law because the law on the basis of which they were expelled from Moldova did not offer any guarantees against abuse and arbitrariness. Moreover, the interferences had not been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "a39d593d-b161-47b8-9c2d-e0bd9a3c62a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["145. The applicant also claimed that the domestic authorities had not displayed due diligence in conducting the proceedings, in particular from 3 February to 24 June 2010, when the said proceedings remained dormant. The domestic courts had failed to take into account the progress of the extradition proceedings. The Government had failed to provide reasons for the applicant\u2019s detention during this period."], "id": "88bb916b-25ed-4f8d-b1d2-fcd4c48bc79d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["112. The Government argued that the Russian authorities (the MFA, the FSB, the FMS and the courts) had duly examined the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment in the event of his to Uzbekistan and dismissed such allegations as unfounded. The Government referred to the FMS information notice and the report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, denying the practice of torture and ill-treatment in respect of detainees in Uzbek prisons and the existence of any internal or international conflict, which would pose a real threat to the applicant\u2019s life and freedom (see paragraph 68 above)."], "id": "ce5945e1-7714-4091-bbf7-994180354c59", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government also submitted specific examples of the use of DNA material for successful investigation and prosecution in some eighteen specific cases. In ten of these cases the DNA profiles of suspects matched some earlier unrelated crime-scene stains retained on the database, thus allowing successful prosecution for those earlier crimes. In another case, two suspects arrested for rape were eliminated from the investigation as their DNA profiles did not match the crime-scene stain. In two other cases the retention of DNA profiles of the persons found guilty of certain minor offences (disorder and theft) led to establishing their involvement in other crimes committed later. In one case the retention of a suspect\u2019s DNA profile following an alleged immigration offence helped his to the United Kingdom a year later when he was identified by one of his victims as having committed rape and murder. Finally, in four cases DNA profiles retained from four persons suspected but not convicted of certain offences (possession of offensive weapons, violent disorder and assault) matched the crime-scene stains collected from victims of rape up to two years later."], "id": "9956ef6d-bcef-4c00-981d-1b6fbd6af930", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["147. The Government also submitted that, pursuant to the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Russia, the provisions of Chapter 13 of the CCrP, in particular Articles 108 and 109, were fully applicable to persons detained with a view to under Article 466 \u00a7 1 of the CCrP. The applicant\u2019s placement into custody had been ordered in accordance with Article 108 of the CCrP. His detention had been repeatedly extended under Article 109 of the CCrP. The domestic courts had referred to these provisions in their decisions. Upon the expiry of the maximum authorised detention term under Article 109 of the CCrP, the applicant had been released. Hence, the applicable legislation had enabled him to estimate the length of his detention."], "id": "8e5fe54c-9d5d-4d9e-bed6-04066faf031b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government referred first of all to the Court\u2019s settled case-law relating to the deportation or of non-nationals, according to which the regularisation of an applicant\u2019s stay \u2013 even if the case was still pending before the Court \u2013 was sufficient in principle to remedy a complaint under Article 8 (the Government cited Pan\u010denko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 40772/98, 28 October 1999; Mikheyeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50029/99, 12 September 2002; Yang Chun Jin alias Yang Xiaolin v. Hungary (striking out), no. 58073/00, \u00a7\u00a7 20-23, 8 March 2001; and, most recently, Fjodorova and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 69405/01, 6 April 2006). In the Government\u2019s view, the Chamber had not only failed to follow that case\u2011law, but had also adopted a judgment which contradicted its own decision of 28 February 2002 in the present case (see paragraph 5 above). In its decision, the Chamber had rejected Mrs Vizule\u2019s complaints on the ground that she had been given the opportunity in the meantime to regularise her stay in Latvia."], "id": "8785f662-0a76-4f49-8101-f088fd0f7f46", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "extradition", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["144. The applicant argued that the term of detention pending had started running on 29 October 2009 when the court had first ordered his detention. Since the statutory twelve-month period of detention under Article 109 of the CCrP had thus expired on 29 October 2010, there had been no legal basis for his subsequent detention from 29 October 2010 to 11 January 2011. In the applicant\u2019s view, the legal provisions governing detention pending extradition did not provide him with an opportunity to estimate the maximum statutory period of detention. As a result, the domestic courts had construed and applied them in an arbitrary manner."], "id": "f8e2be53-aaa1-4c22-ae97-39e5d0c34e8c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for correspondence", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government submitted that it had not been confirmed that the impugned letter was indeed intercepted, and if so, whether it was intercepted and opened by the authorities. They referred to the fact that the notice on the envelope which indicated that the letter had been opened and read was not signed. Should the Court accept that this was indeed the case, the Government decline to take a stand as to whether this amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention."], "id": "1bd0cd95-cb50-4f5a-93b9-65a699bbd4f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "respect for correspondence", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government submitted that the restriction imposed on the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence by section 48 of the Bankruptcy Act was intended to \u201cachieve a fair balance between the public interest\u201d and the applicant's interest. It enabled the trustee in bankruptcy to obtain all the information that was relevant to establishing the bankrupt's financial situation in order to prevent him from concealing or diverting sums of money to the creditors' detriment. The legal basis for the limitation on the right to was included in the specific exceptions set out in paragraph 2 of Article 8 by the reference to the \u201cprotection of the rights ... of others\u201d. The Government stressed that the monitoring was temporary and not punitive. Moreover, the trustee in bankruptcy was under a statutory duty to send the bankrupt any correspondence that did not relate to his financial interests and to keep the content of his personal correspondence confidential."], "id": "6d3380f9-fbc4-4246-9365-4ff7d9e6c531", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of morals", "echr_article": "8", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government did not contest that the applicant\u2019s criminal conviction had interfered with his right to the enjoyment of his private and family life. They considered, however, that this interference had been justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 as being necessary in a democratic society in the interest of the prevention of disorder and for the ."], "id": "4820f397-29a5-4497-984e-72eb05ba7672", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicant maintained that the had not been \u201cnecessary in the democratic society\u201d because the domestic courts had failed to respect the principle of proportionality between the restriction of freedom of expression and the objective set out in Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In particular, he had been sanctioned for criticism of a member of the government in respect of whom the limits of acceptable criticism should be wider than in respect of a private individual. He further argued that a free political debate is the core concept of a democratic society, that the discussions about political issues deserve a greater protection than non-political discussions and that, consequently, the State has very narrow margins for restricting such expression. "], "id": "ac300fa5-ab12-4e08-bb64-e2bb401df78b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government further submitted that, as the Contracting States were under no obligation to accept a refusal to perform military service for religious reasons, non-exemption of a person from military or alternative civilian service did not raise any concerns under Article 9 of the Convention. In any event, the applicant's submissions did not indicate that the obligation to perform military or alternative civilian service entailed any concrete with his rights under Article 9."], "id": "07cfab95-ba33-4b8e-88de-318255a90110", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants submitted that the refusal by the domestic courts to examine the merits of the application for judicial review of the NRTC's decision had deprived them of an effective remedy. They referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria (cited above), and argued that the Supreme Administrative Court's holding that the competent bodies enjoyed unreviewable discretion when examining applications for licences had been contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which required a remedy allowing full examination of the necessity of the with their Article 9 and Article 10 rights."], "id": "88039ee2-fcbb-4c9e-824d-2c051c118af7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["52. The Government further claimed, as they did in the Kuznetsov and Others case, that the holding of the meeting on the premises of the Academy had been contrary to section 1 \u00a7 5 of the Education Act (cited in paragraph 23 above). Once again, this particular justification for the was not invoked before the domestic courts and was first put forward in the Strasbourg proceedings. In any event, it had already been examined and rejected by the Court in the Kuznetsov and Others judgment, in which the Court concluded that the Education Act expressly authorised educational establishments to rent out their premises (see paragraph 24 above) and that the provision on which the Government relied did not prohibit the physical use of college space by third parties, but rather the clericalisation of schools through the setting-up of religious structures involving students or staff (see Kuznetsov and Others, cited above, \u00a7 72). In the present case the service was held \u201cafter sundown\u201d, that is, outside normal academy hours, and there is no evidence that it interfered in any way with the educational process or involved college students or teachers. Thus, the Education Act could not serve as a legal basis for the interference."], "id": "97b25625-80f1-4c14-85c6-db01da28809b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["141. The Government stated that there had been no with the first applicant's right to teach religion. His deportation had not been a reaction against his religious classes - which had been lawful - but had been based on the assessment that his religious activities had constituted a thread to national security. Furthermore, Mr Al-Nashif had voluntarily abandoned teaching after service of the deportation order and would not be able to restart as new instructions issued by the Chief Mufti Office after his deportation prohibited religious instruction by persons lacking appropriate religious education. The Government further stated that religious freedoms in Bulgaria were guaranteed and that the authorities strictly adhered to the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of religious communities and regularly allowed visits by foreigners coming to teach religion."], "id": "859e2fad-9315-4df1-b246-ddc39833e898", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government further maintained that freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion or beliefs under Article 9 did not confer on the applicant communities or their members any entitlement to secure additional funding from the State budget. Nor did it entail a right to receive the State subsidies that were due to Churches as such. Therefore, the loss of such subsidies could not be regarded as with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 9 of the Convention."], "id": "f0a958c8-34d9-4d0d-9f81-335af353088d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government admitted that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they considered that such interference had been necessary in a democratic society and had been justified by the need to ensure public safety and to prevent any obstruction by the applicant of the investigation of the criminal case against him."], "id": "2393871b-cad5-4303-a754-c2269d855a35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government stated that the enactment of the 2002 Act and its implementation amounted to nothing more than recognition of the leadership of the Church, as determined by its own canons. Those canons enshrined the unity of the Church and prohibited alternative leaderships and divisions in organisational or property matters. In the Government\u2019s view the recognition of the canonical leadership of the Church by the State was an act of respect for its autonomy and canons, not with them. The third party was of the same opinion. The applicants disagreed (see paragraphs 86-99 above)."], "id": "cbab71d9-bc1b-4e0e-8a7f-8f07a0233269", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["143. The applicant submitted that the ban imposed by the public authorities on wearing the Islamic headscarf clearly constituted with her right to education, which had resulted in her being refused access to oncology examinations on 12 March 1998, prevented from enrolling with the university\u2019s administrative department on 20 March 1998, and refused access to a lecture on neurology on 16 April 1998 and a written examination on public health on 10 June 1998."], "id": "d48a29dc-7917-43ba-947c-7e985d39f898", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["148. The Government maintained, in line with their arguments under Article 3, that there had been no on the part of the State authorities in the exercise by the applicants of their various rights guaranteed under Article 9 of the Convention. The alleged incidents of violence had been committed by private individuals and the Government had reacted adequately, inter alia, by instituting criminal proceedings. They noted in this connection that between 1999 and 2003, fifty-three cases of religious incidents had been brought to the attention of the prosecutor\u2019s office and the bodies of the Ministry of the Interior. Only eight of those cases had been discontinued, while criminal proceedings had been brought in a further forty cases and a preliminary investigation was under way in another three. Nine prosecutions had been referred to the courts."], "id": "cd63fd75-cb8f-44a9-86de-120399ad3ea8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government claimed that the in the form of dissolution of the applicant community had been justified, prescribed by law and had also pursued a legitimate aim. They referred to the Court's position to the effect that the State was \u201centitled to verify whether a movement or association carries on, ostensibly in pursuit of religious aims, activities which are harmful to the population\u201d (Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, 26 September 1996, \u00a7 40, Reports 1996\u2011IV) and also \u201cmay legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct... judged incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others\u201d (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, \u00a7 47, Series A no. 295\u2011A)."], "id": "3e09b3fd-02e7-40d4-b17d-f57aef3e9c30", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicants stressed that the Government\u2019s suggestion that they should register as a new religious denomination was no answer to their grievances. The present case did not concern a refusal to register a new religious group but a State in an internal dispute within an existing religious denomination. The Government had misleadingly tried to represent the applicant organisation as usurpers of Church property, but omitted important facts such as the fact that the leaders and religious ministers of the applicant organisation had always been part of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and of its leadership, some of them for decades. Furthermore, many believers did recognise the applicant organisation as the legitimate leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Instead of helping the two wings in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to coexist peacefully, the authorities had decided to remove one of them and give its full support to the other."], "id": "1ad9a73d-515e-4ec1-919a-4bfa14c74724", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicants accepted that the in question was prescribed by the Religious Denominations Act. They asserted nevertheless that the procedure laid down by the Act had been misapplied, since the real reason for refusal to register had been political; the Government had neither submitted nor proved that the applicant Church had failed to comply with the laws of the Republic. "], "id": "426e9f85-5d6d-4859-bdc9-064d5c26d11d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicant association stated that its right to change religious orientation, as guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention, had been interfered with. There had been with its freedom of religion as the State had refused to register the changes and amendments to its statute for no legitimate reason as all the conditions for making the changes and amendments were met. Furthermore, the applicant association had been prevented from using the church premises it had built for its religious ceremonies and even from using its chosen name."], "id": "164effc5-552e-41a2-ab0d-6713fcb27508", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["65. The applicants further submitted that even if it was accepted that the scheme pursued a legitimate aim, it was disproportionate as it failed to take account of the different personal circumstances which could affect different individuals. In particular, they submitted that the level of the fee was too high and that the legislation made no provision for persons who could not pay the fee to be exempted. For the applicants, and for many others, the amount of the fee alone nullified the right to marry. The applicants submitted that in addition to the fee for the Certificate of Approval, couples wishing to marry had to pay a further GBP 103 for marriage formalities. In addition, if they wished to apply to UKBA for a change of immigration status, they would then have to pay a further sum of between GBP 465 and GBP 1020 (depending on the status sought and the service provided). The cumulative level of these fees was disproportionate and beyond the means of most of the immigrant population. The high fees charged for obtaining Certificates of Approval were therefore an inherent with the right to marry for the vast majority of those affected by the scheme, and not just \u201cthe poorest of the poor\u201d."], "id": "b958c0c3-360c-4aeb-828e-691fdfb44b4e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant association submitted that the domestic courts had not provided cogent reasons for their decisions. There had been no \u201cpressing social need\u201d which the impugned served. The crucial argument on which the domestic court\u2019s refusal to register the applicant association had rested was that the applicant association would violate the rights and freedoms of others, namely adherents of the MOC. Behind that argument lay the doctrine that no Orthodox church other than the MOC should be allowed to operate in the respondent State. That doctrine ran contrary to the respondent Government\u2019s duty of neutrality and impartiality and the principle of religious pluralism. Furthermore, it had not been alleged that the applicant association had engaged or intended to engage in any unlawful activities or had pursued any illegal aims. Accordingly, the interference with the applicant association\u2019s rights under this head was not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d."], "id": "bda24921-9905-4e88-86e4-afc77de48698", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government conceded that the refusal of the domestic courts to register the applicant association amounted to an with its rights under Article 11 of the Convention. However, the refusal had been lawful and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Furthermore, the reasons adduced by the courts had been relevant and sufficient. In this connection they submitted that the language used in the minutes of the constituent assembly (see paragraph 4 above) demonstrated that the applicant association was disrespectful of the MOC and offended the religious beliefs of its adherents."], "id": "5a5b842f-b780-42d3-9fc5-3f6e676e8a0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government submitted that in 2003 Armenia had enacted a law on alternative service as part of the commitments undertaken upon joining the Council of Europe. Unfortunately, it had transpired that there were a number of omissions in that law and inconsistencies with the European standards. However, in deciding on the applicants\u2019 criminal cases, the domestic courts had been bound to apply the law as in force at the material time. Referring to the findings of the Criminal Court of Appeal, the Government argued that the alternative labour service available at the material time had been of a civilian nature and contained only a few formal elements of military supervision in theory, not being directly controlled by the military in practice. Thus, the was legitimate and prescribed by law."], "id": "f9c95401-bfaf-45c5-9513-67e8263eb6c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government submitted that the impugned , if any, could be regarded as pursuing the legitimate aims of protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the protection of public order, within the meaning of Article 9 \u00a7 2, namely, by eliminating entities claiming to pursue religious ends but in fact striving only for financial benefits. The applicants contested this view."], "id": "87d81f76-2675-4c74-aa72-fa64dfb8a668", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted further that, as the Contracting States were under no obligation to accept a refusal to perform military service for religious reasons, non-exemption of a person from military or alternative civilian service did not raise any concerns under Article 9 of the Convention. In any event, the applicant\u2019s submissions did not indicate that the obligation to perform military or alternative civilian service entailed any concrete with his rights under Article 9."], "id": "0770e234-f69a-4283-8c9b-9b4e35926c40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government considered that this could be regarded as satisfying at least two of the legitimate aims provided for in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The family-affairs judge had certainly been required to take account of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, because the applicant\u2019s alcoholism had been considered as part of the cause of the violence he had been inflicting on his wife at the time, and the judge had also had a duty to protect the health and morals of the children, in respect of whom a right of visiting and staying contact had been granted to their father."], "id": "526f80a4-afd7-4679-96be-3686b63ae633", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants submitted that the refusal of the Austrian authorities to grant legal personality to the first applicant by conferring on it the status of a religious society recognised under the Recognition Act violated their right to freedom of religion. In particular, before July 1998, the first applicant could not have been established as a legal entity and, thus, could not have entered into legal relations, concluded contracts or acquired assets. The first applicant had, thus far, no internal autonomy, could not hire the necessary religious ministers and was not entitled to perform its pastoral work for believers in hospitals or prisons. The second to fifth applicants, as leading executives of the first applicant, were also limited in exercising their right to freedom of religion. Neither the Basic Law 1867 nor the 1998 Religious Communities Act provided explicitly for the internal autonomy of a religious community. The Constitutional Court had found (in its judgment of 3 March 2001, B1713/98 \u2013 see paragraph 34 above) that registered religious communities, unlike recognised religious societies, did not enjoy the right to comprehensive organisation and administration of their internal affairs without State . Lastly, the applicants contested that they would have had the possibility of forming an association under the Associations Act. They referred to the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding of 1929 (VfSlg. 1265/1929), confirming the administrative authorities\u2019 practice not to allow religious societies to form an association, and thus refusing the request of the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses (Ernste Bibelforscher) to set up an association. Thereafter the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses had not tried again to form an association, but auxiliary associations (Hilfsvereine) with specialised religious aims had been created. The two examples of associations submitted by the Government were likewise merely auxiliary associations. It was not until the enactment of the 2002 Associations Act that religious societies had been allowed to set up an association."], "id": "5f49fc6c-bba1-41e6-af1c-b62e39868931", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government submitted that the refusal to renew the applicant\u2019s contract had been necessary in a democratic society. The principle of the neutrality of public services required that employees could not wear any religious symbol, of any form, even if they did not engage in proselytism. In this connection they referred to the Court\u2019s case-law with regard to civil servants and their duty of discretion and choice of attire (specifically, Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, \u00a7 53, Series A no. 323, and Kurtulmu\u015f v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006\u2011II). They emphasised the particular importance of the principle of neutrality in the circumstances of this case, where it was difficult to assess the impact that a particularly visible external sign could have on the freedom of conscience of fragile and impressionable patients. The Government added that certain patients had specifically refused to meet the applicant, and that this situation had created a general climate of tension and difficulties within the unit, requiring the applicant\u2019s colleagues and some social workers to handle sensitive situations. It was in the light of this general climate that the CASH had taken the contested decision, after reminding the applicant on several occasions of the duty of neutrality, and not on account of the latter\u2019s professional skills, which had always been acknowledged. The Government considered that the contested decision had complied with the requirement to weigh up the interests at stake; it had been the consequence of the applicant\u2019s refusal to comply with the rules applicable to every public employee, of which she had been perfectly aware, and not, as she alleged, on account of her religious beliefs. Lastly, although the applicant\u2019s wearing of the religious symbol had been accepted by the hospital until 2000, this factor did not, in the Government\u2019s view, render the contested unnecessary. They reiterated that \u201cthe fact that an existing rule is applied less rigorously because of a specific context does not mean that there is no justification for the rule or that it is no longer binding in law\u201d (citing Kurtulmu\u015f, cited above)."], "id": "2a89a007-01c4-440c-bd50-ec1b0d4955b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["124. The Government responded that the applicants had not specified the particular ideas or matters of conscience which they wished to express. Accordingly, this aspect of the case was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. They had been convicted under Articles 68 and 70 of the Criminal Code for their anti-state activities not because of any manifestation of their beliefs. If there had been an under these Convention provisions, it was justified for the protection of national security, public order and the rights and freedoms of others, as well as for the prevention and punishment of crime. The applicants were not prosecuted for their political beliefs or communist party affiliations, but for their anti-state activities, in contravention of Article 17 of the Convention, against which the young democracy of Lithuania had been entitled to defend itself (cf. the aforementioned \u017ddanoka case, \u00a7 100)."], "id": "2a2662e5-6d4f-4677-b12d-fbcb52f033b8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government firstly argued that there had been no with the applicant\u2019s private life. The domestic courts had duly examined her claims but had found no \u201csubstantial evidence\u201d to hold that it had been possible to recognise her from the Srov\u0117s broadcast. In particular, for the Court of Appeal, there was a lack of features making it possible to confirm the applicant\u2019s identity during the broadcast. The Government also argued that the information provided by doctor D.\u0160. to the journalists had consisted of fairly abstract references to the applicant\u2019s studies for a master\u2019s in the United States, without giving details about those studies. It was fairly widely known in Lithuania at the relevant time that quite a lot of Lithuanian citizens were studying in the United States. According to Government statistics, 493 Lithuanian citizens studied at a higher education institution in the United States in 2001, 628 in 2002 and 647 in 2003. In fact, it had been the applicant\u2019s open letter of 14 August 2003 to the Srov\u0117s journalists that had exposed her, by divulging her name, surname, a detailed description of her treatment at psychiatric facilities and her participation in the Osho movement (see paragraphs 21-23 above). By explicitly identifying herself as the character \u201cVioleta\u201d depicted in the Srov\u0117s television broadcast, the applicant had herself publicly established a link between that character and herself."], "id": "d7bbd719-4160-4fc0-bd01-6ad33ff2b0ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government agreed that the refusal of the domestic courts to register the applicant association had amounted to an with its rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The refusal had been lawful and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, in particular adherents of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. Furthermore, the reasons adduced by the courts had been relevant and sufficient. In this connection they averred that in the domestic case file there had been no proof attesting to the Macedonian nationality of the applicant association\u2019s founders, a fact which the applicants had failed to remedy in the impugned proceedings."], "id": "a073b918-1806-48d3-a19b-a6306a633482", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant considered that her conviction for the above\u2011mentioned statements had amounted to an unlawful with her right to freedom of expression. Referring to the Court\u2019s case-law, she considered that the domestic courts had failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of Article 10 of the Convention. If they had done so, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments. Value judgments were only excessive if they were not linked to facts, whereas her incriminated statements had been based on facts. The applicant stressed that by stating that Muhammad had had sexual intercourse with a nine-year-old, she had quoted a historically proven fact and raised the question whether this could be regarded as paedophilia; thus, she had based her value judgment on facts, which was always permissible under Article 10 of the Convention. Furthermore, through the impugned statements she had expressed criticism concerning Islam and the unreflecting imitation of Muhammad, in the framework of an objective and lively discussion, which the domestic courts had failed to take into account. Against that background, this had been an objective criticism of religion, had contributed to a public debate and had not been aimed at defaming the Prophet of Islam. Consequently, contrary to the domestic courts\u2019 reasoning, a sufficient factual basis had existed for her assessment that Muhammad\u2019s behaviour had amounted to paedophilia. She added that she had held a seminar extending over a number of days with an overall duration of twelve hours, and therefore a few \u201cindividual statements\u201d had to be tolerated in order to allow for a lively discussion, which was a necessary part of such a seminar."], "id": "f405c3a1-7863-4e36-b874-8e632f9c3a91", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Government submitted that the was lawful. In particular, they noted that the Ukrainian legislation contained certain requirements as to the statutes of religious organisations. These requirements were of a general nature and formulated in such a way as to avoid State interference with religious freedom. The Government referred, in particular, to section 12 of the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations Act (hereinafter the \u201cAct\u201d), which had particular requirements concerning the statutes of religious organisations. It was because of the failure of these documents to comply with the applicant association's statute that the Kyiv City State Administration had refused to register the amendments (see paragraph 42 above)."], "id": "6e38a384-0d79-4134-9e07-a0ae93a6bfb9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant associations further maintained that the with their Convention rights was not justified by any of the legitimate aims set out in Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. There could never be a justification for judging religious groups\u2019 beliefs as contrasted to their actions. The Government had failed to submit any concrete facts which would allow the Court to verify the assumption that their movement was in any way dangerous or that urgent social needs necessitated the actions in question. Their movement could not be criticised for any activity which was illegal or contrary to public order and the existing legislation. Accordingly, their treatment by the political authorities had been persecutory and unjustified, and had not been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "abcd2b87-fbdc-4abb-b633-f157bc716322", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant, who did not file his observations within the time allowed, submitted in his application form that the denial of his request to have the indication \u201cIslam\u201d on his identity card replaced by the indication of his faith as \u201cAlevi\u201d, amounted to an with his right to freedom to practise his religion. He also complained that he was obliged to disclose his belief because that indication was mandatory on identity cards."], "id": "a72b45f8-1be5-44c6-90db-578b3dd43331", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government asserted that the meeting had been attended by hearing-impaired and disabled children without proof of the consent of their parents or legal guardians. The Commissioner asked the police officers to assist her in verifying whether this was the case. In the Government's view, the suspected participation of children had been sufficient justification for the , which was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and necessary for the protection of the health and rights of others."], "id": "c72e0ce6-ea6d-4886-8b05-8807dd8e5c8b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants submitted that the manner in which the NRTC had applied its criteria for evaluating candidates for broadcasting licences had been arbitrary. Firstly, those candidates had had no direct contact with the NRTC, which had engendered delay and confusion. Secondly, the points system adopted by the NRTC had not been properly operated. It was natural to expect that each candidate would be allotted a certain number of points, that later a ranking would be made, and that the candidate obtaining the highest number of points would be granted a licence. However, the NRTC had eschewed such allotting of points, instead merely informing the candidates that they would or would not be granted a licence. The procedure followed had not been public and transparent. The NRTC had not disclosed the reasons for its decisions and the candidates had not been told why some of them had been approved and others not. Their evaluations had never been made public. These deficiencies had not been addressed or remedied in the ensuing judicial review proceedings, which had deprived judicial review of all practical meaning. For all these reasons, the applicants were of the view that the with their freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law."], "id": "5b8b065a-b175-49e2-a18f-f4dda2ec0726", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["152. The applicant union submitted that the had had no legal basis in domestic law since the provisions of the Church\u2019s Statute, not ranking as an institutional Act, could not override the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing trade-union freedom. The Government disputed that argument, submitting that as the Statute had been approved by a government ordinance, it formed part of domestic law."], "id": "ace9eb67-7fca-40ff-bbb2-10df2ddc544d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["134. The applicant association submitted that the did not pursue a legitimate aim, as required by Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. In particular, a distinction had to be drawn between the members of the Parish and laymen, who attended religious ceremonies, but never participated in the management of church affairs or meetings of the Parishioners' Assembly. The laymen had never asked to become members of the Parish. In particular, the composition of the applicant association had been virtually unchanged since 1989, with the governing body \u2013 the Parishioners' Assembly \u2013 consistently having between 22 and 30 members. The Assembly had always complied with Article 2.12 of the statute when admitting new members."], "id": "a5151d16-6532-4433-8575-537a81a48886", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant took the view that the with the exercise of his freedom to manifest his religion did not correspond to any of the aims listed in Article 9 \u00a7 2. The Government maintained, for their part, that the impugned measure pursued two legitimate aims: to protect the rights and freedoms of others; and to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The Court notes that the second paragraph of Article 9 does not refer expressly to the second of those aims. As regards the first of the aims invoked \u2013 to ensure the protection of the rights and freedoms of others \u2013 the Government referred to the principle of secularism and the need to promote tolerance in a post-conflict society. The Court has already held that secularism is a belief protected by Article 9 of the Convention (see Lautsi and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 30814/06, \u00a7 58, ECHR 2011) and that an aim to uphold secular and democratic values can be linked to the legitimate aim of the \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d within the meaning of Article 9 \u00a7 2 (see Leyla \u015eahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, \u00a7 99, ECHR 2005\u2011XI, and Ahmet Arslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 41135/98, \u00a7 43, 23 February 2010). There is no reason to decide otherwise in the present case."], "id": "34cd7c8e-2365-4a2a-b037-a6a1503fbc0b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant submits that his conviction amounted to an with his right to be free to exercise his religion together with all those who turned to him for spiritual guidance. He further considers that his conviction was not prescribed by law. In this respect he affirms that the Treaty of Peace of Athens remains in force. The Greek Prime-Minister accepted that at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the 1923 Treaty of Peace of Lausanne. Moreover, the Court of Cassation has recently confirmed the continued validity of the Treaty of peace of Athens and legal scholars hold the same view. The Muslims had never accepted the abrogation of Law no. 2345/1920. The applicant lastly contends that his conviction was not necessary in a democratic society. He points out that the Christians and Jews in Greece have the right to elect their religious leaders. Depriving the Muslims of this possibility amounts to discriminatory treatment."], "id": "21f7c5a1-01c9-46a4-9314-100d375054e3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government submitted that the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Armenian Constitution, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, were to be applied to everyone equally and without discrimination. The applicant, an Armenian citizen, was obliged under the Constitution to perform compulsory military service regardless of his religious convictions and the fulfilment of such obligation could not be considered an with his rights. The law did not include such grounds for exemption from military service as being a Jehovah\u2019s Witness. Thus, exemption from compulsory military service on a ground not prescribed by law would have been in breach of the principle of equality and non-discrimination."], "id": "b5842444-b424-4139-838c-0e8dff9f0c0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicants concluded that, since the objectives of education, socialisation and integration were, in their view, not called into question by an exemption from mixed swimming lessons, especially where the parents had organised private swimming classes for their daughters, and there was nothing likely to disrupt the smooth functioning of the school in any way or in any form, the in question had not been based on any valid legitimate aim."], "id": "28f5b8ae-d8bc-4662-ab77-2cd3191364e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicants alleged that their beliefs prohibited them from permitting their children to take part in mixed swimming lessons. They added that, although the Koran laid down the precept that the female body was to be covered only from puberty, their faith instructed them to prepare their daughters for the precepts that would be applied to them from puberty onwards. The Court considers that the case concerns a situation in which the applicants\u2019 right to manifest their religion is in issue. The applicants exercised parental authority and could decide, under Article 303 al. 1 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 23 above), on the religious education of their children. In consequence, they are entitled to rely on this aspect of Article 9 of the Convention. The Court considers, furthermore, that the applicants indeed suffered an with the exercise of their right to freedom of religion as protected by that provision."], "id": "266db3df-8b5b-4f5a-a9b1-2a47ef55a519", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant submitted that he had been treated differently due to his religious convictions in respect of the enjoyment of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention from other persons seeking access rights to their children following divorce or separation. In particular, he submitted that the domestic authorities\u2019 decision withdrawing his access rights in respect of his son on the basis of his religious beliefs had amounted to an unjustifiable with his right to respect for family life."], "id": "6fad684b-b0fe-40a6-a700-de3b698ac2d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government contested that there had been an with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of religion. Since the entry into force of the 1919 Treaty of St Germain, all Austrian inhabitants had been allowed to practise publicly and privately their thought, religion and beliefs, irrespective of whether their religious society, community or church was recognised or had legal status. The right to autonomous administration of the entity\u2019s internal organisation was likewise guaranteed. Referring to a judgment of the Constitutional Court (VfSlg. 10.915/1986), the Government contended that the refusal of recognition did not impede the applicants\u2019 exercise of their right to freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention. Against this background, they contested that the first applicant had no legal personality in Austria, was legally non-existent and could not acquire assets or enter into legal relations, because these allegations concerned the first applicant\u2019s situation before it had obtained legal personality as a registered religious community on 11 July 1998. Even before the entry into force of the 1998 Religious Communities Act, the first applicant had had the possibility of setting up an association with a religious purpose under the Associations Act, as the Federation of Evangelical Municipalities in Austria (Bund Evangelikaler Gemeinden in \u00d6sterreich) had on 21 March 1992, and the Church of Scientology in Austria (Scientology Kirche \u00d6sterreich) on 20 May 1984. However, the applicants did not appear to have made any efforts to that end."], "id": "3ae9452a-4b0c-4fbd-b48c-47df81042ae8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government contended that, if Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was at all applicable, what had occurred in the present case had to be considered as a control of the use of property falling within the scope of its second paragraph. They left it to the Court to decide whether an giving rise to State responsibility had occurred. They submitted, however, that the alleged interference had been lawful. Furthermore, the wage monitoring system that followed from the Construction Agreement, and the costs to which the applicants were compelled to contribute, served not only the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, but also pursued the general interest of the community, namely to uphold the legitimacy of the Swedish approach in the area of industrial relations."], "id": "f71a156f-54c2-49ac-a959-83fa001e2f06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government submitted, however, that by the time the applicants applied for a Certificate of Approval, the first scheme had been amended to distinguish between sham and genuine marriages and no longer constituted a disproportionate with the right to marry. The level of the fee had been the subject of active consideration by the Government. The fee was suspended with effect from 9 April 2009 and on 10 July 2010 the Government introduced a scheme whereby needy applicants could reclaim the money paid."], "id": "f6457830-1083-44c3-980a-843ce828cc48", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government further maintained that the alleged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been proportionate to the aim pursued. In support of that contention they submitted, inter alia, the following. In general, the assessment of proportionality had to be made in the light of the importance attributed in Sweden to the system of collective bargaining. The collective agreements had an important normative effect and protected workers\u2019 interests in a general sense. In the construction business, employees who were not members of the Union also benefited from the latter\u2019s negotiations with the Industries concerning, for instance, wage levels, although they did not contribute financially to this part of the Union\u2019s activities, which was financed by means of membership fees. As wage monitoring ensured that the collective agreement was adhered to by the employers, it fulfilled an important function in the interests of construction workers generally. There was no difference in treatment between Union members and other workers; Byggettan would also inform non-unionised workers and contact their employers in case any discrepancies were found. In this respect, the Government referred the statement by Mr Bromander, according to which, in 1999, wages had been adjusted upwards for 250 non-unionised workers as a result of the monitoring work (paragraph 26 above). The Government asserted that, if non-unionised workers were exempt from contributing to the wage monitoring system, it would appear to be at the expense of the Union\u2019s members, who would presumably have to contribute more to help cover the costs of the monitoring work."], "id": "d5a956da-71b3-408c-87e7-314aed9ee1a3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government submitted that, in contrast to the facts found in Boychev and Others, cited above, there was no evidence in the present case to support the view that the police action of 27 September 1995 interrupted a religious meeting. As could be seen from the summons requiring the applicant to appear at the police station, she was informed of the search well in advance. The summons was issued under the Public Education Act and decree no. 367/194 of the Supreme Prosecution Office (see paragraph 8 above) and was aimed at regulating educational activities. It followed, in the Government\u2019s view, that there had been no with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of religion. In addition, the Government argued that the law in force at the material time allowing for interference with the rights under Article 9 should be assessed in context. Arguments had been put forward at the relevant time to suggest that followers of Word of Life, particularly minors, were at risk of isolation and lower standards of protection in medical, educational and civil terms. The prosecutorial authorities were part of the judiciary, not the executive and the police took action as sanctioned by the prosecutor\u2019s office. The actions of the police were well founded and fully in compliance with the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 1 April 1994, refusing registration of the three organisations affiliated with Word of Life (see paragraph 6 above). Moreover, the lack of registration as a religious denomination had never been an obstacle for its followers to profess their religion or practice their activity."], "id": "cff8e095-29a9-4ea3-8fcc-3b299c143d9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government further submitted that the lawful requirement to bring the founding documents of a religious organisation into compliance with the existing law did not amount to an within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Articles 11 or 9 of the Convention. In any event, the Russian authorities could not be blamed for the applicant branch\u2019s unwillingness to apply for re-registration."], "id": "d36f4948-ec83-42ca-80b1-fc65a310b798", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government stressed that the lack of a mark for \u201creligion/ethics\u201d on the third applicant's school reports did not constitute with his rights under Article 9, as the reports did not disclose his philosophical or religious beliefs. The absence of a mark or the presence of a line on a school report could not be interpreted as anything more than official information as to whether or not a pupil had been following a religion/ethics class in a particular year. Hence, the third applicant's right to remain silent with regard to his philosophical or religious beliefs had been fully respected. Furthermore, the Government claimed that the applicant had not provided any evidence that the form of the school reports constituted interference with his Article 9 rights. He had not pointed to any inconvenience of a sufficient degree of seriousness to be considered as a breach of his rights under Article 9."], "id": "30235e42-26be-41fb-8b7d-6eee97f6cdd2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant argued that it could be seen from the facts of the case, which the Government had not disputed, that in his appeal he had requested a ruling disallowing the production in the proceedings of a medical document that in his view constituted with his private life. His application for legal aid for the purposes of lodging an appeal on points of law having been dismissed, he considered that he could not be criticised for failure to exhaust all available domestic remedies."], "id": "1dd2f47a-dbc9-42f1-8f8f-85f970a94104", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government considered that the impugned was \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d, since at the relevant time the domestic law clearly set out the principle of strict neutrality required from all public officials, and the penalties to which they were liable in the event of failure to comply with this principle. The \u201claw\u201d in question, within the meaning of the Court\u2019s case-law, included, firstly, the 1905 Act, which had enshrined the State\u2019s neutrality vis-\u00e0-vis religions, and Article 1 of the Constitution, which affirmed the principle that all citizens are equal before the law (see paragraph 21 above). It also included the Law of 13 July 1983 laying down the rights and duties of civil servants, section 29 of which provided that any misconduct committed by a civil servant in the course of or in connection with the performance of his or her duties could lead to a disciplinary sanction. In addition, both the case-law of the administrative courts over more than fifty years (see paragraph 26 above) and that of the Constitutional Council (see paragraph 25 above) reiterated the obligation of neutrality incumbent on all public servants in carrying out their functions. The Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat, in its Opinion of 3 May 2000, also emphasised the pre-existing general nature of the principle of neutrality, before applying it in the case before it."], "id": "2e787b1b-7fe6-4b65-87b9-3b723f0e359c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant considered that the Court of Appeal had failed in its duty to ensure that personal data as fundamental as that resulting from medical observations could not be diverted from its initial purpose and cause prejudice to the person complaining of a breach of his or her privacy, in so far as that court had, in justifying its decision, expressly referred to the medical documents in question. He regarded this as with his right to respect for his private life."], "id": "eb5ab806-1fcf-47af-a13f-8831a19ad6a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["92. The Government stated that the applicants\u2019 complaints were manifestly ill-founded as there was no evidence in support of his allegations that an with his rights had taken place. In particular, there was no evidence that the applicant had ever asked for permission before the relevant authorities, namely the investigator or the court involved, to meet with a priest but had been refused."], "id": "cf762cb0-92a6-4961-a016-cecba56ebd40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["2. The Government submitted that section 16 \u00a7 5 of the Religions Act, interpreted in conjunction with section 7 \u00a7 1 of the Public Gatherings Act, required the organisers of religious assemblies in non-residential premises to notify the local authorities, in writing and in advance. Moreover, the Government claimed that section 5 \u00a7 1 of the Education Act prohibited religious assemblies from being held in educational establishments. Both justifications are unfounded, and have already being rejected by this Court in Kuznetsov and Others[3]. More specifically, in that seminal case the Court found a violation of Article 9 of the Convention on account of the disruption of an indoor religious meeting. The Court found that the State\u2019s was not even prescribed by law, since the Government neither specified the nature of the allegedly missing documents in accordance with the Religions Act, nor produced any documents relating to the official powers of the commissioner and two senior police officers to interrupt and disperse the indoor religious meeting. In addition, the fact of holding the religious meeting on college premises outside normal college hours had not been contrary to the Education Act. In that same judgment, the Court referred to the case-law of the Russian Supreme Court, dating from at least 1999, to the effect that religious assemblies do not require any prior authorisation from, or notification to, the public authorities[4]. There is no valid reason to change this precedent[5]. On the contrary, as will be shown, the subsequent practice of the respondent State justifies insistence on this case-law[6]."], "id": "c825c305-b0bb-44b9-bee8-d43defb0d6d3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicants submitted that the loss of their proper Church status as a result of the 2011 Church Act had constituted with their freedom of religion. The proper functioning of religious communities necessitated the enjoyment of a specific and appropriate legal status, that is, Church status in the legal sense. In Hungary, religious communities had had a reasonable opportunity to be registered as Churches since 1990, and the applicants had indeed enjoyed that status. The fact that on 1 January 2012 the vast majority of Churches (including theirs) had lost their proper Church status and had been forced to convert into ordinary civil associations or else cease to exist legally had constituted in itself interference with their freedom of religion, especially since the loss of Church status had deprived them of privileges which had facilitated their religious activities. The fact that those privileges were guaranteed henceforth only to Churches recognised by Parliament had placed them in a situation which was substantially disadvantageous vis-\u00e0-vis those Churches."], "id": "a4542dec-ab54-43fe-8709-2bedb058ffad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant began by observing that this could not be said to have the legitimate aim of \u201cpublic safety\u201d as it was not a measure intended to address specific safety concerns in places of high risk such as airports, but a blanket ban applying to almost all public places. As to the Government\u2019s argument that it sought to ensure respect for the minimum requirements of life in society, because the reciprocal exposure of faces was fundamental in French society, the applicant objected that it failed to take into account the cultural practices of minorities which did not necessarily share this philosophy or the fact that there were forms of communication other than visual, and that in any event this bore no relation to the idea of imposing criminal sanctions to prevent people from veiling their faces in public. She submitted, moreover, that the Government\u2019s assertion that for women to cover their faces was incompatible with the principle of gender equality was simplistic. She argued that, according to a well-established feminist position, the wearing of the veil often denoted women\u2019s emancipation, self-assertion and participation in society, and that, as far as she was concerned, it was not a question of pleasing men but of satisfying herself and her conscience. Furthermore, it could not be maintained that because of wearing the veil the women concerned were denied the right to exist as individuals in public, when in the majority of cases it was worn voluntarily and without any proselytising motive. She added that other member States with a large Muslim population did not prohibit the wearing of the full-face veil in public places. She also found it ironic that an abstract idea of gender equality could run counter to the profoundly personal choice of women who decided to wear veils, and contended that imposing legal sanctions exacerbated the inequality that was supposed to be addressed. Lastly, she took the view that in claiming that the prohibition had the legitimate aim of \u201crespect for human dignity\u201d the Government were justifying the measure by the abstract assumption, based on stereotyping and chauvinistic logic, that women who wore veils were \u201ceffaced\u201d."], "id": "7edfa209-a589-431e-a37f-fa59dbd281f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government acknowledged that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s right to family life. They stressed however that intervention by the domestic courts had been prescribed by law, namely section 92 (4) of the Csjt. (see paragraph 15 above). Moreover, it pursued a legitimate aim, that is, the protection of the child\u2019s interests, and was necessary in a democratic society. They added that in this field the child\u2019s interests were paramount, overriding the interests of the parents."], "id": "101f79b8-0202-4fac-9d36-f2026fa53e90", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government accepted that the applicant associations could refer to their right of religious freedom under Article 9 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They considered, however, that the statements under dispute did not interfere with this right, as they were neither aimed at restricting the applicant associations\u2019 right to exercise their religion undisturbed nor did they directly bring about such an effect. Any possible indirect factual impact on the applicant associations\u2019 right under Article 9 did not amount to an with that right, given that the Government observed their obligation to neutrality in religious matters."], "id": "b8679ec0-3ead-4379-9997-69e00849e12b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant submitted that his conviction had amounted to an with his right to manifest his religious beliefs. This interference was not prescribed by law because the Armenian authorities, by convicting him, had acted in violation of the legally binding commitment which they had undertaken when joining the Council of Europe, namely to pardon all conscientious objectors sentenced to prison terms. This international obligation had become an integral part of Armenia\u2019s domestic legal system and from then on all conscientious objectors who refused to perform military service could reasonably expect to be freed from that obligation and eventually be given the option of performing alternative civilian service. As a result, the domestic law was not sufficiently precise, since it was not harmonised with the legally binding international commitments of Armenia."], "id": "64f9bfbd-d6eb-44bd-bf06-e9dcec4f49c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant organisation was the official body representing and managing the Muslim religious community in Bulgaria between February 1995 and October 1997. It complained about alleged arbitrary by the State with the organisation and leadership of that community. An ecclesiastical or religious body may, as such, exercise on behalf of its adherents the rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention (see, Cha\u2019are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, \u00a7 72, ECHR 2000-VII)."], "id": "99b42d9f-9983-4dc3-8657-4137eb528f24", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government submitted that the applicants had not been convicted for their religious beliefs but for their membership of a terrorist organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami. In particular, they had distributed leaflets and brochures promoting the superiority of Muslims over adherents of other religions, calling for a confrontation between Islamic fundamentalists and all others, for the violent overthrow of non-Muslim governments and for universal Islamisation of mankind. Hizb ut-Tahrir rejected the possibility of participating in the democratic political process and chose to conduct its activities in an illegal and clandestine manner. The with the applicants\u2019 freedoms of religion, expression and association had therefore been \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. Moreover, given the terrorist and extremist nature of the organisation and its intention to create hostility between adherents of different religions, to foster disunity in society and to undermine the constitutional foundations of the Russian Federation, the applicants\u2019 actions within that organisation had been aimed at destroying the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. Referring to Article 17 of the Convention, the Government argued that the applicants could not therefore claim the protection afforded by Articles 9, 10 and 11."], "id": "e1dc3b7c-83eb-4dff-bef8-7ac902833dee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government lastly argued that the alleged had met the requirement of being necessary in a democratic society. They took the view that to find such documents inadmissible would prevent courts from ruling on situations that might present a risk for the health, morals or stability of other family members, especially where there were alcohol-related problems. They added that the fact of excluding documents obtained by duress or fraud fulfilled the State\u2019s positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention. The Government further indicated that the Court of Appeal had maintained the applicant\u2019s right of contact in respect of his children pending the results of the expert\u2019s report, and inferred from this that any interference would thus, in any event, have been proportionate. Lastly, they observed that such interference, when compared with that in Z v. Finland (cited above) and M.S. v. Sweden, (27 August 1997, Reports 1997\u2011IV), appeared far less significant and was circumscribed by the requisite safeguards."], "id": "238b45c8-ae9e-4fa7-886e-b9f24b63836e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government made contradictory submissions regarding the existence of an , arguing, on the one hand, that \u201cthe interference was legitimate and prescribed by law\u201d, but, on the other hand, that there was no interference. In any event, the Court considers that the applicants\u2019 refusal to be drafted for military and alternative service was a manifestation of their religious beliefs and their conviction for draft evasion therefore amounted to an interference with their freedom to manifest their religion, as guaranteed by Article 9 \u00a7 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Bayatyan, cited above, \u00a7 112). Such interference will be contrary to Article 9 unless it is \u201cprescribed by law\u201d, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2 and is \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d (see, among other authorities, \u0130zzettin Do\u011fan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, \u00a7 98, ECHR 2016)."], "id": "8e1ae0c0-a649-484b-ae76-6812c80450d6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that there had been no in the exercise by the applicant of his right to freedom of religion, because no direct connection could be made between the indication of religion on identity cards and freedom of religion and conscience. It could not be construed as a requirement to disclose one\u2019s religious beliefs or as a restriction on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion in worship, teaching, practice and observance."], "id": "96ba1e0b-dc49-42da-89cd-49fee7cb74fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["202. The applicant alleged that the pastor who attempted to visit him was denied access in June and September 2009. This was confirmed by the pastor in a letter to the Court (see paragraph 45 above). The two respondent Governments have not made any submissions on this point. The Court sees no reason to doubt the description of the facts provided by the applicant and the pastor and accepts that there was with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of religion."], "id": "664e7db2-8619-4061-b060-76b73fe99191", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant further argued that the was not necessary in a democratic society. Firstly, the fact that he \u2013 a conscientious objector who was committed to living peacefully with his neighbours and who had a blank criminal record \u2013 was imprisoned and treated like a dangerous criminal was totally unnecessary in a democratic society. In particular, he had been subjected to a harassing search process, had later been arrested and locked up in a cell without any bedding and with six others detained for various crimes, and had been subjected to insults and verbal abuse by the guards. Secondly, he had been subjected to wholly disproportionate punishment and treatment considering that he was simply exercising his fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Thirdly, his imprisonment had not been necessary also because the Armenian authorities had pardoned other individuals in a similar situation. Lastly, the military protection of the country would not be disorganised and weakened if persons like him were not punished. In particular, Armenia had 125,000 active conscripts in 2007 and 551,000 potential ones, while only 41 Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses were imprisoned. Moreover, since 2002 only three individuals belonging to other religions had decided to become conscientious objectors. Such insignificant numbers could not have a negative impact on the military capacity of Armenia."], "id": "3efa3e0e-af4f-47fe-93d7-1988669817e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government accepted that in the registration proceedings, which had not involved an interpretation of the applicant association\u2019s doctrinal sources, the refusal of the domestic authorities to register the applicant association had amounted to an with the applicants\u2019 freedom of association and religion. However, that interference had been in accordance with the law and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Furthermore, it had been proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved and the reasons adduced by the authorities had been relevant and sufficient."], "id": "0c435903-9e85-49f2-aa9f-a42b5464bd76", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["133. The Government accepted that the applicant\u2019s right to visit and contact his family members during his house arrest had been restricted, which had constituted an with his right to family life. They submitted, however, that this interference had been in accordance with the relevant rules on house arrest, had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing the suspect from obstructing justice and, in view of the fact that the applicant had been granted leave on a number of occasions for various reasons, had been proportionate in the specific circumstances of the present case."], "id": "e821da40-15d4-4e44-af1b-626e56e01149", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["120. The Government submitted that the complained of was necessary in a democratic society. In the first place, to recognise the applicant Church the State would have had to give up its position of neutrality in religious matters, and in religious conflicts in particular, which would have been contrary to the Moldovan Constitution and Moldovan public policy. It was therefore in order to discharge its duty of neutrality that the Government had urged the applicant Church to settle its differences with the Metropolitan Church of Moldova first."], "id": "2c832472-6756-4898-bd23-03d511f19f13", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government also claimed that the holding of the meeting on the college premises had been contrary to section 1 \u00a7 5 of the Education Act (cited in paragraph 48 above). The Court observes, however, that this ground was not relied upon in the domestic proceedings and that the Government relied on it for the first time in their pleadings before the Court. In any event, it appears that the Education Act expressly authorised educational establishments to rent out their premises (see paragraph 49 above). The provision on which the Government relied did not prohibit the physical use of college space by third parties, but rather the clericalisation of schools through the setting-up of religious structures involving students and/or staff. In the present case the applicants used the college premises for their meetings on Tuesday nights and on Sundays, that is, outside normal college hours, and there is no evidence that their activities interfered in any way with the educational process or involved college students or teachers. Thus, the Education Act could not serve as a legal basis for the ."], "id": "beb4c590-1dca-46a1-9770-8892ffbd0c65", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government admitted that the majority of member States of the Council of Europe had adopted laws providing for various forms of alternative service for conscientious objectors. However, the provisions of Article 4 \u00a7 3 (b), which clearly left the choice of recognising conscientious objectors to each Contracting Party, could not be overlooked, and the fact that the majority of them had recognised this right could not be relied upon to hold a Contracting Party which had not done so to be in violation of its obligations under the Convention. In sum, Article 9 read in the light of Article 4 \u00a7 3 (b) did not guarantee a right to refuse military service on conscientious grounds and there had been no with the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article 9."], "id": "40ffa879-97c0-4701-b3c1-1f0179f25b4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government further contend that the was necessary in a democratic society. In many countries, the Muftis are appointed by the State. Moreover, Muftis exercise important judicial functions in Greece and judges cannot be elected by the people. The Government submit that because there were two Muftis in Xanthi at the time, the courts had to convict the spurious one in order not to create tension among the Muslims, between the Muslims and Christians and between Turkey and Greece. The courts considered that the offence in Article 175 is committed when somebody actually discharges the functions of a religious minister. The courts also considered that the acts that the applicant engaged in fell within the administrative functions of a Mufti in the broad sense of the term."], "id": "a3e2f543-a991-498d-bdb2-9e8e58e37558", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["61. The Government also submitted that, even if the 2011 Church Act complained of could be regarded as , it was prescribed by a law adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of parliament. The applicants\u2019 argument that the 2011 Church Act was invalid under public law had not been upheld by the Constitutional Court. Those provisions of the 2011 Church Act which had been found to be unconstitutional did not affect the applicants\u2019 situation, while other provisions complained of by the applicants had not been declared unconstitutional."], "id": "5f981bab-ef6e-42ed-98d4-8f516ad17e61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government accepted that under Russian law, the scope of the rights of \u201creligious groups\u201d was different from that of \u201creligious organisations\u201d that had obtained legal-entity status through State registration. However, in their submission, the difference in the scope of rights was in no way connected with the exercise of the rights to freedom of religion and association. The founding of a religious group was a voluntary act by a group of individuals. It did not require any special permission; notification to the municipal authority sufficed. Accordingly, in the Government\u2019s view, the matter fell outside the State\u2019s sphere of competence and the applicants were free to exercise their rights without State . \u201cReligious groups\u201d could celebrate services, other religious rites and ceremonies, and also give religious instruction and training to their followers."], "id": "a7bec88d-f752-40bb-a82a-689eaaa2f799", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant and his son submitted that the applicant had not been informed in advance of the exclusion order or allowed to travel together with his son. He had lived in Russia for eight years and had not had a settled home elsewhere to which to take his son. As a result of State actions, he had faced the practical difficulty of having to arrange, from abroad, for the paperwork of an infant, including an exit visa, through a third party \u2013 a nanny \u2013 with no family relationship to him. The consideration of his complaint had been drawn out over seven and a half months because of repeated adjournments granted by the court to the FSB as a result of the latter\u2019s consistent lack of preparation. In their submission, these elements pointed towards an with the applicant\u2019s and his son\u2019s right to respect for their family life, for which the Government offered no reasonable justification."], "id": "07346c3a-a68f-40cc-9810-afe86cbfb89d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that the circumstances of the case gave no indication of any with the third applicant's rights under Article 9 of the Convention on account of the fact that no ethics class had been organised for him in State schools. There were no indications that the third applicant had been in any way indoctrinated or subjected to any form of pressure as to his personal beliefs. Article 9 of the Convention did not deal with States' obligations regarding the content of school curricula."], "id": "7b4dfd38-2d06-45c3-9c48-b7224122781a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["150. The Government did not contest that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 9 of the Convention. They maintained however that the measure was prescribed by law and served a legitimate aim, that is, the protection of public order and the rights of others. It was also proportionate, taking into account that the applicant was a teacher of religion by profession, who could have exercised his religion without the church attendances in question."], "id": "89160430-ade6-4d42-956e-34766a3ce2a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["117. The Government referred to the need to protect public order and, implicitly, the rights of others. The Court, however, does not find the Government\u2019s reference to these aims to be convincing in the circumstances of the case, especially taking into account that at the time of the applicant\u2019s conviction the Armenian authorities had already pledged to introduce alternative civilian service and, implicitly, to refrain from convicting new conscientious objectors (see paragraph 127 below). It nevertheless considers it unnecessary to determine conclusively whether the aims referred to by the Government were legitimate within the meaning of Article 9 \u00a7 2, since, even assuming that they were, the was in any event incompatible with that provision for the reasons set out below."], "id": "f8088331-1012-4bcc-9b3a-fd1aae4d47cb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government further contend that the was necessary in a democratic society. To start with, in many countries, the Muftis are appointed by the State. In Greece, Muftis exercise important judicial functions and judges cannot be elected by the people. This is all the more so that in the instant case the \u201celection\u201d of the applicant had been flawed because it had not been the result of a democratic procedure and the applicant had been used by the local Muslim MPs for party political purposes. Moreover, given that there were two Muftis in Xanthi at the time and that the applicant had questioned the legality of the acts of the lawful mufti, the courts had to convict the spurious one in order not to create tension among the Moslems, between the Moslems and Christians and between Turkey and Greece. In any event, the State had to protect the office of the mufti and, even if there had not existed a lawfully appointed mufti, the applicant would have had to be punished. In this respect, the Government submit that the Court of Cassation did not convict the applicant simply because he appeared as the Mufti. In fact, the courts considered that the offence in Article 175 is committed when somebody actually discharges the functions of a religious minister and that the acts perpetrated by the applicant fell within the administrative functions of a mufti in the broad sense of the term."], "id": "df54a8c1-7ff4-44e4-9899-76e1a4097d88", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government submitted that, even assuming that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article 9, this interference was justified. Firstly, the interference was prescribed by law. In particular, the obligation of every Armenian citizen aged between 18 and 27, who had been found to be physically fit, to serve in the Armenian army, regardless of his religious convictions, was prescribed by Article 47 of the Constitution and sections 3 and 11 of the Military Liability Act. Furthermore, Article 75 of the Criminal Code prescribed a penalty for draft evasion. These legal provisions were both accessible and sufficiently precise. Moreover, the right to conscientious objection was not recognised under Armenian law at the material time."], "id": "4e12a3b3-f020-44ef-a926-d8a2b2cfe775", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government firstly argue that the applicant was not convicted for the content of the messages that he disseminated but simply because he appeared as the Mufti of Xanthi. As a result, there was no with his right to express his religious beliefs because Article 9 does not guarantee the applicant the right to usurp the functions of a minister of a \u201cknown religion\u201d."], "id": "d41d8ef3-7cf5-494e-bafd-a12e86a19c57", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant submitted that the complained of should be seen in the context of all the events that preceded and followed its creation, including the negative public campaign, the statements of public officials, and the alleged persecution of Mr Vrani\u0161kovski, which revealed an agenda by the respondent State aimed at preventing it from exercising its religious rights. The applicant association rejected as unsubstantiated the alleged formal shortcomings to which the national authorities had referred in their decisions. It argued that they were trivial and could easily have been rectified had the association been given the opportunity to do so. However, the entire process had been deliberately abused by the State authorities in order to prevent the applicant association from obtaining registration. The arguments given by the authorities in this respect had been excessively formalistic and had clearly demonstrated their biased attitude towards the applicant association. The Government\u2019s arguments that the name \u201cOrthodox Ohrid Archdiocese\u201d belonged to the MOC by association (see paragraph 90 below) demonstrated such an attitude, which was contrary to the principle of neutrality and impartiality with respect to different religions."], "id": "e7439671-7d4e-40ad-bd09-1417c5f8962f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained that medical documents concerning him (operation report of 2 April 1994) had been produced and used before the court, without his consent and without a medical expert having been appointed for such purpose. He alleged that this had entailed a breach of professional confidentiality and serious and unjustified with his right to respect for his private life. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, of which the relevant parts read as follows:"], "id": "7733d0cf-d19c-4625-ab41-fb6315be5674", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government considered that there was no with the applicant's right to freedom of association because it had not been liquidated and retained the full capacity of a legal entity. On 10 August 2002 it had been entered on the Unified State Register of Legal Entities and continued its religious activities. In refusing the Moscow Justice Department's action for dissolution, the Nikulinskiy District Court founded its judgment of 30 April 2002 on the evidence showing that the applicant had on-going financial and economic activities, such as the applicant's balance sheets and permission to stage events in municipal districts of Moscow. The Government maintained that the applicant could not claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of any violation solely because it was not willing to bring its founding documents in compliance with the existing law."], "id": "97c27a55-5f46-4683-8e14-54feba632952", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government acknowledged that the refusal to register the applicant group constituted an with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of religion. In their view, the interference was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and all the refusals of registration had been based on the relevant legal provisions. The interference pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of protecting public order (they referred to Kimlya, cited above, \u00a7 97). The Government justified the interference as having been necessary in a democratic society for suppressing manifestations of religious discord (they referred to Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, 25 November 1996, \u00a7 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V, and Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, \u00a7 50, Series A no. 295\u2011A). They also claimed that similar waiting periods were provided for by the laws of some other Member States. According to their information, Austrian law set the waiting period at twenty years, Latvian law at twenty-five years, and Romania\u2019s Law no. 489 of 28 December 2006 provided that religious denominations, other than the eighteen listed in the law, may be recognised if they can prove their existence in the country for at least twelve years."], "id": "de1101f8-f310-41fe-8f55-94ee4be75902", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant contested the Government's submissions. She alleged, first of all, that the in question had not been prescribed by law. It had mainly taken the form of an opinion of the Conseil d'Etat, ministerial circulars and judicial interpretations of the case-law, none of which had the status of a law or regulation in French law in that they were not binding on the courts applying the law. The applicant pointed out that individual freedoms, and particularly religious freedom, were essential freedoms that could be restricted only by provisions that were at the very least legally binding; and that the French Government, well aware of that gap in the law, had considered it necessary to enact legislation on 15 March 2004."], "id": "3ae3e36a-8598-4951-9d9b-00a37e167cec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["163. The applicants claimed that the had not been prescribed by law or necessary in a democratic society. It had been established by the Presnenskiy District Court on 16 August 2002 that the Moscow Justice Department had not invoked the dissolution proceedings before the Golovinskiy District Court as a ground for refusing re-registration. Furthermore, the four criminal investigations between June 1996 and April 1998 had found no criminal activity on the part of the applicant community. In April 1999, after a detailed expert study, the Ministry of Justice had granted re-registration to the federal organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses, of which the applicant community had been a member. Likewise, 398 communities of Jehovah's Witnesses in other Russian regions had been granted registration or re-registration during the same period."], "id": "719561fc-ea30-4865-bd82-d472fa3cd30d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government, for their part, submitted that there had been no with the applicant\u2019s right to manifest his religion freely since he had never been prevented from taking part in Jewish festivals and practising his religion freely. The authorities had simply sought to ensure that the applicant did not hamper the smooth operation of essential State services in exercising his right to request that the hearing be adjourned."], "id": "3625ac7a-f303-4a2a-8656-5563784d13c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["91. The applicants further complained of the discriminatory nature of section 11 of the 1998 Religious Communities Act. This provision amended the Recognition Act in that it introduced further requirements for recognition as a religious society. In particular, it requires the existence of the religious association for at least twenty years in Austria and for at least ten years as a registered religious community; a minimum number of two adherents per thousand members of the Austrian population (at the moment, this means about 16,000 persons); the use of income and other assets for religious purposes, including charity activities; a positive attitude towards society and the State; and no illegal as regards the association\u2019s relationship with recognised or other religious societies."], "id": "33c0fa25-0ec5-4173-8724-6280f8b3ebd0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants claimed that the right to freedom of religion encompassed the expectation that members would be allowed to associate freely without arbitrary State intervention. Therefore, the State was prohibited from regulating State-Church relationships arbitrarily; any in that sphere had to be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. The requirements relating to the registration of Churches had to be objective and reasonable, because in this matter the State was required to remain neutral and impartial. Consequently, if a religious community met the legal requirements it had to be entitled to be registered as a Church, and the registration procedure had to offer guarantees of fairness."], "id": "4eef0812-bedf-4248-a9df-d1467ea11696", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant disagrees with the Government\u2019s arguments. He submits that his conviction amounted to an with his right to be free to exercise his religion together with all those who turned to him for spiritual guidance. He further considers that his conviction was not prescribed by law. In this respect he affirms that the Treaty of Peace of Athens remains in force. The Greek Prime-Minister accepted that at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the 1923 Treaty of Peace of Lausanne. Moreover, the Court of Cassation has recently confirmed the continued validity of the Treaty of peace of Athens and legal scholars hold the same view. The Muslims had never accepted the abrogation of Law no. 2345/1920. The applicant lastly contends that his conviction was not necessary in a democratic society. He points out that the Christians and Jews in Greece have the right to elect their religious leaders. Depriving the Muslims of this possibility amounts to discriminatory treatment."], "id": "fff67680-9f53-48b5-ae1c-c979a1dafe70", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicants submitted that the status of a registered religious community was inferior to that of a religious society and insufficient. They contended that the first applicant was subject to State control in respect of its religious doctrine, its rules on membership and the administration of its assets pursuant to sections 3-5 and 11 of the 1998 Religious Communities Act. They repeated in essence their above complaints. In particular, the applicants disputed the necessity of the ten-year waiting period, as the recognition of the Coptic Orthodox Church by a specific law in 2003 (see paragraph 45(e) above) proved the contrary. The Coptic Orthodox Church had only existed in Austria since 1976 and had been registered as a religious community in 1998. The applicants argued that most of the registered religious communities and even most of the recognised religious societies did not fulfil the criterion for the minimum number of adherents, which showed that this requirement was unnecessary for the observance of public duties, contrary to what the Government maintained. Since the first applicant, which was the fifth largest religious community in Austria and was thus even bigger than most recognised religious societies, also complied with the necessary number of adherents, it should have been recognised a long time ago. Further, the requirement of the use of income and other assets for religious purposes, including charity activities, was discriminatory as it interfered in an unjustified way with the first applicant\u2019s internal administration and organisation, in breach of both Article 9 of the Convention and Article 15 of the Basic Law 1867. The prerequisite of a positive attitude towards society and the State was discriminatory as it was not required in respect of any other natural or legal personality in Austria. Further, it did not meet the \u201cprescribed by law\u201d requirement under Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The same applied to the criterion of non- with other religious societies. Moreover, under Austrian law, recognised religious societies enjoyed privileged treatment in various fields which did not extend to religious communities."], "id": "4382bf76-76f2-4adb-87de-f59e4a034801", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government submitted that Russian law treated all aliens on an equal basis, irrespective of whether or not they had a minor child in Russia. There was no evidence that the State authorities had prevented the applicant from being reunited with his son in a different State. Nor had he shown that he had taken any steps to remove his son from Russia. In any event, the Convention does not guarantee the right to establish family life in any specific country (here they referred to the case of Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, \u00a7 97, ECHR 2003\u2011X). Unlike the first applicant in the Slivenko case, who had come to Latvia when she had been only ten months old and had spent her entire life there, the applicant had arrived in Russia as an adult and had lived there for only eight years. His integration into Russian society was open to doubt since he had been unable, by his own admission, to read a document handwritten in Russian. Moreover, owing to their profession, religious missionaries must be prepared to change their place of residence with greater ease. Finally, the Government submitted that, in any event, the with the applicant\u2019s family life had been in accordance with law, pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of national security and had also been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "bd029494-f5ec-4f41-a99e-aa86ce918090", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants submitted that the situation in the present case was to be examined under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as the wage deductions involved a deprivation of their property for a service which they had never requested and which, as regards the greater part of the deductions, did not correspond to any service at all. Whichever rule of Article 1 was applicable, there had been an with their property rights which lacked a legitimate aim and which, in any event, was not proportionate to any such aim."], "id": "03a1a0a8-5042-4d12-b5e2-0ddb848426cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicants noted that \u201creligious groups\u201d, as defined in the Religions Act, could operate without State . However, the status of a \u201creligious group\u201d entailed severe restrictions on community religious practice. A \u201creligious group\u201d had no legal personality; it could not acquire rights or obligations, and it could not protect its interests in court. Given the list of rights reserved to registered religious organisations in sections 15-24 of the Religions Act \u2013 including such fundamental aspects of \u201cworship, teaching, practice and observance\u201d as the right to establish places of worship, the right to hold religious services in other places accessible to the public, and the right to produce and/or acquire religious literature \u2013 a \u201creligious group\u201d was not a religious community with any substantial rights or \u201cautonomous existence\u201d, an issue which the Court had found to be \u201cat the very heart of the protection which Article 9 affords\u201d (see Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, \u00a7 118, ECHR 2001\u2011XII)."], "id": "bd6eaf67-9732-471f-9be9-6a9dd2734d9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted further that, as the Contracting States were under no obligation to accept a refusal to perform military service for religious reasons, non-exemption of a person from military or alternative civilian service did not raise any concerns under Article 9 of the Convention. In any event, the applicant\u2019s submissions did not indicate that the obligation to perform military or alternative civilian service entailed any concrete with his rights under Article 9."], "id": "db284eaf-6f7b-40cf-bf85-286f1ad56fa3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicants complained of a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article 9 of the Convention as a result of the failure to issue them with a document necessary for the registration of their religious denomination. They submitted, inter alia, that the with their rights had not been prescribed by law because it had been contrary to the domestic courts\u2019 judgments ordering the issuance of the relevant document."], "id": "c65a032f-36fa-4401-85b9-4f1f63d8211c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants maintained that the domestic authorities had refused to recognise the applicant association as a religious entity in both sets of proceedings despite the fact that it had existed and operated for many years before the 2007 Act had entered into force. They argued that the with their rights under this head had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a democratic society."], "id": "cbcdeb9a-19bc-4363-999c-0200329506a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["162. The applicants submitted that the denial of re-registration amounted to an with their rights to freedom of religion and association. As a matter of domestic law, it had the effect of depriving the applicant community of the right to seek the exemption of clergy from military service, the right to establish educational institutions, to invite foreign preachers, to manufacture, purchase, import and distribute religious literature, and many other rights. Moreover, the denial of re-registration curtailed the right to amend the applicant community's own articles of association, including their bank details and the list of authorised signatories. The entering of the applicant community on the Unified State Register of Legal Entities had been made in accordance with internal administrative reforms and did not constitute re-registration for the purposes of the Religions Act."], "id": "32d83248-efd7-430f-8ca7-17812f38773f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government did not accept that the Certificate of Approval scheme of itself constituted a violation of the applicants' rights. Instead, they submitted that the House of Lords had identified three problems with the first version of the scheme: first, the manner in which the scheme was operated constituted a disproportionate with the right to marry under Article 12 of the Convention; secondly, the existence of a fixed fee at a level which a needy applicant might not be able to afford could impair the essence of the right to marry; thirdly, the exemption for marriages conducted in the Church of England made the scheme discriminatory in breach of Article 14 read together with Article 12. In all other respects, the House of Lords held that the 2004 Act and the 2005 Regulations were unobjectionable and could be operated compatibly with Convention rights."], "id": "74c2347c-c9d1-4cbc-b725-7b5facec3627", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government conceded that the denial of a broadcasting licence to Glas Nadezhda EOOD had amounted to an with the applicants' freedom to impart information and ideas. In their view, however, this interference had been authorised under the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Convention. The licensing of radio broadcasters had been specifically envisioned by the Radio and Television Act 1998. It had been entrusted to a special body, the NRTC, charged with protecting freedom of expression. Moreover, the law regulating licensing had been sufficiently clear in its terms. The NRTC's decision had been based on quite detailed and publicly announced criteria. The NRTC had clearly indicated, as could also be seen from the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 March 2002, which of those criteria had not been met by Glas Nadezhda EOOD. Some of the criteria were formal, while others had related to the utility and the feasibility of the proposed radio station. This could not be seen as unlawful, arbitrary or discriminatory, as indicated by the former Commission in its decision in the case of Verein Alternatives Lokalradio Bern et Verein Radio Dreyeckland Basel v. Switzerland (no. 10746/84, Commission decision of 16 October 1986, Decisions and Reports 49). The decision to refuse the licence had been based on the failure by Glas Nadezhda EOOD to meet a number of the announced criteria. This decision had been the result of a detailed examination and had been reviewed by two levels of court."], "id": "8e6088fb-156c-4715-a63f-35c464a65245", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government submitted that following the entry into force of the Religious Denominations Act on 17 August 2007 the applicants no longer had any need for the document which the courts had ordered to be issued. Moreover, after the law had changed and the enforcement warrant had been returned without enforcement, the applicants had not applied for registration of their denomination. This, in the Government\u2019s opinion, proved the absence of a real intent by the applicants to register a denomination and thus the absence of an with their rights. The Government submitted that the applicants had lost their victim status as a result of the legislative amendments and their subsequent failure to act."], "id": "e3d0af10-7033-495e-b6d4-68d25d312f3a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicants alleged that their beliefs prohibited them from permitting their children to take part in mixed swimming lessons. They added that, although the Koran laid down the precept that the female body was to be covered only from puberty, their faith instructed them to prepare their daughters for the precepts that would be applied to them from puberty onwards. The Court considers that the case concerns a situation in which the applicants\u2019 right to manifest their religion is in issue. The applicants exercised parental authority and could decide, under Article 303 al. 1 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 23 above), on the religious education of their children. In consequence, they are entitled to rely on this aspect of Article 9 of the Convention. The Court considers, furthermore, that the applicants indeed suffered an interference with the exercise of their right to as protected by that provision."], "id": "8da3e72b-075f-453f-ac8f-a5c0b6fcd56e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant complained that he had been obliged, without his consent and in breach of the right to and conscience, to disclose his belief because it was mandatory to indicate his religion on his identity card. He submitted that the indication at issue could not be considered to be compatible with Article 24 \u00a7 3 of the Constitution, which provided that \u201cno one shall be compelled ... to reveal his or her religious beliefs and convictions\u201d. He pointed out that that public document had to be shown at the request of any public authority, private enterprise or in the context of any formality whatsoever."], "id": "ade1984b-ad36-4940-ab49-58674beb86ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["23. The Government stated that the applicant, who had merely asked the judicial authorities to replace the word \u201cIslam\u201d on his identity card with the indication of his belief as \u201cAlevi\u201d, had not duly exhausted domestic remedies in relation to his complaint concerning and conscience. In the Government\u2019s view, the applicant had never argued that the indication of his religion on his identity card was incompatible with his freedom of religion and conscience."], "id": "c99f8b16-4310-4a6d-8387-cd70f7001ba0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicants in application no. 1413/08 submitted that the court\u2011appointed experts had no expertise in religious matters and, in particular, had no knowledge of Islam. They had therefore made a purely secular assessment of the texts, without taking into account their religious purpose and the particularities of religious texts. The recognised authorities on Islam, such as a co-president of the Council of Mufti of Russia, had told the courts that Said Nursi was a world-renowned Muslim scholar whose texts formed an integral part of the official teachings of Islam and did not contain any extremist statements. He had also said that the ban on Said Nursi\u2019s books would hinder the religious life of Russian Muslims and unjustifiably restrict their ."], "id": "7519e69b-ffbf-413e-82f7-54bf2da82fdd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["94. The applicants alleged that the Moldovan authorities\u2019 refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia infringed their , since only religions recognised by the government could be practised in Moldova. They asserted in particular that their freedom to manifest their religion in community with others was frustrated by the fact that they were prohibited from gathering together for religious purposes and by the complete absence of judicial protection of the applicant Church\u2019s assets. They relied on Article 9 of the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "c3e95d59-a482-4ecf-834c-d14f145cf4fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government\u2019s warning and indoctrination campaign had had no legal basis. Neither of the constitutional norms quoted by the Government was sufficiently clear to allow the infringement of the applicant associations\u2019 Convention rights. They considered that the principle of proportionality did not set sufficiently clear limits to the exercise of the Government\u2019s discretionary power where interferences with the derived directly from other constitutional rights. The importance of the right to freedom of religion required a strict adherence to legal principles and at least some procedural rules concerning the involvement of the religious communities in the process of defining the scope of the State powers and safeguards against abuse of authority. In the applicant associations\u2019 view the authorities had failed in their duty to enact an adequate legal framework in this respect."], "id": "b453e311-212b-49d1-a87a-58b1ea44ba9a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government submitted that the confiscation by the prison authorities of the cassette player the applicant received from the national civil assistance centre for prisons could not be considered as an infringement of his as he could have continued his religious instruction by correspondence and by attending the activities organised by the prison. Furthermore, they pointed out that the prison authorities had confiscated only the cassette player and not the applicant\u2019s cassettes or religious books as the applicant alleged. They added that the applicant could have listened to his religious cassettes on the cassette player in the prison\u2019s education and cultural department."], "id": "495e4374-6ad4-467a-b3d3-b796cc8ef14a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government questioned the reliance on various media and other reports in substantiating the applicant's complaints and considered them immaterial to the case. Nevertheless, in respect of the media campaigns, the Government contended that they did not infringe on the applicant's right to . To the contrary, they considered them a legitimate exercise of the media's right of freedom of expression, in so far as they were expressing the reservations of the public towards members of a religious organisation allegedly proselytising among the pupils of the School with the tacit support or approval of the institution's former principal. In any event, the Government considered that the media's singling out of the applicant had not, in itself, infringed her right to freedom of religion."], "id": "4b2ed8f1-325e-4db6-84be-0d9f1a415e20", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant in the present case brought a claim for damages in respect of the actions of the police which she claimed breached her right to and freedom of assembly. Her claim was finally dismissed on the ground that the police had acted in implementation of the orders of the prosecution authorities, which, in their turn, could not be held liable under domestic law for the specific decisions at issue (see paragraph 14 above). The Government have not demonstrated to the Court that the applicant had at her disposal another remedy which would have provided her with effective relief in respect of her complaint under Article 9 of the Convention (see Krasimir Yordanov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 50-55; see also Boychev and Others, cited above, \u00a7 56)."], "id": "c02ba753-ad44-48ef-93c1-e1666b5e48d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicants complained that the Russian courts had violated their rights to and freedom of expression, as provided for in Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, by declaring that Islamic books by Said Nursi, which they had published and used for religious and educational purposes, were \u201cextremist\u201d. Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention read:"], "id": "774ff6e3-c33a-4145-8a4f-5d10d2462d49", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicants submitted that by banning the books by Said Nursi, the Russian authorities had declared unlawful religious literature explaining the Islamic doctrine and had therefore interfered with the applicants\u2019 rights to and freedom of expression. In particular, \u201cThe Tenth Word: The Resurrection and the Hereafter\u201d was a commentary on the Qur\u2019an, recognised as such by the Council of Mufti of Russia. It dealt with the topics of resurrection, the judgment day and the afterlife. The applicant organisation in application no. 28621/11 had planned to use it for religious and educational purposes. By declaring it extremist, the domestic authorities had prohibited its use and distribution."], "id": "d549c8db-9e7a-4502-b894-31ddeb9fd0f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["162. The applicants submitted that the denial of re-registration amounted to an interference with their rights to and association. As a matter of domestic law, it had the effect of depriving the applicant community of the right to seek the exemption of clergy from military service, the right to establish educational institutions, to invite foreign preachers, to manufacture, purchase, import and distribute religious literature, and many other rights. Moreover, the denial of re-registration curtailed the right to amend the applicant community's own articles of association, including their bank details and the list of authorised signatories. The entering of the applicant community on the Unified State Register of Legal Entities had been made in accordance with internal administrative reforms and did not constitute re-registration for the purposes of the Religions Act."], "id": "731ba212-f502-48a9-bf9b-c8bc9dab79c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["166. The Government further submitted that there was no violation of the applicants' right to or any restriction on that right. The penalty imposed on the applicant community \u201cwas not harsh and was not motivated by religious factors, but by a failure to observe the law and a violation of the administrative procedure\u201d. Members of the applicant community continued to profess their faith, hold services of worship and ceremonies, and guide their followers. Thus, from 5 to 7 July 2002 the applicant community had held a regional congress of Jehovah's Witnesses which had been attended by up to 24,000 believers."], "id": "5d10153b-bfd7-4879-a834-4e2762847703", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government further submitted that there was no violation of the applicant's right to or any restriction on that right. The penalty imposed on the applicant \u201cwas not harsh and was not motivated by religious factors, but by a failure to submit to the Religions Act and violation of the administrative procedure\u201d. The refusal of re-registration of the applicant did not entail a ban on its activity. Members of the applicant continued to profess their faith, hold services of worship and ceremonies, and guide their followers."], "id": "a840e160-1cfd-40c3-b5c7-e90218f9ff20", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government accepted that the right to included the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion through worship and observance, but considered that in the present case the refusal to recognise the applicant Church did not amount to a prohibition of its activities or those of its members. The members of the applicant Church retained their freedom of religion, both as regards their freedom of conscience and as regards the freedom to manifest their beliefs through worship and practice."], "id": "d1d3e498-0a5e-4cd1-bc9f-90ba5d6dde2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government contested that there had been an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to . Since the entry into force of the 1919 Treaty of St Germain, all Austrian inhabitants had been allowed to practise publicly and privately their thought, religion and beliefs, irrespective of whether their religious society, community or church was recognised or had legal status. The right to autonomous administration of the entity\u2019s internal organisation was likewise guaranteed. Referring to a judgment of the Constitutional Court (VfSlg. 10.915/1986), the Government contended that the refusal of recognition did not impede the applicants\u2019 exercise of their right to freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention. Against this background, they contested that the first applicant had no legal personality in Austria, was legally non-existent and could not acquire assets or enter into legal relations, because these allegations concerned the first applicant\u2019s situation before it had obtained legal personality as a registered religious community on 11 July 1998. Even before the entry into force of the 1998 Religious Communities Act, the first applicant had had the possibility of setting up an association with a religious purpose under the Associations Act, as the Federation of Evangelical Municipalities in Austria (Bund Evangelikaler Gemeinden in \u00d6sterreich) had on 21 March 1992, and the Church of Scientology in Austria (Scientology Kirche \u00d6sterreich) on 20 May 1984. However, the applicants did not appear to have made any efforts to that end."], "id": "3656f841-c74a-42f4-a50e-a857d661b4b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["120. The applicant association stated that its right to change religious orientation, as guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention, had been interfered with. There had been interference with its as the State had refused to register the changes and amendments to its statute for no legitimate reason as all the conditions for making the changes and amendments were met. Furthermore, the applicant association had been prevented from using the church premises it had built for its religious ceremonies and even from using its chosen name."], "id": "8768fde3-a7dc-4292-a4f4-413e0a9573a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that there had been no interference in the exercise by the applicant of his right to , because no direct connection could be made between the indication of religion on identity cards and freedom of religion and conscience. It could not be construed as a requirement to disclose one\u2019s religious beliefs or as a restriction on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion in worship, teaching, practice and observance."], "id": "bc026c12-adfa-45ce-a800-1b50b52dc0b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government claimed that the \u201cfifteen-year rule\u201d incorporated in the Religions Act complied with \u201cuniversally accepted principles and rules of international law, provisions of the Russian Constitution and contemporary legal practice in democratic States\u201d. They maintained that the grounds for refusing State registration had been \u201cpurely legal\u201d and prescribed by the Religions Act, that the decision had not been motivated by religious considerations and that there had been no causal link between the decision and the enjoyment of the right of citizens to and association. There had been no evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination on the ground of religion. The Government relied in that connection on the Court\u2019s finding that \u201cStates have a right to satisfy themselves that an association\u2019s aim and activities are in conformity with the rules laid down in legislation\u201d (see Sidiropoulos and Others, cited above, \u00a7 40)."], "id": "eb69073f-4ff6-41ba-9680-367c703f6f69", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["202. The applicant alleged that the pastor who attempted to visit him was denied access in June and September 2009. This was confirmed by the pastor in a letter to the Court (see paragraph 45 above). The two respondent Governments have not made any submissions on this point. The Court sees no reason to doubt the description of the facts provided by the applicant and the pastor and accepts that there was interference with the applicant\u2019s right to ."], "id": "49d72d58-83ca-4219-bcba-240edee77468", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government submitted that, in contrast to the facts found in Boychev and Others, cited above, there was no evidence in the present case to support the view that the police action of 27 September 1995 interrupted a religious meeting. As could be seen from the summons requiring the applicant to appear at the police station, she was informed of the search well in advance. The summons was issued under the Public Education Act and decree no. 367/194 of the Supreme Prosecution Office (see paragraph 8 above) and was aimed at regulating educational activities. It followed, in the Government\u2019s view, that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to . In addition, the Government argued that the law in force at the material time allowing for interference with the rights under Article 9 should be assessed in context. Arguments had been put forward at the relevant time to suggest that followers of Word of Life, particularly minors, were at risk of isolation and lower standards of protection in medical, educational and civil terms. The prosecutorial authorities were part of the judiciary, not the executive and the police took action as sanctioned by the prosecutor\u2019s office. The actions of the police were well founded and fully in compliance with the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 1 April 1994, refusing registration of the three organisations affiliated with Word of Life (see paragraph 6 above). Moreover, the lack of registration as a religious denomination had never been an obstacle for its followers to profess their religion or practice their activity."], "id": "ea0c0f02-476b-43f9-b746-07901323561b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicants complained that the refusal of the Austrian authorities to grant legal personality to the first applicant by conferring on it the status of a religious society under the Recognition Act violated their right to . They further submitted that the legal personality conferred on the first applicant under the Religious Communities Act was limited and insufficient for the purposes of Article 9 of the Convention. The applicants also relied on Article 11 of the Convention. These provisions read as follows:"], "id": "c7a06a51-7cc2-4e22-a557-5601edf90fa4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant associations contested those arguments. They considered that their right to had to be regarded as a \u201ccivil right\u201d within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1. They pointed out that the right to choose and profess one\u2019s religion was an original individual right which was not bestowed by the State. They further maintained that the Convention did not limit the applicability of Article 6 \u00a7 1 to rights of a pecuniary nature. The field of \u201ccivil rights\u201d traditionally encompassed a number of non-pecuniary rights including those relating to religious questions, such as the right to religious education."], "id": "449b3c55-8d01-411c-a400-01c9805706e0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government acknowledged that the refusal to register the applicant group constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to . In their view, the interference was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and all the refusals of registration had been based on the relevant legal provisions. The interference pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of protecting public order (they referred to Kimlya, cited above, \u00a7 97). The Government justified the interference as having been necessary in a democratic society for suppressing manifestations of religious discord (they referred to Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, 25 November 1996, \u00a7 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V, and Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, \u00a7 50, Series A no. 295\u2011A). They also claimed that similar waiting periods were provided for by the laws of some other Member States. According to their information, Austrian law set the waiting period at twenty years, Latvian law at twenty-five years, and Romania\u2019s Law no. 489 of 28 December 2006 provided that religious denominations, other than the eighteen listed in the law, may be recognised if they can prove their existence in the country for at least twelve years."], "id": "e6be8eff-629c-409b-a22c-d26d188008b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government maintained that the status conferred on the first applicant as a registered religious community under the 1998 Religious Communities Act complied with the requirements of Article 9; it only provided a legal status and in no way restricted the exercise or enjoyment of the right to . In conclusion, there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 9 of the Convention."], "id": "f0f6aae9-06dd-429c-9491-ee3f4b942fa1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicants submitted that the loss of their proper Church status as a result of the 2011 Church Act had constituted interference with their . The proper functioning of religious communities necessitated the enjoyment of a specific and appropriate legal status, that is, Church status in the legal sense. In Hungary, religious communities had had a reasonable opportunity to be registered as Churches since 1990, and the applicants had indeed enjoyed that status. The fact that on 1 January 2012 the vast majority of Churches (including theirs) had lost their proper Church status and had been forced to convert into ordinary civil associations or else cease to exist legally had constituted in itself interference with their freedom of religion, especially since the loss of Church status had deprived them of privileges which had facilitated their religious activities. The fact that those privileges were guaranteed henceforth only to Churches recognised by Parliament had placed them in a situation which was substantially disadvantageous vis-\u00e0-vis those Churches."], "id": "84016d0f-9773-4a8c-bd58-a2c22674e433", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants submitted that the refusal of the Austrian authorities to grant legal personality to the first applicant by conferring on it the status of a religious society recognised under the Recognition Act violated their right to . In particular, before July 1998, the first applicant could not have been established as a legal entity and, thus, could not have entered into legal relations, concluded contracts or acquired assets. The first applicant had, thus far, no internal autonomy, could not hire the necessary religious ministers and was not entitled to perform its pastoral work for believers in hospitals or prisons. The second to fifth applicants, as leading executives of the first applicant, were also limited in exercising their right to freedom of religion. Neither the Basic Law 1867 nor the 1998 Religious Communities Act provided explicitly for the internal autonomy of a religious community. The Constitutional Court had found (in its judgment of 3 March 2001, B1713/98 \u2013 see paragraph 34 above) that registered religious communities, unlike recognised religious societies, did not enjoy the right to comprehensive organisation and administration of their internal affairs without State interference. Lastly, the applicants contested that they would have had the possibility of forming an association under the Associations Act. They referred to the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding of 1929 (VfSlg. 1265/1929), confirming the administrative authorities\u2019 practice not to allow religious societies to form an association, and thus refusing the request of the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses (Ernste Bibelforscher) to set up an association. Thereafter the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses had not tried again to form an association, but auxiliary associations (Hilfsvereine) with specialised religious aims had been created. The two examples of associations submitted by the Government were likewise merely auxiliary associations. It was not until the enactment of the 2002 Associations Act that religious societies had been allowed to set up an association."], "id": "c35195b4-ead7-4503-aa19-30e02e1a3517", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant referred to the Court\u2019s case-law in Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 30985/96, \u00a7 60, ECHR 2000\u2011XI), in which it was stated that the right to did not protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief. In the present case, the non-renewal decision following the publicity given to the applicant\u2019s situation had clearly been disproportionate."], "id": "16ef87b7-8010-4077-beb8-1e52a3910c17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government and the third party expressed doubts as to whether the case was about . They alleged that the applicants\u2019 concern was not the practice of religion but their ambition to control property and gain power to administer the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The Government also stated that it was not the Court\u2019s role to decide who the legitimate leader of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was and expressed the view that for that reason the case did not concern human rights."], "id": "902c8793-7ca3-49f5-9f5b-1ce3c0e196b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant argued that he had never declared himself as Christian Orthodox. He was born in the former USSR, where christening children was not a common practice. He was raised as an atheist and embraced the Buddhist faith later in life. In detention, he relied on the vegetarian food his family sent him by post, but after the adoption of the Minister of Justice\u2019s order no. 3042/2007 he could no longer receive parcels by post. His family had difficulty travelling to the prison regularly. When he was refused a vegetarian diet by the prison authorities he adopted a diet of bread and margarine and sometimes marmalade. He maintained that the Rahova prison authorities\u2019 failure to provide him with a vegetarian diet amounted to a violation of his ."], "id": "6781bebd-917f-432f-ac5b-7b93ba7c68ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government of the Republic of Moldova submitted that the Chamber had not struck a sufficient balance between the freedom of association claimed by the applicant union and the and right to autonomy of the Orthodox Church. They contended that Article 11 of the Convention could not be construed as imposing a positive obligation on the State to recognise a secular association within a religious community where such recognition would be at variance with the State\u2019s duty of denominational neutrality."], "id": "9ef028af-988d-46b1-a9bf-50b97a7ebf17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants claimed that the right to encompassed the expectation that members would be allowed to associate freely without arbitrary State intervention. Therefore, the State was prohibited from regulating State-Church relationships arbitrarily; any interference in that sphere had to be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. The requirements relating to the registration of Churches had to be objective and reasonable, because in this matter the State was required to remain neutral and impartial. Consequently, if a religious community met the legal requirements it had to be entitled to be registered as a Church, and the registration procedure had to offer guarantees of fairness."], "id": "dc73c576-ebd7-4dd5-af53-42680de4e6ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of religion", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government accepted that under Russian law, the scope of the rights of \u201creligious groups\u201d was different from that of \u201creligious organisations\u201d that had obtained legal-entity status through State registration. However, in their submission, the difference in the scope of rights was in no way connected with the exercise of the rights to and association. The founding of a religious group was a voluntary act by a group of individuals. It did not require any special permission; notification to the municipal authority sufficed. Accordingly, in the Government\u2019s view, the matter fell outside the State\u2019s sphere of competence and the applicants were free to exercise their rights without State interference. \u201cReligious groups\u201d could celebrate services, other religious rites and ceremonies, and also give religious instruction and training to their followers."], "id": "465d4bfe-86de-4b51-89a0-affafe197f07", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained under Article 9 of the Convention that the measures taken against her, namely her questioning by the police, the search and seizure and the warning order, interfered with her right to worship collectively with like-minded adherents of the Evangelical faith in a home environment. In addition, the denial of legal registration to her church was done is a spirit which lacked any semblance of State neutrality. At all stages, the State authorities acted on the basis of discriminatory value judgments rather than evidence. The applicant considered that the measures were not prescribed by law, since they were arbitrary and based on legal provisions which allowed an unfettered discretion to the executive. Finally, the measures were not . There was no evidence that that the religious beliefs of the members of the applicant\u2019s church were responsible for family separation, isolation and suicide. The action of the state authorities failed to respect the need for true religious pluralism, which is inherent in the concept of a democratic society."], "id": "5544f32b-dc7b-45e5-8fff-adb354f3151a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they considered that such interference had been and had been justified by the need to ensure public safety and to prevent any obstruction by the applicant of the investigation of the criminal case against him."], "id": "15d710b2-8774-4b41-af49-36a5747843ae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants maintained that the domestic authorities had refused to recognise the applicant association as a religious entity in both sets of proceedings despite the fact that it had existed and operated for many years before the 2007 Act had entered into force. They argued that the interference with their rights under this head had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been ."], "id": "a1620371-4e67-4bee-9a35-f94a3e03608f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant disagrees with the Government\u2019s arguments. He submits that his conviction amounted to an interference with his right to be free to exercise his religion together with all those who turned to him for spiritual guidance. He further considers that his conviction was not prescribed by law. In this respect he affirms that the Treaty of Peace of Athens remains in force. The Greek Prime-Minister accepted that at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the 1923 Treaty of Peace of Lausanne. Moreover, the Court of Cassation has recently confirmed the continued validity of the Treaty of peace of Athens and legal scholars hold the same view. The Muslims had never accepted the abrogation of Law no. 2345/1920. The applicant lastly contends that his conviction was not . He points out that the Christians and Jews in Greece have the right to elect their religious leaders. Depriving the Muslims of this possibility amounts to discriminatory treatment."], "id": "0ba915ee-c8f8-4d66-8a6c-1a2fa9563b5f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government lastly argued that the alleged interference had met the requirement of being . They took the view that to find such documents inadmissible would prevent courts from ruling on situations that might present a risk for the health, morals or stability of other family members, especially where there were alcohol-related problems. They added that the fact of excluding documents obtained by duress or fraud fulfilled the State\u2019s positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention. The Government further indicated that the Court of Appeal had maintained the applicant\u2019s right of contact in respect of his children pending the results of the expert\u2019s report, and inferred from this that any interference would thus, in any event, have been proportionate. Lastly, they observed that such interference, when compared with that in Z v. Finland (cited above) and M.S. v. Sweden, (27 August 1997, Reports 1997\u2011IV), appeared far less significant and was circumscribed by the requisite safeguards."], "id": "ef302db9-fffe-4e80-8b05-2ffab9e687c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants claimed that the right to freedom of religion encompassed the expectation that members would be allowed to associate freely without arbitrary State intervention. Therefore, the State was prohibited from regulating State-Church relationships arbitrarily; any interference in that sphere had to be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be . The requirements relating to the registration of Churches had to be objective and reasonable, because in this matter the State was required to remain neutral and impartial. Consequently, if a religious community met the legal requirements it had to be entitled to be registered as a Church, and the registration procedure had to offer guarantees of fairness."], "id": "40be9da6-ffe6-4b81-b14c-5504c547b998", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant submits that his conviction amounted to an interference with his right to be free to exercise his religion together with all those who turned to him for spiritual guidance. He further considers that his conviction was not prescribed by law. In this respect he affirms that the Treaty of Peace of Athens remains in force. The Greek Prime-Minister accepted that at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the 1923 Treaty of Peace of Lausanne. Moreover, the Court of Cassation has recently confirmed the continued validity of the Treaty of peace of Athens and legal scholars hold the same view. The Muslims had never accepted the abrogation of Law no. 2345/1920. The applicant lastly contends that his conviction was not . He points out that the Christians and Jews in Greece have the right to elect their religious leaders. Depriving the Muslims of this possibility amounts to discriminatory treatment."], "id": "88b74989-c8fc-429f-b9c7-c6240b4d6cd9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that in democratic societies, in which several religions coexisted within one and the same population, it was necessary to place restrictions on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion or belief in order to reconcile the interests of the various groups and ensure that everyone\u2019s beliefs were respected. Rules in this sphere could vary from one country to another in accordance with national traditions and the requirements imposed by the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others and to maintain public order. Accordingly, the choice of the extent and form such regulations took had to be left up to a point to the State concerned, as it depended on the specific domestic context. They referred in this context to Leyla \u015eahin v. Turkey ([GC], no. 44774/98, \u00a7\u00a7 106-09, ECHR 2005\u2011XI). The Government interpreted the cases of Cha\u2019are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France ([GC], no. 27417/95, \u00a7 84, ECHR 2000\u2011VII) and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (25 November 1996, \u00a7 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V) to mean that where questions concerning the relationship between State and religions were at stake, on which opinion in a democratic society might differ widely, the role of the national decision-making body had to be given special importance. Given that Said Nursi\u2019s books incited religious discord and proclaimed religious superiority and could therefore provoke serious religious clashes with unpredictable negative consequences, the ban on their publication and dissemination had pursued the aims of protecting territorial integrity and public safety in Russia, public order and the rights of others. Moreover, it had been , taking into account the tense ethnic situation in the country and the possible negative impact of those books on non-religious citizens."], "id": "a5b38ce1-e4fe-47d4-b4e1-f861ed67d705", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["163. The applicants claimed that the interference had not been prescribed by law or . It had been established by the Presnenskiy District Court on 16 August 2002 that the Moscow Justice Department had not invoked the dissolution proceedings before the Golovinskiy District Court as a ground for refusing re-registration. Furthermore, the four criminal investigations between June 1996 and April 1998 had found no criminal activity on the part of the applicant community. In April 1999, after a detailed expert study, the Ministry of Justice had granted re-registration to the federal organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses, of which the applicant community had been a member. Likewise, 398 communities of Jehovah's Witnesses in other Russian regions had been granted registration or re-registration during the same period."], "id": "fa6b9189-2054-482a-9771-0bf837b1e1bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government submitted that the refusal to renew the applicant\u2019s contract had been . The principle of the neutrality of public services required that employees could not wear any religious symbol, of any form, even if they did not engage in proselytism. In this connection they referred to the Court\u2019s case-law with regard to civil servants and their duty of discretion and choice of attire (specifically, Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, \u00a7 53, Series A no. 323, and Kurtulmu\u015f v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006\u2011II). They emphasised the particular importance of the principle of neutrality in the circumstances of this case, where it was difficult to assess the impact that a particularly visible external sign could have on the freedom of conscience of fragile and impressionable patients. The Government added that certain patients had specifically refused to meet the applicant, and that this situation had created a general climate of tension and difficulties within the unit, requiring the applicant\u2019s colleagues and some social workers to handle sensitive situations. It was in the light of this general climate that the CASH had taken the contested decision, after reminding the applicant on several occasions of the duty of neutrality, and not on account of the latter\u2019s professional skills, which had always been acknowledged. The Government considered that the contested decision had complied with the requirement to weigh up the interests at stake; it had been the consequence of the applicant\u2019s refusal to comply with the rules applicable to every public employee, of which she had been perfectly aware, and not, as she alleged, on account of her religious beliefs. Lastly, although the applicant\u2019s wearing of the religious symbol had been accepted by the hospital until 2000, this factor did not, in the Government\u2019s view, render the contested interference unnecessary. They reiterated that \u201cthe fact that an existing rule is applied less rigorously because of a specific context does not mean that there is no justification for the rule or that it is no longer binding in law\u201d (citing Kurtulmu\u015f, cited above)."], "id": "1b9c21a6-53be-4283-933f-8b40bead5ca4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant associations further maintained that the interference with their Convention rights was not justified by any of the legitimate aims set out in Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. There could never be a justification for judging religious groups\u2019 beliefs as contrasted to their actions. The Government had failed to submit any concrete facts which would allow the Court to verify the assumption that their movement was in any way dangerous or that urgent social needs necessitated the actions in question. Their movement could not be criticised for any activity which was illegal or contrary to public order and the existing legislation. Accordingly, their treatment by the political authorities had been persecutory and unjustified, and had not been ."], "id": "2c9b3b9d-0f7b-4f66-9b66-efa6f94872e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant submitted that the imposition of criminal sanctions on conscientious objectors, even in those few member States that have not yet implemented alternative civilian service, could not be considered . The Armenian authorities had acknowledged that when they undertook a commitment to refrain from imprisonment of conscientious objectors even before a law providing for such service was passed. Furthermore, the punishment imposed on him was wholly disproportionate in a modern democratic State."], "id": "0ffa8bdf-96d3-4d30-ada1-8168dc1d9e98", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants further referred to the fact that the law had later been amended, arguing that the Government had conceded that it had been fundamentally flawed. One of the main defects identified when the amendments had been proposed was that the alternative labour service was under military control. Prior to those amendments there had been no genuine alternative service of a clearly civilian nature in Armenia. PACE and the Committee of Ministers had repeatedly called on the Armenian authorities to introduce a clearly civilian service. The applicants submitted that the fact that the law had eventually been amended in 2013 to remove all military control and supervision and to place the programme under a purely civilian administration also confirmed that it had not been to prosecute and imprison them."], "id": "0598d96c-4315-4a0e-aafa-5a33daa32b96", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant further argued that the interference was not . Firstly, the fact that he \u2013 a conscientious objector who was committed to living peacefully with his neighbours and who had a blank criminal record \u2013 was imprisoned and treated like a dangerous criminal was totally unnecessary in a democratic society. In particular, he had been subjected to a harassing search process, had later been arrested and locked up in a cell without any bedding and with six others detained for various crimes, and had been subjected to insults and verbal abuse by the guards. Secondly, he had been subjected to wholly disproportionate punishment and treatment considering that he was simply exercising his fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Thirdly, his imprisonment had not been necessary also because the Armenian authorities had pardoned other individuals in a similar situation. Lastly, the military protection of the country would not be disorganised and weakened if persons like him were not punished. In particular, Armenia had 125,000 active conscripts in 2007 and 551,000 potential ones, while only 41 Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses were imprisoned. Moreover, since 2002 only three individuals belonging to other religions had decided to become conscientious objectors. Such insignificant numbers could not have a negative impact on the military capacity of Armenia."], "id": "c4c762b7-32e2-44ba-ae7b-e16aed42858a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["82. The Government submitted that Russian law treated all aliens on an equal basis, irrespective of whether or not they had a minor child in Russia. There was no evidence that the State authorities had prevented the applicant from being reunited with his son in a different State. Nor had he shown that he had taken any steps to remove his son from Russia. In any event, the Convention does not guarantee the right to establish family life in any specific country (here they referred to the case of Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, \u00a7 97, ECHR 2003\u2011X). Unlike the first applicant in the Slivenko case, who had come to Latvia when she had been only ten months old and had spent her entire life there, the applicant had arrived in Russia as an adult and had lived there for only eight years. His integration into Russian society was open to doubt since he had been unable, by his own admission, to read a document handwritten in Russian. Moreover, owing to their profession, religious missionaries must be prepared to change their place of residence with greater ease. Finally, the Government submitted that, in any event, the interference with the applicant\u2019s family life had been in accordance with law, pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of national security and had also been ."], "id": "0578aa8d-2cb1-4385-90f5-e209a26192ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to family life. They stressed however that intervention by the domestic courts had been prescribed by law, namely section 92 (4) of the Csjt. (see paragraph 15 above). Moreover, it pursued a legitimate aim, that is, the protection of the child\u2019s interests, and was . They added that in this field the child\u2019s interests were paramount, overriding the interests of the parents."], "id": "490ea108-d19f-494e-ae9a-996819ce7d01", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant alleged, lastly, that the restrictions in question had not pursued a legitimate aim that was . Contrary to the Government's submissions, she had not failed to comply with her duty of assiduity but had been confronted with the teacher's refusal to allow her to take part in the class. Despite her proposal to wear a hat or balaclava instead of her headscarf, she had continually been refused permission to participate in sports classes. The teacher had refused to allow her to take part in the class on grounds of her safety. However, when the teacher had been asked, at the session of the pupil discipline committee, how wearing the headscarf or a hat during his classes would endanger the child's safety, he had refused to answer the question. The Government had not provided any further explanations on this point. The applicant also pointed out that wearing the headscarf had given rise to strike action by a number of teachers in the school on the pretext of defending the principle of secularism and that it was those very teachers who had started the unrest and disruption and not in any way the applicant, who had not engaged in any form of proselytism."], "id": "507a3a2a-2f20-4b55-9c63-b1148e353e84", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government acknowledged that the refusal to register the applicant group constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of religion. In their view, the interference was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and all the refusals of registration had been based on the relevant legal provisions. The interference pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of protecting public order (they referred to Kimlya, cited above, \u00a7 97). The Government justified the interference as having been for suppressing manifestations of religious discord (they referred to Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, 25 November 1996, \u00a7 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V, and Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, \u00a7 50, Series A no. 295\u2011A). They also claimed that similar waiting periods were provided for by the laws of some other Member States. According to their information, Austrian law set the waiting period at twenty years, Latvian law at twenty-five years, and Romania\u2019s Law no. 489 of 28 December 2006 provided that religious denominations, other than the eighteen listed in the law, may be recognised if they can prove their existence in the country for at least twelve years."], "id": "784716a2-8cda-41b0-b944-ae89a575c499", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["120. The Government submitted that the interference complained of was . In the first place, to recognise the applicant Church the State would have had to give up its position of neutrality in religious matters, and in religious conflicts in particular, which would have been contrary to the Moldovan Constitution and Moldovan public policy. It was therefore in order to discharge its duty of neutrality that the Government had urged the applicant Church to settle its differences with the Metropolitan Church of Moldova first."], "id": "2f5f346a-5579-42d5-8b05-4872565f7a59", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government further contend that the interference was . To start with, in many countries, the Muftis are appointed by the State. In Greece, Muftis exercise important judicial functions and judges cannot be elected by the people. This is all the more so that in the instant case the \u201celection\u201d of the applicant had been flawed because it had not been the result of a democratic procedure and the applicant had been used by the local Muslim MPs for party political purposes. Moreover, given that there were two Muftis in Xanthi at the time and that the applicant had questioned the legality of the acts of the lawful mufti, the courts had to convict the spurious one in order not to create tension among the Moslems, between the Moslems and Christians and between Turkey and Greece. In any event, the State had to protect the office of the mufti and, even if there had not existed a lawfully appointed mufti, the applicant would have had to be punished. In this respect, the Government submit that the Court of Cassation did not convict the applicant simply because he appeared as the Mufti. In fact, the courts considered that the offence in Article 175 is committed when somebody actually discharges the functions of a religious minister and that the acts perpetrated by the applicant fell within the administrative functions of a mufti in the broad sense of the term."], "id": "eafc6a2a-c944-487d-bbff-4ebd8e439789", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["121. The applicants submitted that the refusal to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was not . They asserted that all the arguments put forward by the Government were without foundation and unsubstantiated and that they did not correspond to a \u201cpressing social need\u201d. There was nothing in the file to show that the applicants had intended or carried on or sought to carry on activities capable of undermining Moldovan territorial integrity, national security or public order. "], "id": "a12a6210-85a9-4c2b-a9ce-d22d1904cdf1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government further contend that the interference was . In many countries, the Muftis are appointed by the State. Moreover, Muftis exercise important judicial functions in Greece and judges cannot be elected by the people. The Government submit that because there were two Muftis in Xanthi at the time, the courts had to convict the spurious one in order not to create tension among the Muslims, between the Muslims and Christians and between Turkey and Greece. The courts considered that the offence in Article 175 is committed when somebody actually discharges the functions of a religious minister. The courts also considered that the acts that the applicant engaged in fell within the administrative functions of a Mufti in the broad sense of the term."], "id": "0e20c397-8788-45da-bdd0-5b52319bb139", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "necessary in a democratic society", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant submitted that the imposition of criminal sanctions on conscientious objectors, even in those few member States that have not yet implemented alternative civilian service, could not be considered . The Armenian authorities had acknowledged that when they undertook a commitment to refrain from imprisonment of conscientious objectors even before a law providing for such service was passed. Furthermore, the punishment imposed on him was wholly disproportionate in a modern democratic State."], "id": "27655d5d-0151-470e-a5ec-4e814c03c2b6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant submits that his conviction amounted to an interference with his right to be free to exercise his religion together with all those who turned to him for spiritual guidance. He further considers that his conviction was not . In this respect he affirms that the Treaty of Peace of Athens remains in force. The Greek Prime-Minister accepted that at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the 1923 Treaty of Peace of Lausanne. Moreover, the Court of Cassation has recently confirmed the continued validity of the Treaty of peace of Athens and legal scholars hold the same view. The Muslims had never accepted the abrogation of Law no. 2345/1920. The applicant lastly contends that his conviction was not necessary in a democratic society. He points out that the Christians and Jews in Greece have the right to elect their religious leaders. Depriving the Muslims of this possibility amounts to discriminatory treatment."], "id": "e88091bb-4335-4d6e-8006-b0e7e111b540", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant disagrees with the Government\u2019s arguments. He submits that his conviction amounted to an interference with his right to be free to exercise his religion together with all those who turned to him for spiritual guidance. He further considers that his conviction was not . In this respect he affirms that the Treaty of Peace of Athens remains in force. The Greek Prime-Minister accepted that at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the 1923 Treaty of Peace of Lausanne. Moreover, the Court of Cassation has recently confirmed the continued validity of the Treaty of peace of Athens and legal scholars hold the same view. The Muslims had never accepted the abrogation of Law no. 2345/1920. The applicant lastly contends that his conviction was not necessary in a democratic society. He points out that the Christians and Jews in Greece have the right to elect their religious leaders. Depriving the Muslims of this possibility amounts to discriminatory treatment."], "id": "856b5e83-e6e0-47c3-9a52-90596ea189fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to family life. They stressed however that intervention by the domestic courts had been , namely section 92 (4) of the Csjt. (see paragraph 15 above). Moreover, it pursued a legitimate aim, that is, the protection of the child\u2019s interests, and was necessary in a democratic society. They added that in this field the child\u2019s interests were paramount, overriding the interests of the parents."], "id": "5aff7e41-bdec-4339-bd44-09ef38f9ae41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants submitted that the manner in which the NRTC had applied its criteria for evaluating candidates for broadcasting licences had been arbitrary. Firstly, those candidates had had no direct contact with the NRTC, which had engendered delay and confusion. Secondly, the points system adopted by the NRTC had not been properly operated. It was natural to expect that each candidate would be allotted a certain number of points, that later a ranking would be made, and that the candidate obtaining the highest number of points would be granted a licence. However, the NRTC had eschewed such allotting of points, instead merely informing the candidates that they would or would not be granted a licence. The procedure followed had not been public and transparent. The NRTC had not disclosed the reasons for its decisions and the candidates had not been told why some of them had been approved and others not. Their evaluations had never been made public. These deficiencies had not been addressed or remedied in the ensuing judicial review proceedings, which had deprived judicial review of all practical meaning. For all these reasons, the applicants were of the view that the interference with their freedom of expression had not been ."], "id": "be512bc0-48cb-4458-b56a-e395b9b41eb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant contested the Government's submissions. She alleged, first of all, that the interference in question had not been . It had mainly taken the form of an opinion of the Conseil d'Etat, ministerial circulars and judicial interpretations of the case-law, none of which had the status of a law or regulation in French law in that they were not binding on the courts applying the law. The applicant pointed out that individual freedoms, and particularly religious freedom, were essential freedoms that could be restricted only by provisions that were at the very least legally binding; and that the French Government, well aware of that gap in the law, had considered it necessary to enact legislation on 15 March 2004."], "id": "065d6bdc-81bc-4a82-8222-af9bb62b11b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["163. The applicants claimed that the interference had not been or necessary in a democratic society. It had been established by the Presnenskiy District Court on 16 August 2002 that the Moscow Justice Department had not invoked the dissolution proceedings before the Golovinskiy District Court as a ground for refusing re-registration. Furthermore, the four criminal investigations between June 1996 and April 1998 had found no criminal activity on the part of the applicant community. In April 1999, after a detailed expert study, the Ministry of Justice had granted re-registration to the federal organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses, of which the applicant community had been a member. Likewise, 398 communities of Jehovah's Witnesses in other Russian regions had been granted registration or re-registration during the same period."], "id": "b75a33e1-8b53-4378-8cce-865333111627", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["75. The applicant submitted that his conviction had amounted to an interference with his right to manifest his religious beliefs. This interference was not because the Armenian authorities, by convicting him, had acted in violation of the legally binding commitment which they had undertaken when joining the Council of Europe, namely to pardon all conscientious objectors sentenced to prison terms. This international obligation had become an integral part of Armenia\u2019s domestic legal system and from then on all conscientious objectors who refused to perform military service could reasonably expect to be freed from that obligation and eventually be given the option of performing alternative civilian service. As a result, the domestic law was not sufficiently precise, since it was not harmonised with the legally binding international commitments of Armenia."], "id": "a24ebb42-7efa-400e-959a-ca129387d730", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government claimed that the interference in the form of dissolution of the applicant community had been justified, and had also pursued a legitimate aim. They referred to the Court's position to the effect that the State was \u201centitled to verify whether a movement or association carries on, ostensibly in pursuit of religious aims, activities which are harmful to the population\u201d (Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, 26 September 1996, \u00a7 40, Reports 1996\u2011IV) and also \u201cmay legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct... judged incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others\u201d (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, \u00a7 47, Series A no. 295\u2011A)."], "id": "25bf61f5-2d5b-424c-8ac3-2b514ca90a35", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["70. The applicants claimed that the right to freedom of religion encompassed the expectation that members would be allowed to associate freely without arbitrary State intervention. Therefore, the State was prohibited from regulating State-Church relationships arbitrarily; any interference in that sphere had to be , pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. The requirements relating to the registration of Churches had to be objective and reasonable, because in this matter the State was required to remain neutral and impartial. Consequently, if a religious community met the legal requirements it had to be entitled to be registered as a Church, and the registration procedure had to offer guarantees of fairness."], "id": "510d00ff-c097-4c57-a530-763df6e5ee1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government submitted that in 2003 Armenia had enacted a law on alternative service as part of the commitments undertaken upon joining the Council of Europe. Unfortunately, it had transpired that there were a number of omissions in that law and inconsistencies with the European standards. However, in deciding on the applicants\u2019 criminal cases, the domestic courts had been bound to apply the law as in force at the material time. Referring to the findings of the Criminal Court of Appeal, the Government argued that the alternative labour service available at the material time had been of a civilian nature and contained only a few formal elements of military supervision in theory, not being directly controlled by the military in practice. Thus, the interference was legitimate and ."], "id": "826fcebd-e7da-46d8-8388-0e057a0e8dc2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicants pointed out that the sole reason for the St Petersburg City Court\u2019s upholding the refusal to register the applicant group as a religious organisation had been the lack of a reliable document confirming its presence in St Petersburg for fifteen years. They contended that the refusal had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d because the law did not meet the standards of clarity and foreseeability required under the Convention. Referring to Article 132 of the Russian Constitution and sections 7(2) and 11(5) of the Religions Act, the applicants submitted that the law expressly authorised local authorities to issue letters confirming the length of a group\u2019s existence and that the courts\u2019 rejection of the confirmation letter on the basis of an alleged lack of authority was unreasonable. Furthermore, whereas the Religions Act required only formal presentation of a confirmation letter, the courts had rejected it as \u201cunreliable\u201d with reference to arbitrary criteria that were not and had imposed an unforeseeable and unattainable threshold."], "id": "2b2c197a-047a-4f47-bcd3-3c69bcdd95c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["2. The Government submitted that section 16 \u00a7 5 of the Religions Act, interpreted in conjunction with section 7 \u00a7 1 of the Public Gatherings Act, required the organisers of religious assemblies in non-residential premises to notify the local authorities, in writing and in advance. Moreover, the Government claimed that section 5 \u00a7 1 of the Education Act prohibited religious assemblies from being held in educational establishments. Both justifications are unfounded, and have already being rejected by this Court in Kuznetsov and Others[3]. More specifically, in that seminal case the Court found a violation of Article 9 of the Convention on account of the disruption of an indoor religious meeting. The Court found that the State\u2019s interference was not even , since the Government neither specified the nature of the allegedly missing documents in accordance with the Religions Act, nor produced any documents relating to the official powers of the commissioner and two senior police officers to interrupt and disperse the indoor religious meeting. In addition, the fact of holding the religious meeting on college premises outside normal college hours had not been contrary to the Education Act. In that same judgment, the Court referred to the case-law of the Russian Supreme Court, dating from at least 1999, to the effect that religious assemblies do not require any prior authorisation from, or notification to, the public authorities[4]. There is no valid reason to change this precedent[5]. On the contrary, as will be shown, the subsequent practice of the respondent State justifies insistence on this case-law[6]."], "id": "5e8536c5-15f1-4226-8536-ba1b3a2d2c43", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government submitted that the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Armenian Constitution, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, were to be applied to everyone equally and without discrimination. The applicant, an Armenian citizen, was obliged under the Constitution to perform compulsory military service regardless of his religious convictions and the fulfilment of such obligation could not be considered an interference with his rights. The law did not include such grounds for exemption from military service as being a Jehovah\u2019s Witness. Thus, exemption from compulsory military service on a ground not would have been in breach of the principle of equality and non-discrimination."], "id": "e08fd260-c2ac-4b4f-a00d-deaab1f11543", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government submitted that, even assuming that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article 9, this interference was justified. Firstly, the interference was . In particular, the obligation of every Armenian citizen aged between 18 and 27, who had been found to be physically fit, to serve in the Armenian army, regardless of his religious convictions, was prescribed by Article 47 of the Constitution and sections 3 and 11 of the Military Liability Act. Furthermore, Article 75 of the Criminal Code prescribed a penalty for draft evasion. These legal provisions were both accessible and sufficiently precise. Moreover, the right to conscientious objection was not recognised under Armenian law at the material time."], "id": "8d561936-823e-4912-adcc-b9db7b85b8fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained under Article 9 of the Convention that the measures taken against her, namely her questioning by the police, the search and seizure and the warning order, interfered with her right to worship collectively with like-minded adherents of the Evangelical faith in a home environment. In addition, the denial of legal registration to her church was done is a spirit which lacked any semblance of State neutrality. At all stages, the State authorities acted on the basis of discriminatory value judgments rather than evidence. The applicant considered that the measures were not , since they were arbitrary and based on legal provisions which allowed an unfettered discretion to the executive. Finally, the measures were not necessary in a democratic society. There was no evidence that that the religious beliefs of the members of the applicant\u2019s church were responsible for family separation, isolation and suicide. The action of the state authorities failed to respect the need for true religious pluralism, which is inherent in the concept of a democratic society."], "id": "b22abc9f-c7cf-4e95-a58f-1fe25a538209", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["150. The Government did not contest that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 9 of the Convention. They maintained however that the measure was and served a legitimate aim, that is, the protection of public order and the rights of others. It was also proportionate, taking into account that the applicant was a teacher of religion by profession, who could have exercised his religion without the church attendances in question."], "id": "feca476c-296e-4c26-90c5-8a88c9b74626", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicants complained of a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article 9 of the Convention as a result of the failure to issue them with a document necessary for the registration of their religious denomination. They submitted, inter alia, that the interference with their rights had not been because it had been contrary to the domestic courts\u2019 judgments ordering the issuance of the relevant document."], "id": "535bc416-56fc-41b0-b00d-7cb2936fc9e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of public order", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["150. The Government did not contest that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 9 of the Convention. They maintained however that the measure was prescribed by law and served a legitimate aim, that is, the and the rights of others. It was also proportionate, taking into account that the applicant was a teacher of religion by profession, who could have exercised his religion without the church attendances in question."], "id": "2f11d86f-e90a-4754-9407-9fc9153742c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of public order", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government submitted that the impugned interference, if any, could be regarded as pursuing the legitimate aims of protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the , within the meaning of Article 9 \u00a7 2, namely, by eliminating entities claiming to pursue religious ends but in fact striving only for financial benefits. The applicants contested this view."], "id": "85ba99fe-f2bb-4b39-bd71-0dcafabf1fb3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of public order", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant submitted that under Article 9 of the Convention the State was obliged to respect and support the individual's freedom to practice his or her religion. Any limitations could be set only in the interest of public safety, for the , health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In the applicant's opinion observing vegetarianism could not be described as a threat to public safety, health, morals or the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "7d5cbcf5-fe86-447c-8ba3-c29226f0d4e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government accepted that in the registration proceedings, which had not involved an interpretation of the applicant association\u2019s doctrinal sources, the refusal of the domestic authorities to register the applicant association had amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of association and religion. However, that interference had been in accordance with the law and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the . Furthermore, it had been proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved and the reasons adduced by the authorities had been relevant and sufficient."], "id": "fcf44a4d-78fa-4ffc-8bfd-e59f98d4fd41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government agreed that the refusal of the domestic courts to register the applicant association had amounted to an interference with its rights under Article 11 of the Convention. The refusal had been lawful and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the , in particular adherents of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. Furthermore, the reasons adduced by the courts had been relevant and sufficient. In this connection they averred that in the domestic case file there had been no proof attesting to the Macedonian nationality of the applicant association\u2019s founders, a fact which the applicants had failed to remedy in the impugned proceedings."], "id": "fefc5846-0988-48cc-9406-f71cf97414e9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant challenged the submission that the ban in question satisfied the condition laid down in paragraph 2 of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention of necessity in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of disorder, the protection of health or morals or the . With regard to the aim of \u201cliving together\u201d in a democratic society, it was the opposite reasoning \u2013 that of openness and tolerance \u2013 which should take precedence in a pluralist democratic society as was evidenced by the tolerance that there had always been of dress codes rejecting the living together principle. At best, it could be regarded as a praiseworthy political objective, but one that could not be achieved by some stigmatising by-laws that were contrary to the Convention. In her submission, the factors justifying the ban on safety grounds had been advanced exclusively with regard to the full-face veil, were non-existent and the real aim being pursued by the by-laws was the prohibition of the full-face veil in public places. She argued, lastly, that the issue of dignity and gender equality was irrelevant to justification on grounds of \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d since the exercise of the freedom and wishes of women themselves was hindered."], "id": "44feeeaa-9050-4205-b395-4cfe39652f45", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government conceded that the refusal of the domestic courts to register the applicant association amounted to an interference with its rights under Article 11 of the Convention. However, the refusal had been lawful and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the . Furthermore, the reasons adduced by the courts had been relevant and sufficient. In this connection they submitted that the language used in the minutes of the constituent assembly (see paragraph 4 above) demonstrated that the applicant association was disrespectful of the MOC and offended the religious beliefs of its adherents."], "id": "e326ab33-558d-4039-9a83-058f97afd65a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant took the view that the interference with the exercise of his freedom to manifest his religion did not correspond to any of the aims listed in Article 9 \u00a7 2. The Government maintained, for their part, that the impugned measure pursued two legitimate aims: to protect the rights and freedoms of others; and to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The Court notes that the second paragraph of Article 9 does not refer expressly to the second of those aims. As regards the first of the aims invoked \u2013 to ensure the \u2013 the Government referred to the principle of secularism and the need to promote tolerance in a post-conflict society. The Court has already held that secularism is a belief protected by Article 9 of the Convention (see Lautsi and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 30814/06, \u00a7 58, ECHR 2011) and that an aim to uphold secular and democratic values can be linked to the legitimate aim of the \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d within the meaning of Article 9 \u00a7 2 (see Leyla \u015eahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, \u00a7 99, ECHR 2005\u2011XI, and Ahmet Arslan and Others v. Turkey, no. 41135/98, \u00a7 43, 23 February 2010). There is no reason to decide otherwise in the present case."], "id": "43779ef6-8952-4a08-9b2a-7ebf4d39420a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant submitted that under Article 9 of the Convention the State was obliged to respect and support the individual's freedom to practice his or her religion. Any limitations could be set only in the interest of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the . In the applicant's opinion observing vegetarianism could not be described as a threat to public safety, health, morals or the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "b27aee7c-5f10-45b0-b28d-6ad81feee881", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government accepted that the refusal of the authorities to register the applicant association amounted to an interference with its rights under this head. In doing so they relied on the 1997 and 2007 Acts, as applicable at the material time, and stated also that the refusal had pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of the ."], "id": "4d1c9578-74ef-464e-a528-6aa3d6b152e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government submitted that the impugned interference, if any, could be regarded as pursuing the legitimate aims of and the protection of public order, within the meaning of Article 9 \u00a7 2, namely, by eliminating entities claiming to pursue religious ends but in fact striving only for financial benefits. The applicants contested this view."], "id": "444f27b9-8dba-44e6-974b-5377f7825fac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government considered that this interference could be regarded as satisfying at least two of the legitimate aims provided for in Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The family-affairs judge had certainly been required to take account of the , because the applicant\u2019s alcoholism had been considered as part of the cause of the violence he had been inflicting on his wife at the time, and the judge had also had a duty to protect the health and morals of the children, in respect of whom a right of visiting and staying contact had been granted to their father."], "id": "5e3ba28c-1ee8-4960-93e4-c1bc34f3526f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government also alleged that the mere fact of providing children with on the Muslim faith could not in itself raise a question under the Convention, so long as the lessons were taught in an objective, pluralist and neutral manner. There were legitimate grounds in contemporary Turkish society for granting more time to the study of Islam than to other religions and philosophies of life. This was particularly so given that Turkey was a secular State and that schools were therefore the most appropriate institution for transmitting such knowledge."], "id": "bba8da5a-711d-4efc-9923-fef31ba25b1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that there had been no interference in the exercise by the applicant of his right to freedom of religion, because no direct connection could be made between the indication of religion on identity cards and freedom of religion and conscience. It could not be construed as a requirement to disclose one\u2019s religious beliefs or as a restriction on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion in worship, , practice and observance."], "id": "1823a47e-95da-44f9-80e6-39392f5392b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["90. The Government submitted that in the present case the reasons had been strictly religious and concerned the duty of loyalty and coherence which had to be observed by the applicant in work that he had freely chosen and which, moreover, differed from the of another subject such as mathematics or history. The Government thus requested the Court to bear in mind that the relationship of loyalty in the present case was on a higher plane than that existing in a case concerning a church organist (as in Sch\u00fcth, cited above), a child-minder in a Church school (as in Siebenhaar, cited above), or a Church public-relations manager (as in Obst, cited above)."], "id": "677f80b7-a077-46cd-9388-9ddf44dacdfc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government pointed out that Article 9 a \u00a7 3 of the Federal Constitution provided that every male Austrian citizen was liable to perform military service. Exemptions from this obligation were set out in section 24(3) and were linked to membership of a recognised religious society. However, there were also further criteria which the applicant did not satisfy either. The applicant had stated that his function was comparable to those of persons who were involved in spiritual welfare or in clerical after graduating in theological studies or who were preparing to assume such functions. In this connection, the Government stressed that the applicant had not stated at any time during the domestic proceedings that he had studied theology at a university or any equivalent institution. Therefore, notwithstanding his religious denomination, the applicant had failed to prove that he complied with any of the four criteria set out in the above-mentioned provision. Thus, there was no need to consider whether or not the applicant had been discriminated against on the ground of his faith. In addition, members of recognised religious societies who did not comply with the criteria laid down in section 24(3) of the Military Service Act were not exempt from military service."], "id": "c0ab8e54-aafb-41ad-bc7b-19f94f635708", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["85. The Government noted moreover that, at the material time, teachers of religious education received their pay directly from the Catholic Church, to which the State paid the necessary funds in the form of grants. Even though the legal regime of religious-education had changed and salaries were now paid directly by the public authority, one essential factor had not changed, namely the need for a certificate of suitability issued by the Church, without which the teacher could not be appointed to a post. The Government were of the view that this was merely a feature of the way in which the State organised the financing of the teaching of various religions in Spain and also that a wide margin of appreciation should be afforded to States in the organisation of their education systems."], "id": "fddc648e-e3d7-45bd-8846-5c1e1f3ab511", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government pointed out that Article 9 a \u00a7 3 of the Federal Constitution provided that every male Austrian citizen was liable to perform military service. Exemptions from this obligation were set out in section 24(3) and were linked to membership of a recognised religious society. However, there were also further criteria which the applicant did not satisfy either. The applicant had stated that his function was comparable to those of persons who were involved in spiritual welfare or in clerical after graduating in theological studies or who were preparing to assume such functions. In this connection, the Government stressed that the applicant had not stated at any time during the domestic proceedings that he had studied theology at a university or any equivalent institution. Therefore, notwithstanding his religious denomination, the applicant had failed to prove that he complied with any of the four criteria set out in the above-mentioned provision. Thus, there was no need to consider whether or not the applicant had been discriminated against on the ground of his faith. Also members of recognised religious societies who did not comply with the criteria laid down in section 24(3) of the Military Service Act were not exempt from military service."], "id": "d68b34d3-e3f1-4348-ae51-e05b14c8ec98", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government pointed out that the obligation to perform civilian service was a substitute service for conscientious objectors who refused military service. Section 13a \u00a7 1 of the Civilian Service Act stipulated exemptions from this obligation which were linked to membership of a recognised religious society. However, there were also further criteria with which the applicant did not comply either. The applicant had stated that his function would be comparable to that of persons involved in spiritual welfare or in clerical after graduating in theology or who were preparing for such functions. In this connection, the Government stressed that the applicant had not stated during the domestic proceedings that he would study theology at a university or any equivalent institution. Furthermore, the applicant's submissions that he would perform divine service and engage in preaching activity had not been substantiated and were, in any event, irrelevant, as he had started doing that work long after the impugned decisions in the present case were issued. In his application the applicant had stated that he was still a \u201cstudent\u201d. Therefore, notwithstanding his religious denomination, the applicant had failed to prove that he complied with the criteria of the above provision. Thus, there was no need to consider whether or not the applicant had been discriminated against on account of his confession. Furthermore, members of recognised religious societies who did not comply with the criteria laid down in section 13a \u00a7 1 of the Civilian Service Act were not exempt from civilian service."], "id": "4a71883b-019f-4972-b886-b42fd4d8542e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants challenged the argument that the subject contained no information of a religious nature on the doctrine and rituals of a specific religion. In reality, the syllabus and textbooks used in the schools and all the information concerning the implementation of the syllabus showed that the main aim of the classes was to strengthen the pupils' Islamic culture, which was also the main theme in the . The applicants had no doubt that these classes were intended to provide cultural teaching and to transmit a set of beliefs. The fact that morality was also taught was merely a method of dissimulating the hidden aim of these classes."], "id": "9e65cca8-7479-403e-85f0-d4a9883fc7b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government also pointed out that the was dispensed under the supervision of the administrative courts, which strictly monitored compliance with the principle of secularism. In addition, the teachers responsible for primary school classes were trained in universities and had obtained diplomas in the discipline of \u201cknowledge of religious culture and morality\u201d. Teachers responsible for these classes at secondary level had a Masters-level degree from a faculty of theology."], "id": "983fced9-7331-4d23-a8c8-6c34fe5f62f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicants noted that \u201creligious groups\u201d, as defined in the Religions Act, could operate without State interference. However, the status of a \u201creligious group\u201d entailed severe restrictions on community religious practice. A \u201creligious group\u201d had no legal personality; it could not acquire rights or obligations, and it could not protect its interests in court. Given the list of rights reserved to registered religious organisations in sections 15-24 of the Religions Act \u2013 including such fundamental aspects of \u201cworship, , practice and observance\u201d as the right to establish places of worship, the right to hold religious services in other places accessible to the public, and the right to produce and/or acquire religious literature \u2013 a \u201creligious group\u201d was not a religious community with any substantial rights or \u201cautonomous existence\u201d, an issue which the Court had found to be \u201cat the very heart of the protection which Article 9 affords\u201d (see Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, \u00a7 118, ECHR 2001\u2011XII)."], "id": "162c2d2b-99a2-45d5-978c-ef82c179df71", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicants conceded that the of gymnastics and sport was compulsory on the basis of Article 68 \u00a7 3 of the Constitution, taken together with section 2 (2) of the Federal Act encouraging gymnastics and sports, in all compulsory schools. They added that sports education in Switzerland was not defined by federal legislation and that it was therefore the cantonal law which was to be applied."], "id": "6adb191b-73b9-4804-a35f-aca12cbe4b8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government acknowledged that the right to practise a religion in accordance with the Osho fell within the scope of Article 9 of the Convention. They also did not deny that from 8 May 2003 the applicant had been held at Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital unlawfully, as established by both the Vilnius Regional Court and the Court of Appeal."], "id": "f6d041b7-3c0f-46ad-acc4-4a9a0e83219c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["141. The Government stated that there had been no interference with the first applicant's right to teach religion. His deportation had not been a reaction against his religious classes - which had been lawful - but had been based on the assessment that his religious activities had constituted a thread to national security. Furthermore, Mr Al-Nashif had voluntarily abandoned after service of the deportation order and would not be able to restart as new instructions issued by the Chief Mufti Office after his deportation prohibited religious instruction by persons lacking appropriate religious education. The Government further stated that religious freedoms in Bulgaria were guaranteed and that the authorities strictly adhered to the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of religious communities and regularly allowed visits by foreigners coming to teach religion."], "id": "dfd262d0-5041-4000-bd11-d82a22dc29f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants further observed that, at the cantonal level, point 9.2.4 of the primary-school curriculum for the Canton of Basle Urban included swimming, and point 9.2.5 included ice-skating. According to the applicants, however, ice-skating was not taught at all in practice. Thus, again according to the applicants, it could not be claimed on the basis of this curriculum that swimming classes formed part of the compulsory of gymnastics and sport. They added that, furthermore, not all schools in the Canton of Basle Urban offered swimming lessons."], "id": "18369be7-51c7-4ea9-add4-2406f110cdbe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government claimed that the third applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies with regard to his allegations of discriminatory treatment because no class in ethics had been provided as an alternative to religious instruction and because of the form of the school reports. They submitted that the Ordinance regulated in a comprehensive manner the duties of school authorities regarding the organisation of classes in religion or ethics. It imposed no obligation on schools to provide a class in ethics, as that depended on parents or pupils requesting it and on there being sufficient numbers of interested pupils. If Mr and Mrs Grzelak had considered that their son was being discriminated against by the school authorities on account of the absence of a course in ethics, they should have challenged the provisions of the Ordinance which did not provide for compulsory of ethics instead of religious instruction. In their view, the applicant should have lodged a constitutional complaint against the manner of organising classes in ethics provided for in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Ordinance."], "id": "e574edfa-b976-48b4-8dbf-7a06b80142fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant pointed out that the \u201cscandal\u201d argument given by the Bishop had been based on the appearance in the press of a photograph showing the applicant and his family. In this connection he noted that he had never spoken in his religious -education classes against the teachings of the Church, including the celibacy of priests. He mentioned the note of support from the director of the secondary -education institution where he had been ."], "id": "0ff74aa6-6de5-4dcc-8dba-a4a42912a582", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "teaching", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be the victim of a violation of his right to freedom to manifest his religion. They argued that the denial of the applicant\u2019s request did not impair the essence of his right to manifest his religion, because the indication of religion on the identity card could not be interpreted as a measure compelling all Turkish citizens to disclose their religious beliefs and convictions and as a restriction on the freedom to manifest their religion in worship, , practice and observance. Furthermore, referring to the case-law of the Turkish courts (see paragraph 16 above), the Government argued that anyone wishing to delete the relevant information in its entirety could apply to the civil courts."], "id": "a44a4a2e-ff91-4dde-968f-9e48b0b2d959", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "observance", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that there had been no interference in the exercise by the applicant of his right to freedom of religion, because no direct connection could be made between the indication of religion on identity cards and freedom of religion and conscience. It could not be construed as a requirement to disclose one\u2019s religious beliefs or as a restriction on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion in worship, teaching, practice and ."], "id": "17b73312-f139-439f-877e-8d7aa5c9968f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "observance", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant submitted that the refusal to provide him with a meat\u2011free diet in prison in accordance with his religious precepts infringed his right to manifest his religion through of the rules of the Buddhist religion. The Government argued that in the present case, vegetarianism could not be considered an essential aspect of the practice of the applicant's religion, since the strict Mahayana school to which the applicant claimed to adhere only encouraged vegetarianism but did not prescribe it."], "id": "2420d89d-0367-493f-9435-f4591a32901c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "observance", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["128. The applicant complained that his detention had been unlawful. The Court\u2019s case-law in respect of the requirement of lawfulness referred primarily to the of domestic law. Since the applicant\u2019s detention had been ordered by \u201cMRT courts\u201d, created in breach of the relevant Moldovan legislation (see paragraphs 69-70 above), it could not be considered \u201clawful\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Moreover, the principle of ex injuria jus non oritur dictated that acts which were contrary to international law could not become a source of legal acts for the wrongdoer."], "id": "b3d7f2f7-750b-4f4f-818f-163e879877bc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "observance", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be the victim of a violation of his right to freedom to manifest his religion. They argued that the denial of the applicant\u2019s request did not impair the essence of his right to manifest his religion, because the indication of religion on the identity card could not be interpreted as a measure compelling all Turkish citizens to disclose their religious beliefs and convictions and as a restriction on the freedom to manifest their religion in worship, teaching, practice and . Furthermore, referring to the case-law of the Turkish courts (see paragraph 16 above), the Government argued that anyone wishing to delete the relevant information in its entirety could apply to the civil courts."], "id": "c9a3cd1f-1808-4876-84cd-4916abf66da3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "observance", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicants submitted that the status of a registered religious community was inferior to that of a religious society and insufficient. They contended that the first applicant was subject to State control in respect of its religious doctrine, its rules on membership and the administration of its assets pursuant to sections 3-5 and 11 of the 1998 Religious Communities Act. They repeated in essence their above complaints. In particular, the applicants disputed the necessity of the ten-year waiting period, as the recognition of the Coptic Orthodox Church by a specific law in 2003 (see paragraph 45(e) above) proved the contrary. The Coptic Orthodox Church had only existed in Austria since 1976 and had been registered as a religious community in 1998. The applicants argued that most of the registered religious communities and even most of the recognised religious societies did not fulfil the criterion for the minimum number of adherents, which showed that this requirement was unnecessary for the of public duties, contrary to what the Government maintained. Since the first applicant, which was the fifth largest religious community in Austria and was thus even bigger than most recognised religious societies, also complied with the necessary number of adherents, it should have been recognised a long time ago. Further, the requirement of the use of income and other assets for religious purposes, including charity activities, was discriminatory as it interfered in an unjustified way with the first applicant\u2019s internal administration and organisation, in breach of both Article 9 of the Convention and Article 15 of the Basic Law 1867. The prerequisite of a positive attitude towards society and the State was discriminatory as it was not required in respect of any other natural or legal personality in Austria. Further, it did not meet the \u201cprescribed by law\u201d requirement under Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. The same applied to the criterion of non-interference with other religious societies. Moreover, under Austrian law, recognised religious societies enjoyed privileged treatment in various fields which did not extend to religious communities."], "id": "dacf3a71-ab95-4e8b-9ca2-991ac3300d0b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "observance", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government accepted that the right to freedom of religion included the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion through worship and , but considered that in the present case the refusal to recognise the applicant Church did not amount to a prohibition of its activities or those of its members. The members of the applicant Church retained their freedom of religion, both as regards their freedom of conscience and as regards the freedom to manifest their beliefs through worship and practice."], "id": "530753f8-1c6e-49b4-9b7a-721d4ce79a9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "observance", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government were in agreement with the applicant that the ban on wearing the skullcap in the courtroom had amounted to a \u201climitation\u201d on the manifestation of his religion. They relied in this connection on the case-law of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and General Comment No. 22 on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on 27 September 1993, according to which \u201cThe and practice of religion or belief may include ... the wearing of distinctive clothing or headcoverings\u201d (document no. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, \u00a7 4). That said, the Government argued that the limitation was lawful. The House Rules on which the domestic decisions had relied should be read in conjunction with Article 242 \u00a7 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, affording trial judges wide discretion with regard to questions of court decorum (see paragraph 17 above). As regards the aim of the limitation, the Government maintained that the trial judge had simply enforced a generally accepted rule of civility and decent behaviour that skullcaps were not permitted in the courtroom in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, the trial judge had acted to protect the principle of secularism, which was of vital importance in multicultural societies, such as that of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Considering also that the impugned measure had been taken in the context of a sensitive and complex case regarding a terrorist attack against the Embassy of the United States, the Government argued that the limitation in question had been proportionate."], "id": "0967dfad-02e5-454a-b332-841a99be3330", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government claimed that the \u201cfifteen-year rule\u201d incorporated in the Religions Act complied with \u201cuniversally accepted principles and rules of international law, provisions of the Russian Constitution and contemporary legal in democratic States\u201d. They maintained that the grounds for refusing State registration had been \u201cpurely legal\u201d and prescribed by the Religions Act, that the decision had not been motivated by religious considerations and that there had been no causal link between the decision and the enjoyment of the right of citizens to freedom of religion and association. There had been no evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination on the ground of religion. The Government relied in that connection on the Court\u2019s finding that \u201cStates have a right to satisfy themselves that an association\u2019s aim and activities are in conformity with the rules laid down in legislation\u201d (see Sidiropoulos and Others, cited above, \u00a7 40)."], "id": "62d180f4-637e-4177-a223-729c173dad9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["100. The applicant contested the Chamber\u2019s findings. In her observations of 27 September 2004 and her oral submissions at the hearing, she argued that the notions of \u201cdemocracy\u201d and \u201crepublic\u201d were not alike. While many totalitarian regimes claimed to be \u201crepublics\u201d, only a true democracy could be based on the principles of pluralism and broadmindedness. The structure of the judicial and university systems in Turkey had been determined by the successive coups d\u2019\u00e9tat by the military in 1960, 1971 and 1980. Referring to the Court\u2019s case-law and the that had been adopted in a number of countries in Europe, the applicant further submitted that the Contracting States should not be given a wide margin of appreciation to regulate students\u2019 dress. She explained that no European State prohibited students from wearing the Islamic headscarf at university and added that there had been no sign of tension in institutions of higher education that would have justified such a radical measure."], "id": "5476f4da-ef5e-4785-9756-e1eabe2c3e52", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be the victim of a violation of his right to freedom to manifest his religion. They argued that the denial of the applicant\u2019s request did not impair the essence of his right to manifest his religion, because the indication of religion on the identity card could not be interpreted as a measure compelling all Turkish citizens to disclose their religious beliefs and convictions and as a restriction on the freedom to manifest their religion in worship, teaching, and observance. Furthermore, referring to the case-law of the Turkish courts (see paragraph 16 above), the Government argued that anyone wishing to delete the relevant information in its entirety could apply to the civil courts."], "id": "aca77064-7ad2-4b08-8c23-151079f6561c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government accepted that the right to freedom of religion included the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion through worship and observance, but considered that in the present case the refusal to recognise the applicant Church did not amount to a prohibition of its activities or those of its members. The members of the applicant Church retained their freedom of religion, both as regards their freedom of conscience and as regards the freedom to manifest their beliefs through worship and ."], "id": "3cf7fdb6-244c-4ae2-a771-6eb007241dad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s expulsion was justified in the light of the European Parliament\u2019s Resolution on Cults in Europe of 29 February 1996, in which it had expressed concern over certain cults \u201cengaging in activities of an illicit or criminal nature and in violations of human rights, such as maltreatment, sexual abuse, unlawful detention, slavery, the encouragement of aggressive behaviour or propagation of racist ideologies, tax fraud, illegal transfers of funds, trafficking in arms or drugs, violation of labour laws, the illegal of medicine\u201d. The Government also referred to the same effect to Recommendation 1178 (1992) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on sects and new religious movements and the Committee of Ministers\u2019 supplementary reply to that Recommendation, adopted on 17 February 1994 (doc. 7030). The Government inferred from those documents that States had the right and obligation to exercise vigilance and caution in such sensitive matters as spreading religious teachings. The applicant\u2019s activity as a coordinator of Rev. Moon\u2019s groups had been merely a \u201cmotive\u201d rather than a \u201cground\u201d for the Russian authorities \u201cto exercise vigilance and make use of existing legal instruments\u201d. The grounds for the applicant\u2019s exclusion were the results of the operational and search measures as reflected in the report by the Stavropol Regional Branch of the Federal Security Service, dated 18 February 2002, concerning the banning of the applicant from the Russian Federation. As the Moscow City Court had pointed out in its judgment of 25 March 2003, the applicant\u2019s activities in the Russian territory were \u201cof a destructive nature and pose[d] a threat to the security of the Russian Federation\u201d. The Government emphasised that the threat resulted from the applicant\u2019s activities rather than his religious beliefs."], "id": "8d1ee324-cd88-4544-b742-83f2e5c8e3e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicants noted that \u201creligious groups\u201d, as defined in the Religions Act, could operate without State interference. However, the status of a \u201creligious group\u201d entailed severe restrictions on community religious . A \u201creligious group\u201d had no legal personality; it could not acquire rights or obligations, and it could not protect its interests in court. Given the list of rights reserved to registered religious organisations in sections 15-24 of the Religions Act \u2013 including such fundamental aspects of \u201cworship, teaching, practice and observance\u201d as the right to establish places of worship, the right to hold religious services in other places accessible to the public, and the right to produce and/or acquire religious literature \u2013 a \u201creligious group\u201d was not a religious community with any substantial rights or \u201cautonomous existence\u201d, an issue which the Court had found to be \u201cat the very heart of the protection which Article 9 affords\u201d (see Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, \u00a7 118, ECHR 2001\u2011XII)."], "id": "3bb6a4e9-0406-43ad-ac21-dccddff51c71", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["2. The Government submitted that section 16 \u00a7 5 of the Religions Act, interpreted in conjunction with section 7 \u00a7 1 of the Public Gatherings Act, required the organisers of religious assemblies in non-residential premises to notify the local authorities, in writing and in advance. Moreover, the Government claimed that section 5 \u00a7 1 of the Education Act prohibited religious assemblies from being held in educational establishments. Both justifications are unfounded, and have already being rejected by this Court in Kuznetsov and Others[3]. More specifically, in that seminal case the Court found a violation of Article 9 of the Convention on account of the disruption of an indoor religious meeting. The Court found that the State\u2019s interference was not even prescribed by law, since the Government neither specified the nature of the allegedly missing documents in accordance with the Religions Act, nor produced any documents relating to the official powers of the commissioner and two senior police officers to interrupt and disperse the indoor religious meeting. In addition, the fact of holding the religious meeting on college premises outside normal college hours had not been contrary to the Education Act. In that same judgment, the Court referred to the case-law of the Russian Supreme Court, dating from at least 1999, to the effect that religious assemblies do not require any prior authorisation from, or notification to, the public authorities[4]. There is no valid reason to change this precedent[5]. On the contrary, as will be shown, the subsequent of the respondent State justifies insistence on this case-law[6]."], "id": "e6b9a257-eb10-47a0-b7f9-8c85f5d3ce76", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants further observed that, at the cantonal level, point 9.2.4 of the primary-school curriculum for the Canton of Basle Urban included swimming, and point 9.2.5 included ice-skating. According to the applicants, however, ice-skating was not taught at all in . Thus, again according to the applicants, it could not be claimed on the basis of this curriculum that swimming classes formed part of the compulsory teaching of gymnastics and sport. They added that, furthermore, not all schools in the Canton of Basle Urban offered swimming lessons."], "id": "dd9246e4-4488-4ea8-9af5-3f6fb0d0a01e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["87. The applicant union submitted that priests and clerical staff of the Romanian Orthodox Church had a similar status to civil servants. Like civil servants, they were recruited by competitive examination. They were then appointed by the bishop by means of a decision setting out their rights and obligations. They took an oath upon their ordination and their salaries were set in the law governing the remuneration of all public servants and reduced by the same proportion in the event of an economic crisis. They paid contributions to the general social security scheme and were entitled to the full range of welfare benefits. Furthermore, similarly to universities, the Romanian Orthodox Church was allocated funds from the State budget to pay its employees\u2019 wages. Accordingly, the applicant union submitted that neither the Romanian Orthodox Church\u2019s of not signing employment contracts with its staff nor the fact that it paid part of their wages from its own funds could affect the actual nature of the relationship between the Church and its employees, since the relationship entailed all the aspects of an employment contract and was similar to that between civil servants and the institution employing them."], "id": "493c81e6-4f86-4713-b7bb-60cb17bcecbf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["78. The applicant further complained that the failure of the domestic authorities adequately to protect him from the demonstrators and properly to investigate the incident amounted to a violation of his rights under Article 9 of the Convention. This was because, in his submission, the domestic authorities\u2019 failures prevented him from exercising his Article 9 right to peacefully his beliefs in the company of fellow worshippers. Article 9 provides:"], "id": "8cf72bf4-b878-4298-927e-d72336a25210", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant contested this view and maintained that if the relevant domestic legislation provided for exemptions from military or alternative civilian service, it should do so without any discrimination. During the time of his civilian service he had had to work forty hours a week, and thus had been unable to perform his functions as a deacon and preacher and had had to limit the of his religion to his spare time."], "id": "6fccde04-a33e-4ac3-b689-03c641597f7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant submitted that the refusal to provide him with a meat\u2011free diet in prison in accordance with his religious precepts infringed his right to manifest his religion through observance of the rules of the Buddhist religion. The Government argued that in the present case, vegetarianism could not be considered an essential aspect of the of the applicant's religion, since the strict Mahayana school to which the applicant claimed to adhere only encouraged vegetarianism but did not prescribe it."], "id": "cd3c9ed6-c719-4805-9c85-a7d68d9e7fc6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government submitted that, in contrast to the facts found in Boychev and Others, cited above, there was no evidence in the present case to support the view that the police action of 27 September 1995 interrupted a religious meeting. As could be seen from the summons requiring the applicant to appear at the police station, she was informed of the search well in advance. The summons was issued under the Public Education Act and decree no. 367/194 of the Supreme Prosecution Office (see paragraph 8 above) and was aimed at regulating educational activities. It followed, in the Government\u2019s view, that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of religion. In addition, the Government argued that the law in force at the material time allowing for interference with the rights under Article 9 should be assessed in context. Arguments had been put forward at the relevant time to suggest that followers of Word of Life, particularly minors, were at risk of isolation and lower standards of protection in medical, educational and civil terms. The prosecutorial authorities were part of the judiciary, not the executive and the police took action as sanctioned by the prosecutor\u2019s office. The actions of the police were well founded and fully in compliance with the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 1 April 1994, refusing registration of the three organisations affiliated with Word of Life (see paragraph 6 above). Moreover, the lack of registration as a religious denomination had never been an obstacle for its followers to profess their religion or their activity."], "id": "be1e3ad6-a68c-4d5a-a66c-b88470bc48c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government argued that the applicant could have, but had not, made use of the remedies of a compensatory nature governed by the provisions of Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code, in conjunction with Article 445 or Article 448 of the Civil Code, in order to bring an action for compensation for incarceration in conditions that were not in conformity with his religious beliefs. In their opinion, a person deprived of his or her liberty and who suffered a violation of his or her personal rights as a result of the authorities' failure to provide food in conformity with religious beliefs was entitled to bring a civil action against the State Treasury. The Government did not refer to any examples of judicial in this connection."], "id": "9a3f3918-94f0-4c84-a932-13f5e96e658e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants submitted that the refusal of the Austrian authorities to grant legal personality to the first applicant by conferring on it the status of a religious society recognised under the Recognition Act violated their right to freedom of religion. In particular, before July 1998, the first applicant could not have been established as a legal entity and, thus, could not have entered into legal relations, concluded contracts or acquired assets. The first applicant had, thus far, no internal autonomy, could not hire the necessary religious ministers and was not entitled to perform its pastoral work for believers in hospitals or prisons. The second to fifth applicants, as leading executives of the first applicant, were also limited in exercising their right to freedom of religion. Neither the Basic Law 1867 nor the 1998 Religious Communities Act provided explicitly for the internal autonomy of a religious community. The Constitutional Court had found (in its judgment of 3 March 2001, B1713/98 \u2013 see paragraph 34 above) that registered religious communities, unlike recognised religious societies, did not enjoy the right to comprehensive organisation and administration of their internal affairs without State interference. Lastly, the applicants contested that they would have had the possibility of forming an association under the Associations Act. They referred to the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding of 1929 (VfSlg. 1265/1929), confirming the administrative authorities\u2019 not to allow religious societies to form an association, and thus refusing the request of the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses (Ernste Bibelforscher) to set up an association. Thereafter the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses had not tried again to form an association, but auxiliary associations (Hilfsvereine) with specialised religious aims had been created. The two examples of associations submitted by the Government were likewise merely auxiliary associations. It was not until the enactment of the 2002 Associations Act that religious societies had been allowed to set up an association."], "id": "b0d05a2a-89d1-4aa5-b13a-d10394e25bff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant contested this view and maintained that if the relevant domestic legislation provided for exemptions from military or alternative civilian service, it should do so without any discrimination. During the time of his civilian service he had had to work forty hours a week and, thus, had been unable to perform his functions as a deacon and preacher and had had to limit the of his religion to his spare time."], "id": "8f535471-f2e9-40c2-95be-435c2880a3aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant argued that he had never declared himself as Christian Orthodox. He was born in the former USSR, where christening children was not a common . He was raised as an atheist and embraced the Buddhist faith later in life. In detention, he relied on the vegetarian food his family sent him by post, but after the adoption of the Minister of Justice\u2019s order no. 3042/2007 he could no longer receive parcels by post. His family had difficulty travelling to the prison regularly. When he was refused a vegetarian diet by the prison authorities he adopted a diet of bread and margarine and sometimes marmalade. He maintained that the Rahova prison authorities\u2019 failure to provide him with a vegetarian diet amounted to a violation of his freedom of religion."], "id": "28221569-8a13-4d96-badb-299d7b6b77c5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant association argued that a constitutional appeal was not an effective remedy for its complaints. Under the applicable rules and the established of the Constitutional Court, only physical persons had standing to bring a constitutional appeal. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court had never embarked on a thorough review of the specific circumstances of a particular case, but had rather accepted the grounds provided by the lower courts. The reasons for which that court had rejected O.M.\u2019s appeal had clearly demonstrated that it declined jurisdiction to decide the issues complained of."], "id": "0f15b377-b588-458c-b56f-aa16d796c817", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government were in agreement with the applicant that the ban on wearing the skullcap in the courtroom had amounted to a \u201climitation\u201d on the manifestation of his religion. They relied in this connection on the case-law of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and General Comment No. 22 on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on 27 September 1993, according to which \u201cThe observance and of religion or belief may include ... the wearing of distinctive clothing or headcoverings\u201d (document no. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, \u00a7 4). That said, the Government argued that the limitation was lawful. The House Rules on which the domestic decisions had relied should be read in conjunction with Article 242 \u00a7 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, affording trial judges wide discretion with regard to questions of court decorum (see paragraph 17 above). As regards the aim of the limitation, the Government maintained that the trial judge had simply enforced a generally accepted rule of civility and decent behaviour that skullcaps were not permitted in the courtroom in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, the trial judge had acted to protect the principle of secularism, which was of vital importance in multicultural societies, such as that of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Considering also that the impugned measure had been taken in the context of a sensitive and complex case regarding a terrorist attack against the Embassy of the United States, the Government argued that the limitation in question had been proportionate."], "id": "545174d3-bb3e-4454-b07a-9f434c9bbd8e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that there had been no interference in the exercise by the applicant of his right to freedom of religion, because no direct connection could be made between the indication of religion on identity cards and freedom of religion and conscience. It could not be construed as a requirement to disclose one\u2019s religious beliefs or as a restriction on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion in worship, teaching, and observance."], "id": "9da799d7-f4a9-43b3-8d4e-51b1605be1e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government submitted that in 2003 Armenia had enacted a law on alternative service as part of the commitments undertaken upon joining the Council of Europe. Unfortunately, it had transpired that there were a number of omissions in that law and inconsistencies with the European standards. However, in deciding on the applicants\u2019 criminal cases, the domestic courts had been bound to apply the law as in force at the material time. Referring to the findings of the Criminal Court of Appeal, the Government argued that the alternative labour service available at the material time had been of a civilian nature and contained only a few formal elements of military supervision in theory, not being directly controlled by the military in . Thus, the interference was legitimate and prescribed by law."], "id": "0c9d8c1c-8e77-4852-972e-cdd14e9618ac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["174. The applicants\u2019 allegations of religious motivation behind the respondent State\u2019s actions found by the Court to have occurred in the current case are supported by the following factual circumstances: the largest religious gatherings of the applicants, all Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, were disrupted with the direct involvement of various State officials or by their acquiescence and connivance (see criminal cases nos. 1, 2 and 4, paragraphs 105-112, 115-121, and 122-125 above); the police refused to intervene to protect the applicants as soon as they learnt about their religious background and individual applicants were additionally subjected to religious insults when lodging their complaints with the police (see criminal cases nos. 3, 7, 15-18, 22 and 26, paragraphs 24-25, 37, 46, 49, 51, 54, 61, 65 and 68 above); subsequently, the national authorities showed absolute indifference towards the applicants\u2019 numerous complaints concerning various acts of aggression. Indeed, as the Court has concluded above, there was a systematic on the part of the Georgian authorities of tolerating religious violence against Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses (see paragraphs 145\u2011146 above)."], "id": "84efe80d-782a-4dbe-ad82-486d90bfee49", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government submitted that there were serious reasons for the local authorities not to enforce the final judgment in the applicants\u2019 favour: the existence of an on-going dispute as to the church property between two competing denominations; the risk that registering the applicants\u2019 denomination could provoke unrest; and the fact that another denomination with the same name had already been registered in the same town. Moreover, in the applicants had not been prevented from exercising their religious rights, as they did not need registration for that purpose. They considered that the refusal of the Regional Council to issue the relevant document had been based on clear legal provisions, notably the prohibition on registering two organisations with the same name and the same address. Moreover, after 17 August 2007 no confirmation in a separate document had been required."], "id": "3687d547-8bcf-451e-a2ae-259b66ee2665", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government explained that forty-two religious communities had been registered in Croatia and that, in , it was not feasible to allow each of them to provide religious education in public schools and nurseries or to have religious marriages they performed officially recognised. For this reason, the State had to enjoy a margin of appreciation as regards the conditions to be fulfilled by religious communities in order to be granted those privileges."], "id": "ff43711c-adb9-4e7e-97d8-63b0d8b06054", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government and the third party expressed doubts as to whether the case was about freedom of religion. They alleged that the applicants\u2019 concern was not the of religion but their ambition to control property and gain power to administer the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The Government also stated that it was not the Court\u2019s role to decide who the legitimate leader of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was and expressed the view that for that reason the case did not concern human rights."], "id": "690883e7-a63f-414a-bcd0-96130645716e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["85. The Government contended that there had been no discrimination of the applicants in respect of the first applicant\u2019s status as a registered recognised community, as the criteria introduced by section 11 of the 1998 Religious Communities Act had already corresponded to the administrative authorities\u2019 for granting recognition under the 1874 Recognition Act before the entry into force of the 1998 Act. In respect of the ten-year waiting period for registered religious communities, the Government referred to the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding of 3 March 2001 (VfSlg. 12.102/2001) that that requirement served the legitimate aim of ensuring that the competent authority could verify during this period of time whether the religious community was ready to integrate into the existing legal order, in particular whether it performed unlawful activities as a consequence of which legal personality had to be withdrawn (section 9(2) and section 5(1) of the Religious Communities Act). Examples of such unlawful activities were incitement to commit criminal offences, endangering the psychological development of minors, violating the psychological integrity of persons or using psychotherapeutic methods to disseminate its religious beliefs."], "id": "fa8f77b1-49aa-496d-a661-a8e6356107b9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government further submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to him in respect to his complaint concerning visiting the prison church and possessing religious literature. They noted in this connection that the detainees\u2019 right to their religion, including visiting a church and possessing religious literature, was clearly provided by Article 9 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act. The SIZO had a chapel which detainees had been free to visit. According to the Government, in a case of a violation of the rights set forth in the mentioned Article, the applicant should have complained about it to the prosecutor or directly to the administrative court."], "id": "1dcaed4a-e09f-4e3c-9b21-53eabb84d0c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "practice", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant submitted that under Article 9 of the Convention the State was obliged to respect and support the individual's freedom to his or her religion. Any limitations could be set only in the interest of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In the applicant's opinion observing vegetarianism could not be described as a threat to public safety, health, morals or the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "f2fe588d-4275-42fd-ae63-0ceec4c3be5b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained under Article 9 of the Convention that the measures taken against her, namely her questioning by the police, the search and seizure and the warning order, interfered with her right to collectively with like-minded adherents of the Evangelical faith in a home environment. In addition, the denial of legal registration to her church was done is a spirit which lacked any semblance of State neutrality. At all stages, the State authorities acted on the basis of discriminatory value judgments rather than evidence. The applicant considered that the measures were not prescribed by law, since they were arbitrary and based on legal provisions which allowed an unfettered discretion to the executive. Finally, the measures were not necessary in a democratic society. There was no evidence that that the religious beliefs of the members of the applicant\u2019s church were responsible for family separation, isolation and suicide. The action of the state authorities failed to respect the need for true religious pluralism, which is inherent in the concept of a democratic society."], "id": "f0c251d4-8940-4a89-84a1-2194e1ed1475", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government claimed, firstly, that the applicants had failed to produce \u2013 in the domestic proceedings or before this Court \u2013 any evidence in support of their allegation that the meeting had been disrupted. In their submission, Mr Kuznetsov, confronted with the request to produce documents demonstrating the lawfulness of the community meeting, realised that \u201cthe meeting should not be held\u201d and indicated to the congregation that the meeting should end. The Government also asserted that the founding documents of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious organisations did not provide for the forms of mentioned by the applicants \u2013 a \u201cworship meeting\u201d or \u201creligious meeting\u201d."], "id": "633c5bd9-ea21-4c88-bf24-84d91f475339", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government further submitted that there was no violation of the applicant's right to freedom of religion or any restriction on that right. The penalty imposed on the applicant \u201cwas not harsh and was not motivated by religious factors, but by a failure to submit to the Religions Act and violation of the administrative procedure\u201d. The refusal of re-registration of the applicant did not entail a ban on its activity. Members of the applicant continued to profess their faith, hold services of and ceremonies, and guide their followers."], "id": "519089d1-b531-41ae-897c-5333c3397178", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant claimed non-pecuniary damages of EUR 20,000 in respect of the mental suffering she had experienced as a result of her questioning by the police about her deeply-held faith and the subsequent search of her flat and seizure of her possessions. These measures had also left her in doubt as to whether she was free to continue to in her own home with other members of her church."], "id": "084e0ad8-1b2a-4f46-bcec-3719e6fecaae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["68. The applicant challenged the Government's assertions that the applicant \u201cpossessed the full capacity as a legal entity\u201d and that it \u201cexercised financial, economic and other activity in full measure\u201d as untrue. The result of the obstruction of the Moscow Justice Department, as upheld by the Presnenskiy District Court on 1 September 2003, was that the applicant had been \u201cfrozen in time\u201d and deprived of a possibility to modify its founding documents \u2013 and, accordingly, its aims, structure and internal organisation \u2013 in accordance with the law and its changing needs. For example, the applicant had been barred from introducing into its charter the right to establish places of and new procedures for election and dismissal of its president. Furthermore, the Press Ministry had denied registration of its newspaper for no other reason than the on-going uncertainty as regards the applicant's rights created by the refusal of re-registration. In that context, the entering of the applicant on the Unified State Register of Legal Entities had been made due to internal administrative reforms and did not constitute re-registration for the purposes of the Religions Act."], "id": "a6cafe19-6ee0-4ecc-9ac2-90b29d1963f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["166. The Government further submitted that there was no violation of the applicants' right to freedom of religion or any restriction on that right. The penalty imposed on the applicant community \u201cwas not harsh and was not motivated by religious factors, but by a failure to observe the law and a violation of the administrative procedure\u201d. Members of the applicant community continued to profess their faith, hold services of and ceremonies, and guide their followers. Thus, from 5 to 7 July 2002 the applicant community had held a regional congress of Jehovah's Witnesses which had been attended by up to 24,000 believers."], "id": "0589db9a-b887-4085-885d-1a38f14f83d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that there had been no interference in the exercise by the applicant of his right to freedom of religion, because no direct connection could be made between the indication of religion on identity cards and freedom of religion and conscience. It could not be construed as a requirement to disclose one\u2019s religious beliefs or as a restriction on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion in , teaching, practice and observance."], "id": "08cdb35d-daf5-470a-8439-dd977a654737", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["43. The Government claimed firstly that the service of , involving, as it did, many participants, had created noise and disturbed the public order and that the police had acted in response to a complaint about that disturbance. Secondly, they submitted that the Academy of Agriculture was not a \u201creligious building\u201d within the meaning of section 16 \u00a7 2 of the Religions Act. That section allowed believers to carry out services and rites on \u201cother premises which were provided for that purpose\u201d but it did not specify what premises fell into that category. The Government further pointed out that section 5 \u00a7 1 of the Education Act prohibited political and religious organisations from being set up or operating in educational establishments. Moreover, by law the two religious groups which had conducted the service on 12 April 2006 could only use premises provided by their members, whereas the rental contact for the premises in question had been entered into between the Academy and the Administrative Centre of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses. In such circumstances, the applicants had to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of assembly in accordance with section 16 \u00a7 5 of the Religions Act, that is, in compliance with the procedure established for holding public gatherings. Section 7 \u00a7 1 of the Public Gatherings Act required the organisers to notify the local authorities in advance in writing, which the applicants had failed to do. In the Government\u2019s view, failure to provide advance notice was contrary to the principle of lawfulness in section 3 \u00a7 1 of the Public Gatherings Act and was a sufficient ground for its termination on account of its unlawfulness."], "id": "1243174c-e725-4c2d-8315-824a1d067f8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicants complained that the premature termination of their religious meeting on account of the arrival of the police amounted to a violation of Articles 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that, where the nature of a meeting is primarily religious, as it was in the present case, where the applicants had gathered for a service of , a complaint about the disruption of the meeting is to be examined from the standpoint of Article 9 alone (see Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, no. 184/02, \u00a7 53, 11 January 2007), which reads as follows:"], "id": "616409e3-fc98-4ae5-ac2f-9eca9f68f830", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant\u2019s complaint concerns the rating status of its temple in Preston. This building is considered by the members of the applicant Church to constitute its most sacred centre. It is used as a place of congregational religious by those who have established their devotion and been accorded a \u201crecommend\u201d (see paragraphs 6-7 above). In the domestic proceedings, the opinion of the majority of the House of Lords was that the subject-matter of complaint did not come within the ambit of Article 9 of the Convention, with the consequence that Article 14 did not apply, since the refusal of the tax exemption did not prevent Mormons from manifesting their religion and since the tax exemption rules were applied neutrally to all religious groups and not directed specifically at the applicant Church (see paragraph 11 above). The Court can well understand such an assessment by the national courts of the facts of the present case, although it may be that in certain circumstances issues concerning the operation of religious buildings, including expenses incurred as a result of the taxation status of such buildings, are capable of having an impact on the exercise of the right of members of religious groups to manifest religious belief (see, mutatis mutandis, Association Les T\u00e9moins de J\u00e9hovah v. France, no. 8916/05, \u00a7\u00a7 48-54, 30 June 2011). The Court does not, however, need to decide whether, in the particular circumstances, the applicant\u2019s complaint about the application to it of the tax exemption legislation falls within the ambit of Article 9, so that Article 14 applies, since for the reasons given below it has come to the conclusion that the claim of discrimination is unfounded on its merits."], "id": "b9979435-2841-4e0d-9336-e95124998d9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant reasoned that the Preston temple and its curtilage, including the vestry or dressing room, utility rooms, office space used for temple administration and refectory used for dining by temple worshippers, ought to be exempt from business rates. However, it emphasised that its dispute with the Government concerned the principle of the exemption in relation to the temple, rather than its precise extent. The tax provisions at issue resulted in differential treatment. They imposed a tax burden on the applicant\u2019s temple which was not applied to other religious structures. More importantly, they excluded the applicant\u2019s most sacred space and rituals from eligibility for tax exemption, while granting exempt status to the full range of for other denominations. Implicit in this differentiation were non-neutral State assumptions, stereotypes and stigmatisation that operated prejudicially against the applicant and those if its members who chose to engage in temple worship."], "id": "bef7863c-0083-47bf-8357-e586e2d1d426", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicants noted that \u201creligious groups\u201d, as defined in the Religions Act, could operate without State interference. However, the status of a \u201creligious group\u201d entailed severe restrictions on community religious practice. A \u201creligious group\u201d had no legal personality; it could not acquire rights or obligations, and it could not protect its interests in court. Given the list of rights reserved to registered religious organisations in sections 15-24 of the Religions Act \u2013 including such fundamental aspects of \u201c , teaching, practice and observance\u201d as the right to establish places of worship, the right to hold religious services in other places accessible to the public, and the right to produce and/or acquire religious literature \u2013 a \u201creligious group\u201d was not a religious community with any substantial rights or \u201cautonomous existence\u201d, an issue which the Court had found to be \u201cat the very heart of the protection which Article 9 affords\u201d (see Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, \u00a7 118, ECHR 2001\u2011XII)."], "id": "c234091f-e994-425c-8e46-29ee5ae1d46d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["85. The applicants stated that the Religious Denominations Act 2002 in itself constituted an arbitrary interference with their rights under Article 9 of the Convention. They characterised as misleading and inappropriate the Government\u2019s argument that the new legal regime resembled the rules governing the status of the predominant religions in other European countries, such as Denmark and Italy. The crucial difference in the present case was, in the applicants\u2019 view, that the ex lege recognition of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church had been introduced in the Religious Denominations Act 2002 in the context of an ongoing dispute between two leaderships and had, moreover, been aimed at putting an end to this dispute by favouring one of the two leaderships to the exclusion of the other. The applicants referred to the Court\u2019s case-law, according to which the use of legislation and decrees to place a religious community under a single leadership and the removal of the opposing group from places of or other property constituted arbitrary State interference with the internal organisation of the religious community. The applicants considered that the heavy-handedness and discriminatory intent of the Bulgarian Government in the present case not only mirrored their approach criticised by the Court in Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 30985/96, ECHR 2000\u2011XI), but far surpassed it in gravity."], "id": "5e0eda0d-13a8-4e1a-a245-3c9d68852d19", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government accepted that the right to freedom of religion included the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion through and observance, but considered that in the present case the refusal to recognise the applicant Church did not amount to a prohibition of its activities or those of its members. The members of the applicant Church retained their freedom of religion, both as regards their freedom of conscience and as regards the freedom to manifest their beliefs through worship and practice."], "id": "83679faa-4978-4b6c-9fe2-94ba719e5ca3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["104. The applicants asserted that, according to Moldovan law, only religions recognised by the State may be practised and that refusing to recognise the applicant Church therefore amounted to forbidding it to operate, both as a liturgical body and as an association. The applicants who are natural persons may not express their beliefs through , since only a denomination recognised by the State can enjoy legal protection. "], "id": "737a2207-3adf-4708-b998-1f5e31eb1099", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be the victim of a violation of his right to freedom to manifest his religion. They argued that the denial of the applicant\u2019s request did not impair the essence of his right to manifest his religion, because the indication of religion on the identity card could not be interpreted as a measure compelling all Turkish citizens to disclose their religious beliefs and convictions and as a restriction on the freedom to manifest their religion in , teaching, practice and observance. Furthermore, referring to the case-law of the Turkish courts (see paragraph 16 above), the Government argued that anyone wishing to delete the relevant information in its entirety could apply to the civil courts."], "id": "062c95c3-b5c5-422a-a703-62cfab803cc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "worship", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicant contended that its temple should be treated with the same respect and accorded the same tax exempt treatment as the worship facilities of the Church of England and other denominations. Temple worship, by its very nature as understood by its believers, required that only those who voluntarily lived by the kinds of commitments made in the temple should be allowed to participate. This was not a case of worship being made private for the purposes of being exclusive or to provide private benefit; it was because the very nature of the worship as understood by its believers required privacy to promote the sacred character of the worship. The relevant analogy would be to insist that the tax exemption be denied to space devoted to confessionals or to the area behind the iconostasis in Orthodox churches. Just as an invitation to the general public to enter these spaces would disrupt sacred practices, so the nature of temple worship would be destroyed if there were a general requirement that the public be able to sit in. It was inappropriate for State officials to engage in drawing lines that discriminated between religions on the basis of mistaken understandings of the nature and impact of religious practices or merely because such practices are different from those of more familiar religions."], "id": "0854a2dd-6852-4246-8c44-aba599fed4cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of health", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant challenged the submission that the ban in question satisfied the condition laid down in paragraph 2 of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention of necessity in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of disorder, the or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. With regard to the aim of \u201cliving together\u201d in a democratic society, it was the opposite reasoning \u2013 that of openness and tolerance \u2013 which should take precedence in a pluralist democratic society as was evidenced by the tolerance that there had always been of dress codes rejecting the living together principle. At best, it could be regarded as a praiseworthy political objective, but one that could not be achieved by some stigmatising by-laws that were contrary to the Convention. In her submission, the factors justifying the ban on safety grounds had been advanced exclusively with regard to the full-face veil, were non-existent and the real aim being pursued by the by-laws was the prohibition of the full-face veil in public places. She argued, lastly, that the issue of dignity and gender equality was irrelevant to justification on grounds of \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d since the exercise of the freedom and wishes of women themselves was hindered."], "id": "c7768e23-74cc-4abe-ac4e-87277474b193", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his family life. However, they considered that such interference had been necessary in a democratic society and had been justified by the need to ensure and to prevent any obstruction by the applicant of the investigation of the criminal case against him."], "id": "aba72949-b0b0-47a2-85c4-96a4378e8cef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 conviction had had a legal basis and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security, , public order and the rights of others, as well as preventing crime. The applicants had been convicted of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation and not for a manifestation of their beliefs. The venue chosen \u2013 the premises of a political party \u2013 had not been an appropriate venue for a religious ceremony."], "id": "f1d1a15e-3bd1-49f5-9b66-936229d37d15", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant submitted that under Article 9 of the Convention the State was obliged to respect and support the individual's freedom to practice his or her religion. Any limitations could be set only in the interest of , for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In the applicant's opinion observing vegetarianism could not be described as a threat to public safety, health, morals or the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "4052f1b5-c9ea-4ba0-83cd-4b02fabc96bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government submitted that in democratic societies, in which several religions coexisted within one and the same population, it was necessary to place restrictions on the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion or belief in order to reconcile the interests of the various groups and ensure that everyone\u2019s beliefs were respected. Rules in this sphere could vary from one country to another in accordance with national traditions and the requirements imposed by the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others and to maintain public order. Accordingly, the choice of the extent and form such regulations took had to be left up to a point to the State concerned, as it depended on the specific domestic context. They referred in this context to Leyla \u015eahin v. Turkey ([GC], no. 44774/98, \u00a7\u00a7 106-09, ECHR 2005\u2011XI). The Government interpreted the cases of Cha\u2019are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France ([GC], no. 27417/95, \u00a7 84, ECHR 2000\u2011VII) and Wingrove v. the United Kingdom (25 November 1996, \u00a7 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011V) to mean that where questions concerning the relationship between State and religions were at stake, on which opinion in a democratic society might differ widely, the role of the national decision-making body had to be given special importance. Given that Said Nursi\u2019s books incited religious discord and proclaimed religious superiority and could therefore provoke serious religious clashes with unpredictable negative consequences, the ban on their publication and dissemination had pursued the aims of protecting territorial integrity and in Russia, public order and the rights of others. Moreover, it had been necessary in a democratic society, taking into account the tense ethnic situation in the country and the possible negative impact of those books on non-religious citizens."], "id": "8a85da7c-009d-4759-8736-38a31c906a31", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "public safety", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant challenged the submission that the ban in question satisfied the condition laid down in paragraph 2 of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention of necessity in a democratic society in the interests of , for the prevention of disorder, the protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. With regard to the aim of \u201cliving together\u201d in a democratic society, it was the opposite reasoning \u2013 that of openness and tolerance \u2013 which should take precedence in a pluralist democratic society as was evidenced by the tolerance that there had always been of dress codes rejecting the living together principle. At best, it could be regarded as a praiseworthy political objective, but one that could not be achieved by some stigmatising by-laws that were contrary to the Convention. In her submission, the factors justifying the ban on safety grounds had been advanced exclusively with regard to the full-face veil, were non-existent and the real aim being pursued by the by-laws was the prohibition of the full-face veil in public places. She argued, lastly, that the issue of dignity and gender equality was irrelevant to justification on grounds of \u201cprotection of the rights and freedoms of others\u201d since the exercise of the freedom and wishes of women themselves was hindered."], "id": "59c45214-53d2-4df7-8f1f-fea549bf05e1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of thought", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["77. The applicant further argued that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society. Firstly, the fact that he \u2013 a conscientious objector who was committed to living peacefully with his neighbours and who had a blank criminal record \u2013 was imprisoned and treated like a dangerous criminal was totally unnecessary in a democratic society. In particular, he had been subjected to a harassing search process, had later been arrested and locked up in a cell without any bedding and with six others detained for various crimes, and had been subjected to insults and verbal abuse by the guards. Secondly, he had been subjected to wholly disproportionate punishment and treatment considering that he was simply exercising his fundamental right to , conscience and religion. Thirdly, his imprisonment had not been necessary also because the Armenian authorities had pardoned other individuals in a similar situation. Lastly, the military protection of the country would not be disorganised and weakened if persons like him were not punished. In particular, Armenia had 125,000 active conscripts in 2007 and 551,000 potential ones, while only 41 Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses were imprisoned. Moreover, since 2002 only three individuals belonging to other religions had decided to become conscientious objectors. Such insignificant numbers could not have a negative impact on the military capacity of Armenia."], "id": "f2f75744-a4b5-4659-ade1-edfdd0fd0d45", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of thought", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government further submitted that the present case was to be distinguished from the Bayatyan case, since the applicants in the present case had had the possibility of substituting military service with alternative service of a civilian nature. Nevertheless, taking into account the shift in the case-law brought about by the Bayatyan judgment and a number of opinions and recommendations of various international bodies, including the Venice Commission, the domestic law had been amended on 2 May 2013 in order to provide a possibility for those who objected not only to the carrying of arms or performing other military activities but also to serving under any type of military command in general. In conclusion, there had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 right to , conscience or religion and there had been no violation of Article 9 of the Convention."], "id": "470a9ac3-a79a-4a27-b547-e675b641fd17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of thought", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government claimed that the interference in the form of dissolution of the applicant community had been justified, prescribed by law and had also pursued a legitimate aim. They referred to the Court's position to the effect that the State was \u201centitled to verify whether a movement or association carries on, ostensibly in pursuit of religious aims, activities which are harmful to the population\u201d (Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, 26 September 1996, \u00a7 40, Reports 1996\u2011IV) and also \u201cmay legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct... judged incompatible with respect for the , conscience and religion of others\u201d (Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, \u00a7 47, Series A no. 295\u2011A)."], "id": "45d6a18b-30ef-4278-af36-5c5d0ed0658c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of thought", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government observed that the issue of whether or not pupils followed religion/ethics courses was a delicate one, since the parents' choice, taken in conformity with their own convictions, might cause their child to belong to a minority in a certain class or school. The authorities should do their utmost to minimise the risk of a child's stigmatisation because he or she did not follow a religion/ethics course. It was the school's duty to provide pupils who did not follow a class in religion or ethics with care and supervision whenever they were on the school premises. It was also the school's duty to react to all manifestations of intolerance towards such children. The Government claimed that those obligations had been complied with in the present case. They also noted that, owing to the nature of the issue, it was not only the school which had positive obligations with respect to , conscience and religion; it was first and foremost the parents' duty to ensure that their children understood the choice made by them as regards religion/ethics education at school. The Government observed that the press articles attached to the application lodged by Mr and Mrs Grzelak did not support the assertion that it was their intention to protect their personal beliefs from being disclosed."], "id": "79265e7a-3b5e-4b21-99ed-f3b665c851b1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of thought", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government were in agreement with the applicant that the ban on wearing the skullcap in the courtroom had amounted to a \u201climitation\u201d on the manifestation of his religion. They relied in this connection on the case-law of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and General Comment No. 22 on the right to , conscience and religion adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on 27 September 1993, according to which \u201cThe observance and practice of religion or belief may include ... the wearing of distinctive clothing or headcoverings\u201d (document no. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, \u00a7 4). That said, the Government argued that the limitation was lawful. The House Rules on which the domestic decisions had relied should be read in conjunction with Article 242 \u00a7 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, affording trial judges wide discretion with regard to questions of court decorum (see paragraph 17 above). As regards the aim of the limitation, the Government maintained that the trial judge had simply enforced a generally accepted rule of civility and decent behaviour that skullcaps were not permitted in the courtroom in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, the trial judge had acted to protect the principle of secularism, which was of vital importance in multicultural societies, such as that of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Considering also that the impugned measure had been taken in the context of a sensitive and complex case regarding a terrorist attack against the Embassy of the United States, the Government argued that the limitation in question had been proportionate."], "id": "b18b0e8c-3940-458a-8037-51cfd9962620", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of thought", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["79. The Government agreed that the Convention was a \u201cliving instrument\u201d. However, the question of whether Article 9 of the Convention was applicable to the present case was to be considered from the point of view of the interpretation of the Convention existing at the material time. The applicant had been convicted in the years 2001-02 and his conviction at that time had been in line with the approach of the international community and was considered to be lawful and justified under the Convention as interpreted by the Commission and the Court. In particular, the Commission had found in Peters v. the Netherlands (no. 22793/93, Commission decision of 30 November 1994, unreported) and Heudens v. Belgium (no. 24630/94, Commission decision of 22 May 1995, unreported), which were the latest decisions on the matter, that the right to , conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 9 did not concern exemption from compulsory military service on religious or political grounds. The Court had not even recognised the applicability of Article 9 in its more recent judgments, where it had not found it necessary to examine the issue (see, for example, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, \u00a7 43, ECHR 2000-IV, and \u00dclke v. Turkey, no. 39437/98, \u00a7\u00a7 53-54, 24 January 2006). The Armenian authorities had therefore acted in compliance with the requirements of the Convention. Given the established case-law on this matter, they could not have foreseen the possibility of a new interpretation of Article 9 by the Court and consequently could not have made their actions comply with that possible \u201cnew approach\u201d."], "id": "2ba4365c-ab3d-44fc-9bd3-070ca941ab2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of thought", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government submitted that the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Armenian Constitution, including the right to , conscience and religion, were to be applied to everyone equally and without discrimination. The applicant, an Armenian citizen, was obliged under the Constitution to perform compulsory military service regardless of his religious convictions and the fulfilment of such obligation could not be considered an interference with his rights. The law did not include such grounds for exemption from military service as being a Jehovah\u2019s Witness. Thus, exemption from compulsory military service on a ground not prescribed by law would have been in breach of the principle of equality and non-discrimination."], "id": "a6064e60-ab5f-460b-843f-4aebf848b66e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["81. The applicant said that while university authorities, including vice-chancellors\u2019 offices and deaneries, were unquestionably at liberty to use the powers vested in them by law, the scope of those powers and the limits on them were also defined by law, as were the procedures by which they were to be exercised and the of authority. In the instant case, the Vice-Chancellor had not possessed the authority or power, either under the laws in force or the Students Disciplinary Procedure Rules, to refuse students \u201cwearing the headscarf\u201d access to university premises or examination rooms. In addition, the legislature had at no stage sought to issue a general ban on wearing religious signs in schools and universities and there had never been support for such a ban in Parliament, despite the fierce debate to which the Islamic headscarf had given rise. Moreover, the fact that the administrative authorities had not introduced any general regulations providing for the imposition of disciplinary penalties on students wearing the headscarf in institutions of higher education meant that no such ban existed."], "id": "89993eaa-2e8a-4a67-ab95-1dacae73e035", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "safeguards against abuse", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government\u2019s warning and indoctrination campaign had had no legal basis. Neither of the constitutional norms quoted by the Government was sufficiently clear to allow the infringement of the applicant associations\u2019 Convention rights. They considered that the principle of proportionality did not set sufficiently clear limits to the exercise of the Government\u2019s discretionary power where interferences with the freedom of religion derived directly from other constitutional rights. The importance of the right to freedom of religion required a strict adherence to legal principles and at least some procedural rules concerning the involvement of the religious communities in the process of defining the scope of the State powers and of authority. In the applicant associations\u2019 view the authorities had failed in their duty to enact an adequate legal framework in this respect."], "id": "6959ca01-5f98-4fb1-be79-b67dbf2be08e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of conscience", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government accepted that the right to freedom of religion included the freedom to manifest one\u2019s religion through worship and observance, but considered that in the present case the refusal to recognise the applicant Church did not amount to a prohibition of its activities or those of its members. The members of the applicant Church retained their freedom of religion, both as regards their and as regards the freedom to manifest their beliefs through worship and practice."], "id": "12889158-0a72-4008-926a-3b5ca6489c3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "Freedom of Conscience", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["125. The Government submitted that the interference was lawful. In particular, they noted that the Ukrainian legislation contained certain requirements as to the statutes of religious organisations. These requirements were of a general nature and formulated in such a way as to avoid State interference with religious freedom. The Government referred, in particular, to section 12 of the and Religious Organisations Act (hereinafter the \u201cAct\u201d), which had particular requirements concerning the statutes of religious organisations. It was because of the failure of these documents to comply with the applicant association's statute that the Kyiv City State Administration had refused to register the amendments (see paragraph 42 above)."], "id": "79c52503-1f0f-439e-9a58-7ab25fde42ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of conscience", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government submitted that the refusal to renew the applicant\u2019s contract had been necessary in a democratic society. The principle of the neutrality of public services required that employees could not wear any religious symbol, of any form, even if they did not engage in proselytism. In this connection they referred to the Court\u2019s case-law with regard to civil servants and their duty of discretion and choice of attire (specifically, Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, \u00a7 53, Series A no. 323, and Kurtulmu\u015f v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006\u2011II). They emphasised the particular importance of the principle of neutrality in the circumstances of this case, where it was difficult to assess the impact that a particularly visible external sign could have on the of fragile and impressionable patients. The Government added that certain patients had specifically refused to meet the applicant, and that this situation had created a general climate of tension and difficulties within the unit, requiring the applicant\u2019s colleagues and some social workers to handle sensitive situations. It was in the light of this general climate that the CASH had taken the contested decision, after reminding the applicant on several occasions of the duty of neutrality, and not on account of the latter\u2019s professional skills, which had always been acknowledged. The Government considered that the contested decision had complied with the requirement to weigh up the interests at stake; it had been the consequence of the applicant\u2019s refusal to comply with the rules applicable to every public employee, of which she had been perfectly aware, and not, as she alleged, on account of her religious beliefs. Lastly, although the applicant\u2019s wearing of the religious symbol had been accepted by the hospital until 2000, this factor did not, in the Government\u2019s view, render the contested interference unnecessary. They reiterated that \u201cthe fact that an existing rule is applied less rigorously because of a specific context does not mean that there is no justification for the rule or that it is no longer binding in law\u201d (citing Kurtulmu\u015f, cited above)."], "id": "4df323b2-abb1-4d39-8b12-f5a9bbb89c39", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "freedom of conscience", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government also referred to the effects of this behaviour on the other pupils in the applicant's class, the applicant being only eleven years old at the time. In that connection the Government referred to the case of Dahlab v. Switzerland (no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001\u2011V) in which the Court had pointed to the difficulty in assessing the impact that a powerful external symbol such as the wearing of a headscarf might have on the and religion of young children, who were more easily influenced, and its proselytising effect, although admittedly in that case it was a teacher who had worn the headscarf and not a pupil and the children in question were aged between four and eight."], "id": "1bb421ab-0162-493f-b93b-9268e94eee6f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government observed that the issue of whether or not pupils followed religion/ethics courses was a delicate one, since the parents' choice, taken in conformity with their own convictions, might cause their child to belong to a minority in a certain class or school. The authorities should do their utmost to minimise the risk of a child's stigmatisation because he or she did not follow a religion/ethics course. It was the school's duty to provide pupils who did not follow a class in religion or ethics with care and supervision whenever they were on the school premises. It was also the school's duty to react to all manifestations of intolerance towards such children. The Government claimed that those obligations had been complied with in the present case. They also noted that, owing to the nature of the issue, it was not only the school which had with respect to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; it was first and foremost the parents' duty to ensure that their children understood the choice made by them as regards religion/ethics education at school. The Government observed that the press articles attached to the application lodged by Mr and Mrs Grzelak did not support the assertion that it was their intention to protect their personal beliefs from being disclosed."], "id": "c718c5a9-4b67-4029-981a-fee4658eaf6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["86. The applicants considered that the verbal and physical abuse to which they had been subjected amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. They further claimed that the Georgian authorities were responsible, via the conduct of their agents, for the violent dispersal of several large religious gatherings of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses in 2000-2001. On a wider scale, the Georgian authorities failed to fulfil their under Article 3 of the Convention, as they had taken no measures capable of preventing the widespread extension of religious violence against Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses in the country and had refused to conduct prompt and efficient investigations into acts of violence of which they were fully aware and which had been perpetrated not only by private individuals but also by representatives of the State."], "id": "25b95229-058a-4f34-904b-752dd0bf9abe", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government further took the view that, as the Chamber had found in paragraph 78 of its judgment, the present case had to be examined from the perspective of the State\u2019s (in the light of Rommelfanger v. Germany, no. 12242/86, Commission decision of 6 September 1989, Decisions and Reports 62). The Government argued that the State had fulfilled its obligations in the present case."], "id": "23c4405b-0b9b-4840-aa5d-545ad10727a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government submitted that the Article 3 threshold had not been reached in this case. There was no evidence that the applicant was a victim of physical ill-treatment. Nor were the psychological effects of the demonstration so serious as to meet the Article 3 threshold: however reprehensible, the conduct of the demonstrators was not prolonged or systemic; this was a one-off demonstration which lasted only an hour and a half. Even if the Article 3 threshold had been met, by properly policing the demonstration, the domestic authorities had complied with their under that Article. Finally, the criminal investigation undertaken after the demonstration had complied with the State\u2019s procedural obligations under the Article."], "id": "be42c030-e5f4-44ad-85e8-0516ee3cef28", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicants pointed out that the sole reason for the St Petersburg City Court\u2019s upholding the refusal to register the applicant group as a religious organisation had been the lack of a reliable document confirming its presence in St Petersburg for fifteen years. They contended that the refusal had not been \u201cprescribed by law\u201d because the law did not meet the standards of clarity and required under the Convention. Referring to Article 132 of the Russian Constitution and sections 7(2) and 11(5) of the Religions Act, the applicants submitted that the law expressly authorised local authorities to issue letters confirming the length of a group\u2019s existence and that the courts\u2019 rejection of the confirmation letter on the basis of an alleged lack of authority was unreasonable. Furthermore, whereas the Religions Act required only formal presentation of a confirmation letter, the courts had rejected it as \u201cunreliable\u201d with reference to arbitrary criteria that were not prescribed by law and had imposed an unforeseeable and unattainable threshold."], "id": "9a789790-079c-4a75-a8d1-f211064c04f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["118. The applicants alleged, however, that the applicable law lacked the clarity and required by the concept of lawfulness as enshrined in the Convention, since it authorised the Ministry of the Interior to deport persons who had never been convicted or investigated on the basis of orders issued without examination of evidence, without the possibility of adversarial proceedings, and without giving reasons."], "id": "017278b9-6f91-488f-b87c-1833fe9dfaf3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government contended that the applicants could not rely on the moratorium on the Act on the Re-establishment of the State of Lithuania as it never came into effect since the precondition of the USSR opening bilateral negotiations was not respected (paragraphs 14-17 and 67-68 above). The applicants were aware of this as they and the Soviet Union had continued to insist that Lithuania renounce that Act (paragraphs 14, 19 and 20 above). In any event, the Act itself did not fall within the proposed moratorium and its validity remained unaffected. Moreover, the Supreme Council did not suspend any of its legislative or other activities aimed at consolidating the restoration of independence. The conditional moratorium thus had no impact on the of the criminal nature of the applicants\u2019 behaviour. Instead they sought to prevent negotiations with the USSR, preferring the use of force. The recognition of this situation by the USSR and the applicants is demonstrated by the repeated demands during the periods of 29 June - 28 December 1990 and January - August 1991 that Lithuania renounce its legislation of 11 March 1990 and reinstate the Soviet Constitution."], "id": "9608e9f2-e658-4b85-bdbb-92bba471925d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "9", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant contended that the legal basis for the restriction of his freedom of expression was not sufficiently foreseeable as required by the Court\u2019s case-law. He alleged, in particular, that Slovakian law, as interpreted and applied by the domestic courts, does not adequately define what is defamation in that it does not distinguish between value judgments and facts and between public officials and private persons. The of the restriction could also be questioned because the applicant had justifiably believed that the national courts would proceed in compliance with the case-law under the Convention relating to the notions of fair comment and burden of proof in similar cases."], "id": "0127b175-66e2-4fc0-b6a9-6dcea28a8fce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained that the quashing of the judgment of 27 November 2002, as upheld on 20 January 2003, by way of supervisory review had violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "4d9aafeb-9f32-4ef2-b1de-cdca7435884f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained that the quashing of the final judgment of 11 December 2001 made in his favour had violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d and his right to . The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in this connection. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "0c686cf7-06a9-4c07-aee2-5c437aacae2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["210. The applicants further maintained that the third applicant\u2019s right to respect for her home under Article 8 of the Convention and their right to under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated, as the means employed by the authorities had been disproportionate to the aims sought to be achieved. They also referred to the domestic courts\u2019 decisions by which the first applicant\u2019s claim for compensation had been rejected and argued that the right to compensation for the destroyed property established, according to the Government, in a number of legal instruments, was illusory and not enforceable in practice."], "id": "ce818060-40c6-45db-8c05-79fa3bc6d6c3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant complained that the quashing of the judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of supervisory review proceedings had violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "ec0c7118-e56d-4c11-b7f1-94b2601fcc07", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant replied that the judgments of 10 September and 19 December 2002 had been quashed more than three years after becoming binding. He contested the Presidium's finding of the \u201cfundamental defect\u201d allegedly committed by the lower courts in the original judgments. The applicant considered that their quashing had irremediably impaired the principle of legal certainty and violated his right to , as the amount of his retirement pension had been reduced by three thereafter."], "id": "a750e32d-975b-4f33-8d48-594df0a7fc89", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["109. The applicants further submitted that as a result of the violation of their right to and the restrictions on their property, they were unable to dispose of the houses and receive economic benefit. This situation resulted in negative consequences for the normal commercial activity of the applicant company, loss of trust of its customers, long-term decrease in turnover, loss of revenue and pecuniary damage to the company, and increase in expenses and mortgage interest rates, as the houses were mortgaged in connection with the company\u2019s loan from a bank. The applicants alleged that the applicant company\u2019s building activity, which was directed at the creation of a residential district which would accommodate the needs of numerous families, should have been recognised by the domestic authorities as a \u201cgeneral interest\u201d, rather than the private interests of two individuals, G.G. and M.N., being caused to prevail."], "id": "3eda33cc-659c-4a47-8953-b3304519b6a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained that non-enforcement of the judgments of 19 June 2000, 14 March 2001 and 28 May 2002 violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "24061862-939b-45a1-b6a7-d9ba20656fde", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["101. The applicant emphasised that the High Court had found that an interference with his right to had occurred (see paragraphs 36-37 above). Although the judgment of the High Court on the issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been reversed on appeal, Auld LJ had accepted that if he had found the applicant\u2019s inclusion on the Performers List to be a possession, then the suspension would have amounted to an interference with that possession (see paragraph 49 above)."], "id": "5f535ea3-6bf2-45cd-ad0f-1b47668d57df", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained that the continued non-enforcement of the judgments of 11 January and 14 December 1999 and that of 6 June 2000 violated his right of access to a court enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention and his right to guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "4e78e5a1-ddd7-4181-ae9b-88c42600f757", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicants have thus had to bear an individual and excessive burden which has upset the fair balance that should be maintained between the demands of the general interest on the one hand and protection of the right to the on the other. There has therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "328b9438-2165-47c4-b15f-d62811af601e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 5 July 2002, as amended on 20 January 2003, violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:"], "id": "098e1582-3775-4514-92ff-257fd8846733", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicants complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of their respective awards provided for in the judgments of 7 August 2000 and of 22 January 2001 violated their \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and their right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "467e9da8-9095-4530-96ae-87295d6e99cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant complained that the quashing of the judgment of 2 October 2003, as upheld on 26 February 2004, by means of the legality review procedure had violated his right to a fair trial under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read:"], "id": "08ddff3e-8346-4170-9806-ef0ccb3a7f2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["9. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 24 December 2001 violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "dc8b2665-3140-4f3f-8a2e-037183cf6867", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government criticised the Chamber judgment, considering it methodologically inappropriate and legally incorrect to confuse compensation for an expropriation and the court fees to be paid. Referring to the dissenting opinion attached to the judgment (see paragraph 5 above), the Government considered that the Chamber's conclusions confused two legally different things: \u201cthe credit and the debt, [which were] two completely separate things\u201d. The Government gave the example of a situation where a creditor lodged a claim to recover a certain sum, and the debtor filed a counter claim for a sum higher than that claimed by the creditor; if the court allowed the counterclaim, the creditor would receive nothing and, in addition, would have to pay the costs, without there being, the Government argued, any interference with the ."], "id": "7225c1be-5e20-4a9d-a3d0-a97dffdf8400", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained that the quashing of the final judgment of 17 December 2001, as upheld on appeal on 19 February 2002, made in his favour violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d and his right to . The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions are cited above."], "id": "9ce056f8-69d4-4f3c-a8ea-c34876411f72", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government questioned whether there could have been an interference with the right to in a situation where the State had in no way restricted the owners\u2019 acquired rights, but, on the contrary, the owners themselves had entirely voluntarily entered into the existing tenancy relationships as the original owner-landlord with full knowledge of the regulations on tenancy agreements as valid at that time. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the new owners had thus, in a way, waived their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions in so far as their ownership rights had been restricted at the time when they had voluntarily acquired them. Nor could the owners have any specific legitimate expectation that in the future the restriction of their ownership rights would be abolished as regards rent control."], "id": "9461b9e6-0132-421c-98f8-1aacb75cf134", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained that he had been unable to enforce the judgment in his favour owing to the domestic court\u2019s refusal to provide him with a copy of the said judgment. He further alleged that the non\u2011enforcement of this judgment had violated his right to . In this connection, he invoked Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "7a441986-faa0-45ad-bf53-e665694eda17", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicant complained that the quashing of the final judgment of 16 October 2002 made in his favour had violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d and his right to . He also complained that he had been deprived of his right to effectively participate in the supervisory-review hearing. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "73c67c27-7064-4a13-94c6-1a23e977da22", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 29 August 2001 violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "a09c1d80-ed8e-4253-bd5f-d508915b497f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["9. The applicants complained that the quashing of the final judgments made in their favour violated their \u201cright to a court\u201d and their right to . The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "f50184ce-9d25-426b-8ef1-ea166d302301", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicants\u2019 entitlement to receive a flat arose in 1986 and such flat was provided to them in 2006 (see paragraphs 6 and 12 above), namely twenty years later, fourteen of which, after 7 September 1992 when the Convention entered into force for Bulgaria, within the Court\u2019s temporal jurisdiction. In the earlier similar cases the Court found that comparable delays, seen together with the authorities\u2019 passive attitude, the long periods of uncertainty endured by the applicants and the lack of effective domestic remedies for rectifying the situation, meant that the applicants had been made to bear a special and excessive burden which had upset the fair balance between the demands of the public interest and protection of the right to (see Kirilova and Others, \u00a7\u00a7 108\u201123, Lazarov, \u00a7\u00a7 30-32, and Antonovi, \u00a7 30, all cited above). The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case."], "id": "b70be2ab-0545-4bcb-b362-99ae2b52499e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["22. The Government, in their memorandum of 20 February 2006, admitted that the judgment of 28 November 2003, as upheld on appeal on 14 January 2004, and the judgment of 6 December 2004 were not fully enforced within a reasonable time, which violated the applicant's right to . At the same time, in a letter of 10 July 2007, they argued that the applicant's rights were not violated as the decisions in his favour had eventually been fully enforced."], "id": "aaf41a77-ac5f-4383-93ec-6ed793a92710", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["152. The applicant considered that the authorities had acted unlawfully. To begin with, all the administrative decisions implementing the measures for controlling the use of her property, notably those allocating flats to A.Z. and W.P. and subjecting the house to State management, had in 1996-1997 been declared as having been issued contrary to Polish law. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 an interference by the State with the \u2013 be it an expropriation or control of the use of property \u2013 could not be regarded as lawful if the relevant decision had been made contrary to the existing legal provisions."], "id": "0f28e486-1f0f-4d11-aab3-4aa5a5af08f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained that the prolonged non\u2011enforcement of the judgment of 20 January 2000 as upheld on 6 April 2000 in his favour violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the as provided in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "id": "31a59bad-1a43-4e6b-8623-d716e50bc486", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the act of quashing of the final judgment of 15 July 2002, as amended on 12 September 2002, had violated her \u201cright to a court\u201d and her right to . The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "79baccb8-511b-4abd-8b0e-351000ff8f1b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicant complained that delayed enforcement of the judgments of 19 March 2001, 28 May 2002, 16 June and 10 October 2003 violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "b7109125-f606-46df-86eb-c62ae2a65093", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicants complained that they had been unable to enforce the judgments in their favour owing to the domestic court\u2019s refusal to provide them with copies of the said judgments. They further alleged that the non-enforcement of those judgments had violated their right to . They relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "ade70bd3-fa61-44fb-9c04-6cc9dbc78d82", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 5 January 2000 violated her \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and her right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "f6560a51-06d6-4f2b-9a4e-ba07c8e3e2c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicants complained that the quashing of the final judgments made in their favour violated their \u201cright to a court\u201d and their right to . The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "cfd44ff9-3147-484e-accd-cd646aa4ea2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the quashing of the final judgment of 14 January 2002, as confirmed on 1 April 2002, had violated his right to a fair trial and his right to . The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "6e60b585-7254-4dbf-a56d-a1e3769b52a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government were of the opinion that the applicants had obtained full redress for any delays in securing possession of the property restored to them. Therefore, there had been no interference with their for which the Government could have been held responsible. Although the applicants\u2019 property had remained for a time in the possession of the public company, their rights had been safeguarded by the civil law and they had already obtained redress at the domestic level."], "id": "4d09727f-7edf-4b49-b6fc-301f8e432d2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["48. The applicant complained that the failure on the part of domestic authorities to enforce the final judgment taken by the Astrakhan Regional Court on 14 December 1999 violated his right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to a under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:"], "id": "e9792de4-da8d-4322-a5bc-2f57d4aa28ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants complained that their right to had been violated because of the domestic authorities\u2019 continuing failure to decide on the expropriation of their plot of land and their consequent inability to make use of their property during that period. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "cb8a347f-86c3-4955-bb01-579acae79bf4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the renewal of the time-limit for an ordinary appeal after a considerable lapse of time and the consecutive quashing of the judgment of 5 October 2001 had violated the principle of legal certainty and unlawfully prolonged the judicial proceedings. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of an interference with his right to the . The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "fb7b1c70-368d-491b-bae5-d97452102f68", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government considered that the interference complained of was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate in the circumstances of the case. They submitted that the right to was not absolute and that certain restrictions were permissible. The restrictions in the present case were based on the general interest, namely protection of the natural environment. The Government further submitted that the property in question had been classified as \u201cfarmland\u201d when the applicant bought it and that it had never been designated for construction purposes, even before the creation of the Wigry National Park and the adoption of the local development plan of 1994. Consequently, the Government invited the Court to find the present application manifestly ill\u2011founded."], "id": "24fe47fa-046b-47de-9f8f-65f000c0e814", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant replied that the Government's reference to the Banekovi\u0107 case in support of their argument that the present complaint was incompatible ratione materiae was rather superficial. In that case the Court had not held, as the Government suggested, that employment disputes between the authorities and public servants were excluded \u201cfrom the scope of the (entire) Convention\u201d but only from the scope of Article 6 \u00a7 1 thereof. For that reason, in the Banekovi\u0107 case the Court had declared inadmissible, as incompatible ratione materiae, the applicant's complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. The present complaint however concerned the right to guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "7e29ec86-b352-43d3-9055-dba021451377", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["12. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of their respective awards provided for in the judgments of 10 October 2000 violated their \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and their right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "013e82bd-7c57-4efd-8a2a-e51d08f23945", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments of 7 June 2001 and of 27 September 2002 violated her \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and her right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "8bde3af5-be59-43c7-a305-b79601efaafb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant contended that the Department\u2019s refusal to execute the contract in full, and the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to enforce the impugned clause, have denied him his right to the , and have deprived him of those possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He alleged that the disputed term of the contract was lawful and had created a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The delay in the execution of the contract, unchallenged by the respondent Government, had caused him substantial financial loss."], "id": "ee2a1a9c-9cb8-4f16-991a-e2ac0b9fa3af", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 10 December 2001, as amended on 31 July 2003, violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:"], "id": "b788d770-4695-418d-a1eb-273d1f17e617", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments taken on 4 December 1998, 11 March 1999, 27 April 2000 and 29 November 2002 respectively in his favour violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "c3535a20-6196-462c-8b1f-89580e22afe3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["9. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 29 August 2001 violated her \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and her right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "eb35249b-9e67-4399-adc6-ddb7ca927f28", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant complained that the quashing of the judgment of 9 October 2001 in his favour, as upheld on 26 December 2001, by way of supervisory review violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He further complained that he had not been informed of the date of the supervisory instance hearing and that the domestic courts had allowed the Bank\u2019s request for restoration of the time\u2011limit for lodging the supervisory review complaint in breach of the domestic law requirements. Relevant Convention provisions read as follows:"], "id": "fb033f72-0e64-49ac-af80-649cb2f6cd85", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 18 October 1999 and the decision of 22 October 2001 violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "f421ec0f-c359-4030-8207-5e21fc0fa8b2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicants pointed out, firstly, that the Ministry's application for supervisory review had been lodged on 9 June 2004, that is more than a year after the judgments in their favour had become legally binding on 23 April 2003, whereas Article 376 of the Code of Civil Procedure established a one-year time-limit for lodging an application for supervisory review. Secondly, the interim decisions of 30 September and 14 October 2004 contradicted each other. Furthermore, the Presidium did not indicate any compelling reasons for quashing the final judgments in their favour. The applicants considered that the quashing of final judgments had irremediably impaired the principle of legal certainty and violated their right to ."], "id": "2460b1e4-0f1e-4ed7-9095-b8e1849eb97f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant argued that on the basis of the Koprivnica Municipal Court's decision on recognition of the final judgment of the Titograd Court of First Instance of 15 October 1991, he had acquired an undisputed and outstanding claim for damages against the companies C.O. and P., that is to say a pecuniary right. By refusing to enforce that judgment, the Croatian courts had prevented him from realising his acquired pecuniary right, thereby violating his right to protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "281f0aa7-cfb9-4928-bf7d-b7d48e46dd61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained that the quashing of the final judgment of 11 March 2001 had violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d and his right to . The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "4a2c64bd-2c74-45d3-b1c1-14f3d4dcd139", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained that the quashing of the judgment of 9 February 2007 by way of supervisory review proceedings had violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "2bfc47ed-753f-4eae-89d9-ca0b4b16935f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government submitted that there had not been any interference with the applicants\u2019 for which the Government could be held responsible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They further submitted that \u201calthough it took some time until the compensation was paid to the applicants, their rights were safeguarded by the civil law and they have already obtained redress at the domestic level for any negative consequences\u201d. The Government did not dispute that the payment of the compensation had been delayed. However, in their view it had not led to increased financial loss for the applicants."], "id": "bcfefee1-60e6-4dc9-8fec-4743dec00793", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was not applicable to the present case because the case concerned a civil-law dispute between private parties. In this connection the Court first reiterates that while such disputes do not themselves engage the responsibility of the State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Zagreba\u010dka banka d.d. v. Croatia, no. 39544/05, \u00a7 250, 12 December 2013, and case-law cited therein), this does not mean that the Article in question is inapplicable to that type of dispute. If court decisions in such disputes are arbitrary or otherwise manifestly unreasonable they would constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (ibid.). If they are not, then those decisions do not amount to an interference with the right to (ibid., \u00a7 252, and see also the case-law cited therein). In either case, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 remains applicable. Consequently, the Government\u2019s objection as to the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has to be dismissed."], "id": "1b5f0a56-ba56-4aac-96ee-9301ecf4c698", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained that the quashing of the final judgment of 25 December 2002, as upheld on appeal on 17 February 2003, made in her favour had violated her \u201cright to a court\u201d and her right to . The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "9c119b34-6281-4517-b2b9-6ee4ecea1468", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government maintained that the procedures available under domestic law afforded a sufficient remedy to ensure protection of the right to . In particular, the relevant legislation provided for the payment of full compensation to be determined by the courts. Since the applicants had failed to lodge their applications within the statutory time-limits, it was their own fault that they did not receive any compensation. The Government identified three periods of inactivity attributable to the applicants: from 1941 to 1951, from 1951 to 1959 and from 1961 to 1971. In their submission, the applicants must have been sufficiently aware of the risk they ran by neglecting the proceedings for long periods. The requirement of proportionality had therefore been satisfied. "], "id": "475d9708-2982-49bd-a474-4ff8ae0c4ed5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "peaceful enjoyment of possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained that the quashing of the final judgment of 22 February 2002 made in his favour violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d and his right to . The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "2dbfef4b-01c5-4b37-8677-e12a492e3b79", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government first submitted that the house had been demolished at a time when it clearly belonged to the applicant. They admitted that the demolition of the house meant that the applicant had been deprived of her within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, they contended that this deprivation had been justified under the terms of that Article for the following reasons."], "id": "2c5fc78b-1c0f-4e56-8835-15634d0a50ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government further submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his , in the form of control of use, had been lawful since the plot of land in question was federal property. The applicant\u2019s garage situated on it was found, for the reasons outlined above, to be an unauthorised construction, and the legal consequences outlined in the domestic law for unauthorised constructions had been applied by the domestic courts. The documents provided by the applicant in support of his application (see paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 above) were incapable of disproving that garage no. 169 had been constructed without authorisation. The fact that the local administration had certified the garage as ready for use did not confirm the existence of permission by the competent federal authorities to use the plot of land in question for the construction of garages. Such permission had been required given that the owner of the plot was the Russian Federation and not the City of Moscow."], "id": "7853ff71-9919-4ec5-840d-e5a1566185ec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["40. The applicant alleged that towards the end of 1993, gendarmes had raided his village and that his home and had been destroyed. He requested the Court to find that the destruction of his property and the failure to carry out an effective investigation by the authorities engaged the responsibility of the respondent State under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that each of these Articles had been violated."], "id": "a2740d0b-4682-4c92-a2f8-9e4af35d9a0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 10 December 2001, as amended on 31 July 2003, violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:"], "id": "71450f4f-0f06-4f92-ab69-15428fc04806", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants could continue to utilise their and, although it became more difficult to sell their property on account of the use of part of their land as the school yard, the possibility of selling or renting it remained. Indeed, it appears from the letter of the local mayor that the applicants\u2019 house is currently rented out (see paragraph 21 above)."], "id": "16fc98d5-f119-4197-81f8-fb7e18692bcb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of her when the police authorities impounded her vehicle. However, they went to argue that this measure amounted to the control of use of property and that the interference was justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the alternative, should a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention be found, the Government invited the Court to find that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Zangh\u00ec v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, \u00a7 23)."], "id": "da175b7b-b312-4409-876c-87724f0e0797", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government argued that the applicant had not had a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He had obtained \u201cMRT\u201d roubles through a purchase contract which could not be considered valid since its object was items banned from circulation in Moldova. This had been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice. Moreover, the applicant could not have had a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d of obtaining a property right over such banknotes, as they were banned from circulation, being considered \u201cunlawful items\u201d. The case was similar to Agneessens v. Belgium (no. 12164/86, Commission decision of 12 October 1988, Decisions and Reports 58, p.81), where the Commission had found that \u201cthere can be no deprivation of if a conditional claim lapses as a result of non-fulfilment of the condition\u201d. Moreover, the case was somewhat similar to Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, \u00a7 63, Series A no. 24), in which the British authorities had seized the book printed for the applicant in order to protect the morals of others. In the present case, the Moldovan authorities had been protecting the sovereignty of the country, which was undermined by actions taken by \u201cMRT\u201d such as issuing banknotes other than the only currency recognised in Moldova, the Moldovan leu. To accept the applicant\u2019s request to export the banknotes outside Moldova would be tantamount to officially recognising the possibility that \u201cMRT\u201d-issued banknotes could be put into circulation. This was unlawful and unacceptable."], "id": "ecd9bc99-f986-43d7-b754-954cc59b3b5d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complains that, by quashing the final judgment of 30 May 1994 which recognised his right to be compensated for the expense of building a new house, there has been an unlawful interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his . He refers to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which in so far as relevant provides:"], "id": "24037ceb-9cb0-409c-a0d3-4a69968a5691", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant complained that non-enforcement of the judgments of 19 June 2000, 14 March 2001 and 28 May 2002 violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "1f9536e5-50d4-45a5-b2e1-6890fafa75be", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["79. The applicants submitted that they had had a legitimate expectation that they would receive the full amount of their pensions, based on the contributions they had been required to make throughout their employment. After the entry into force of paragraph 6(1) of the transitional and concluding provisions of the Social Security Code 1999, they had expected that the cap on the maximum amount of pension would be lifted on 31 December 2003 and that from that date on they would receive the full amount of their pensions. The ensuing postponement of the lifting of the cap had accordingly amounted to an interference with their ."], "id": "cc8387b3-f536-4883-b52e-dcece618664c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["56. The applicants contended that the complete prohibition on fishing species other than salmon and sea trout from 1 May to 5 July 1997 was arbitrary and unjustified. In the coastal waters other species than salmon could well be fished without jeopardising the salmon stock. This prohibition, for which the applicants received no compensation, prevented them from exercising their profession and enjoying their . Nor was a complete prohibition required by the Frontier Rivers Agreement. The restrictions imposed on the Swedish side and particularly in the Kalix river, while not as lengthy and far-reaching as those imposed on the applicants' waters, had successfully ensured the fish stocks without placing an excessive burden on the holders of the fishing. The restrictions on the fishing of salmon and trout were likewise excessive with a view to safeguarding the stocks. The restrictions applied at the period when it was possible to benefit from their possessions and nearly all their value had been lost."], "id": "fb79c6fa-0a3f-4dd3-b628-aca77bff39e8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["17. The applicant complained that the quashing of the judgment of 9 February 2007 by way of supervisory review proceedings had violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "97fd69a8-0ae0-4525-8de5-780c34f90b34", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government further noted that some applicants had shared properties and that it had not been proved that their co-owners had agreed to the partition of the . Nor, when claiming damages based on the assumption that the properties had been rented after 1974, had the applicants shown that the rights of the said co-owners under domestic law had been respected."], "id": "32c5cb3a-f52f-4b3a-879b-0e37b916b4ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicants have thus had to bear an individual and excessive burden which has upset the fair balance that should be maintained between the demands of the general interest on the one hand and protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of on the other. There has therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "f5b0cb0e-b037-403f-a72c-87a0c004ba61", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant argued that on the basis of the Koprivnica Municipal Court's decision on recognition of the final judgment of the Titograd Court of First Instance of 15 October 1991, he had acquired an undisputed and outstanding claim for damages against the companies C.O. and P., that is to say a pecuniary right. By refusing to enforce that judgment, the Croatian courts had prevented him from realising his acquired pecuniary right, thereby violating his right to peaceful enjoyment of protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "3e3f435f-4812-4c36-b609-c1b976b417fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["71. The Government first argued that since Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was limited to enshrining the right to the peaceful enjoyment of already existing , the applicants could not rely on any exceptional grounds affording them a right to fish salmon and sea trout independently of the State's limited right in rem. Accordingly, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was inapplicable."], "id": "7345c8d9-1c4c-46ec-9ad2-f3d1ea6ee008", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicants sought reparation for the pecuniary damage they had sustained, which they calculated as follows: 60,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) [30,987.41 euros (EUR)], the sum being the loss of rent for the period from December 1993 (first attempt of the bailiff) to March 2000 (when the applicants recovered of their flat). However, they left the matter to be assessed by the Court in an equitable manner given the impossibility to exactly determine the loss of rent."], "id": "231125cd-e4fc-41dc-bc5f-20736f5a7dd8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicant complained that there had been an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in that the overall amount of expropriation compensation awarded by the domestic courts did not correspond, in his opinion, to the real value of the expropriated property. He submitted, inter alia, that Turkish legislation did not enable him to obtain adequate compensation, in the absence of legal criteria for determining the value of buildings making up the country's cultural and historical heritage, such as the one which he formerly owned."], "id": "dee4c16f-7a13-4cb3-8055-c66997a26c87", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government conceded that the obligation to tolerate hunting, which ran counter to the applicant\u2019s convictions, had interfered with his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Nevertheless, they pointed out that in Germany \u2013 in contrast to the situation in France and Luxembourg, where hunting rights were transferred completely to the hunting associations \u2013 the landowner remained the holder of the hunting rights and was thus not deprived of any . He merely had to cede the right to practise hunting. Privately owned land, which was limited in quantity, had a particular social relevance which entitled the legislature to limit its use in the general interest."], "id": "328113f7-c007-44a1-bb71-76e33ba1ee78", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant submitted that his complaint was directed at the application of the law itself, viewed in the light of reasonableness and proportionality, and that the amount of rent was thus of secondary importance. According to the applicant, for the RRB to have jurisdiction and competence, the owner must have accepted as a precondition that the act depriving him of his respected his fundamental rights. This was not so in the present case. A decision by the RRB regarding the rent would be futile if the act of deprivation was found to be null and void. Moreover, it was established by law that the amount of rent the RRB could grant could not exceed MTL 180 (approximately EUR 420). The applicant further submitted that the second remedy proposed by the Government, was not applicable to the present proceedings, according to section 12(3) of the Housing Decontrol Ordinance (see paragraph 24 above). However, even if it were, it appeared from domestic case-law that such proceedings did not generally have prospects of success. The applicant argued that it was for the Government, who were better placed to acquire the relevant information, to prove that any other property owned by a tenant was fit for use as accommodation. The burden of proof should not be on the owner, who generally did not have the relevant knowledge to make such allegations."], "id": "5cc25ef7-99c0-4426-93bb-6db25d4a4c86", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["20. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 5 July 2002, as amended on 20 January 2003, violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:"], "id": "a6943384-eaae-4bf4-8d4f-d80ab56cba8c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicant complained that the renewal of the time-limit for appeal and the subsequent quashing of the final judgment of 8 June 2001 had violated the principle of legal certainty and the peaceful enjoyment of his . He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "id": "053eedb5-a22d-411d-b61d-634dc2ba26be", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicants\u2019 entitlement to receive a flat arose in 1986 and such flat was provided to them in 2006 (see paragraphs 6 and 12 above), namely twenty years later, fourteen of which, after 7 September 1992 when the Convention entered into force for Bulgaria, within the Court\u2019s temporal jurisdiction. In the earlier similar cases the Court found that comparable delays, seen together with the authorities\u2019 passive attitude, the long periods of uncertainty endured by the applicants and the lack of effective domestic remedies for rectifying the situation, meant that the applicants had been made to bear a special and excessive burden which had upset the fair balance between the demands of the public interest and protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of (see Kirilova and Others, \u00a7\u00a7 108\u201123, Lazarov, \u00a7\u00a7 30-32, and Antonovi, \u00a7 30, all cited above). The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case."], "id": "91557590-e7ac-46ef-b5c2-ae0e3277719d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["126. The Government submitted that the revoking of the licence did not constitute deprivation of , but was a control of the use of property. They further argued that that interference was lawful and sought to safeguard an important public interest: the stability of the banking system. The interference was also proportionate to the attainment of that aim. Both conditions for withdrawing the licence were satisfied."], "id": "14cab54d-1a3c-43be-a1b1-a285e256cfe5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicant complained that the quashing of the judgment of 9 October 2001 in his favour, as upheld on 26 December 2001, by way of supervisory review violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He further complained that he had not been informed of the date of the supervisory instance hearing and that the domestic courts had allowed the Bank\u2019s request for restoration of the time\u2011limit for lodging the supervisory review complaint in breach of the domestic law requirements. Relevant Convention provisions read as follows:"], "id": "26f266b0-50a2-4b76-869c-27401e4dc09a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government further argued that the applicant should have lodged a claim before a civil court, claiming damages against either the State Treasury or the municipality for the interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his . Had a civil court found against him, he could also have lodged a constitutional complaint, challenging the provisions of the Local Planning Act 1994 which were applied to his case."], "id": "33d27c26-a10b-49a1-a02e-a8969aa8f319", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant noted that the State had positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, \u00a7\u00a7 109-113, 3 April 2012). He further asserted that the failure to adopt the necessary legal mechanisms with a view to implementing section 43 of the Mining Act had constituted an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his because his right to be exempt from electricity and gas payments had been breached."], "id": "53b24df0-e86a-4867-b115-2ed015175c6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government further noted that some applicants had shared properties and that it was not proved that their co-owners had agreed to the partition of the . Nor, when claiming damages based on the assumption that the properties had been rented after 1974, had the applicants shown that the rights of the said co-owners under domestic law had been respected."], "id": "e9f69c10-5567-4ebf-80f0-9bfe8e9f84a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government argued that under the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ownership was not ius infinitum. A State had the right to enact such laws as it deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The forfeiture of the arms held without a licence had amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his . It had served the public interest as it had been ordered in order to safeguard public safety and to control the possession of arms by individuals. All States were entitled to control access to weapons as a fundamental power vested in them on the strength of their sovereignty. They were also under a positive obligation to ensure safety by way of licensing the possession of weapons. The States enjoyed a margin of appreciation in this regard. Under the Court\u2019s case-law the scope of this margin varied depending on the issue concerned in a case. The State\u2019s margin of appreciation in issues concerning arms control was particularly wide. A requirement to obtain a licence to possess weapons fell within the State\u2019s margin of appreciation and could not be regarded as imposing an excessive individual burden on the applicant. The licensing system would be illusory if it was not attended by criminal sanctions or by the possibility to order forfeiture of illegally possessed arms."], "id": "c0884eff-ffcc-46e8-bfb0-592399b4e01c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government further submitted that even assuming that the applicants had an existing possession or a legitimate expectation and that the Supreme Court of Cassation\u2019s judgment of 12 December 2007 had amounted to interference with their , that interference had been in the public interest and proportionate because the applicants had been entitled to compensation under the 1997 Act. The fact that, although knowing that restitution was impossible, they had failed to avail themselves of that opportunity within the statutory time-limit could not be attributed to the authorities."], "id": "9c53b716-efbe-43fa-b5e0-cb6e13f2a829", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained that the quashing of the final judgment of 17 December 2001, as upheld on appeal on 19 February 2002, made in his favour violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d and his right to peaceful enjoyment of . The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions are cited above."], "id": "834c4082-588d-4547-a917-9cd64abdc330", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["28. The applicant complained that the quashing under supervisory review procedure of the judgment of 29 August 2000 and the consequent quashing of the judgment of 5 December 2002 violated his right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "2178017b-97a5-4fa8-ac07-4983b6201519", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["92. The applicant concluded, referring to the case of Sporrong and L\u00f6nnroth v. Sweden (23 September 1982, Series A no. 52), that in her case, having regard to its circumstances seen as a whole, a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised by measures depriving her of her had not been respected."], "id": "2cf6d5df-bb07-480e-9b3e-400fc46c4bd8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his when the domestic authorities had allowed V.P. to use his property. They argued that this measure amounted to control of use of property and that it was not disputed that the interference had been based on law and had been in the general interest. As to proportionality, the State had been amending the relevant legislation as the circumstances and the need for the control of possessions had been changing. Namely, the legislation granting rather extensive powers to temporary occupants at the beginning had been amended over time to benefit the owners. Therefore, the interference had met the conditions of the extraordinary post-war situation and had not placed an excessive individual burden on the applicant."], "id": "e14d5633-9775-460f-8fc8-0882706897be", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["42. The applicant highlighted that the enjoyment of his had been severely restricted. Firstly, he could not resume possession of his property (except in extreme circumstances which were difficult to attain). Secondly, he could not charge a fair rent, as the law only provided for it to be doubled every fifteen years, which did not reflect increases in the property market (which, as an example, had increased by more than 40% over the seven-year period between 2004 and 2011)."], "id": "5a3cb347-d764-4edc-9eb3-6e107a2b3fc7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["24. The applicant complained that the municipal council\u2019s failure, for nine and a half years, to fully comply with the final judgment in her favour had been in breach of her right to a court under Article 6 \u00a7 1 and of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read respectively as follows:"], "id": "f0239ab1-e2a1-467d-aaee-a4a47054d8bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants considered that they had a possession provided for by domestic law that fell within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Their right to a pension had been based on the salaries they had earned; however, because of Law no. 296/06 that right had been denied to people like the applicants who had worked in Switzerland. While it was true that the Italo\u2013Swiss Convention had provided for the possibility for the State to enact specific norms regulating the matter, norms which totally reshaped the law to the detriment of the applicants had only come into being thirty-eight years after the adoption of that Convention. By that time, in the absence of a lex specialis, the rights in question had matured and become part of the applicants\u2019 patrimony in accordance with the applicable general laws. Thus, the new law had interfered with the applicants\u2019 peaceful enjoyment of their , in an arbitrary and radically unjustified manner, drastically reducing their pensions. They further considered the interference to be discriminatory and aimed solely at those people who had worked abroad, particularly in Switzerland."], "id": "faed93b2-7c7d-4fd8-a76c-585e8e84a218", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government further noted that some applicants had shared properties and that it was not proved that their co-owners had agreed to the partition of the . Nor, when claiming damages based on the assumption that the properties had been rented after 1974, had the applicants shown that the rights of the said co-owners under domestic law had been respected."], "id": "462ff5e7-ab44-40a8-b3ad-d61eb1118957", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["84. The applicant maintained that the UAR\u2019s decision of 27 June 1996, upheld by the courts, amounted to a control of the use of his , within the meaning of the aforementioned Article. He considered the UAR\u2019s decision of 27 June 1996 illegal, submitting that its legal basis had been removed by Law no. 51/1995; that the UAR was no longer competent, according to the provisions of the aforementioned law at that time, to annul his registration with the Constan\u0163a Bar in 1991; that the Rules adopted by the UAR, on which the domestic courts had based their decisions, could not be relied on in addition to the law; and that the annulment of his registration had become time\u2011barred by 1996."], "id": "15abe4c0-586e-4f84-a426-491dbafc1f7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant argued that there had been a breach of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his . He had remained the owner of the land, but in view of the planning measures taken in his case and the applicable legal framework his property rights had been stripped of any real significance. On the one hand, the applicant could not obtain a building permit in order to make use of his property, in particular by constructing a new house or substantially renovating his old house. On the other, he had been adversely affected by the expropriation to be carried out at an undetermined future date."], "id": "f2dd9b9a-896d-4b03-a79e-24d89e32954f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government recognised that the impugned measures constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his or, in the alternative, amounted to a deprivation of his property and thus fell to be considered under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It was their view, however, that this provision had not been violated."], "id": "8c1a58fd-b3e1-4bd5-a6e8-a0012e316d98", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government raised a preliminary objection that the matter of the decision on the costs of the proceedings in which the applicant sought compensation did not fall within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, since it did not affect the applicant\u2019s right to peaceful enjoyment of his . In the Government\u2019s opinion, the applicant did not have a specific property right to the adjudicated compensation as the first-instance court\u2019s ruling was not final."], "id": "a2ad527f-e957-4c22-ac2c-cf4c1fba1430", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government pointed out at the outset that the Court was not empowered to examine questions linked to the deprivation of property itself, such questions clearly being beyond its jurisdiction ratione temporis. In the Government\u2019s submission, it was the lack of any payment of compensation for expropriation which constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to the peaceful enjoyment of their . The applicants agreed with that submission and complained that, in depriving them of any compensation, judgments nos. 3156/1995 of the Salonika Court of Appeal and 1302/1997 of the Court of Cassation had imposed an excessive burden on them."], "id": "b62dc099-5173-417d-b4f1-1d7b3b595fdc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government argued that any interference with the applicants' property rights had been justified. The properties claimed by the applicants had been expropriated in accordance with the laws of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. Owing to the relocation of the populations, it had been necessary to facilitate the rehabilitation of Turkish-Cypriot refugees and to renovate and put to better use abandoned Greek-Cypriot property. The Greek-Cypriot side had taken similar measures in respect of abandoned Turkish-Cypriot properties in the southern part of the island. There was a public interest in not undermining the inter-communal talks concerning freedom of movement and right of property. The status of the UN buffer zone had also rendered it necessary to regulate the right of access to until a settlement of the political problem could be achieved. In the light of all the above, it would have been unrealistic to grant individual applicants a right of access to property in isolation from the political situation."], "id": "59e14f86-6f62-4308-b775-b71dfb9ac865", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["13. The Government argued that this complaint was inadmissible. The supervisory review had been initiated by a party to the litigation, and the applicants had been aware of these proceedings. Annulment of binding judgments was legitimate in a democratic society and known, for example, to such countries as Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Besides, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe had been satis\ufb01ed that Russia\u2019s supervisory-review procedure had been improved (ResDH(2006)1, 8 February 2006; CM/Inf/DH(2005)20, 23 March 2005). Supervisory review had been applied only in exceptional cases. In the present case, it had been applied to correct the district court\u2019s misinterpretation of material law. There had been no interference with the applicants\u2019 , because the State had not contested as such their right to a service \uf002at."], "id": "841de2e5-34da-4cae-8d33-07c4b35d1681", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government stated that the applicants had acquired an apartment in violation of the law. The relevant provisions of civil law had been clear and predictable \u2013 they provided that transactions in breach of the law were null and void. The Government further rejected the applicants' allegation that they had been the victims of a selective attack. Following the democratic changes in 1989, the reformed State institutions had carried out revisions of recent transactions and sought to recover property acquired unlawfully. The aim pursued had been clearly legitimate. Finally, the Government submitted that nullity was the only appropriate sanction for transactions that violated the law and that therefore the interference with the applicants' could not be regarded as disproportionate."], "id": "a8a68bfd-21ee-4ea8-9f82-1d1a09c570f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["255. The applicant further submitted that the Government did not appear to have disputed his title to three vehicles which had been stolen from him and a house which had been ruined. As regards his other , the applicant referred to a report listing his items of lost property and indicating its value which had been certified by the administration of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny (see paragraph 91 above) and stated that he had been unable to adduce any other documentary evidence in that respect, as all relevant documents had been burnt in the house. The applicant insisted that the Court should accept his relevant submissions, given that the Government had not provided the Court with any evidence that conflicted with his version of events. The applicant further contended that the fact that his property had been looted by State agents had been confirmed by a number of eyewitnesses \u2013 his neighbours \u2013 whose names he had communicated to the investigating authorities, and that this interference with his property rights had not been justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "0e56eb05-de0f-4c87-b068-87c1365e1275", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicant disagreed. She argued that in the context of a continuing violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her the events that had taken place before the date of ratification should be taken into account as a relevant background for the assessment of the facts of the case. In her case the 1977 decision announcing the future expropriation had been the root cause of all the subsequent developments. Moreover, in her case most of the facts which should be regarded as giving rise to further breaches of her right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had occurred after 10 October 1994."], "id": "e1dbed30-c246-4ddc-94ac-67351cbe182d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained that the quashing of the final judgment of 11 March 2001 had violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d and his right to peaceful enjoyment of . The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "8a940f17-b0fa-4fa5-9a2c-e83a7385bee3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["30. The applicant submitted that the interference with her property rights had been unlawful as the local administration had had no legal basis on which to rent out her land in view of her title to it. In her opinion, the fact that by July 2004 the boundaries of the disputed land had not been marked out did not entitle the local administration to let out her . The applicant added that she had requested that the boundaries of the plot be marked out as early as October 2004 but that the local administration had delayed this procedure in disregard of her numerous requests. Thus, in her opinion, the boundaries could have been established earlier if the land in question had not been occupied by company B., which had already planted seeds on the land and was expecting to realise a profit by harvesting the crop."], "id": "45f36225-5344-439d-80dd-5473bb77b710", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicant company argued that the sale of goods in its duty free shop and bar had been its only activity. It submitted that the Law on Foreign Investments was clear in stating that foreign investments were guaranteed complete security and protection. Such was the wording of section 39 of the Law. In the applicant's view this law had been enacted in order to encourage foreign investors to invest their money in the Moldovan economy, in conditions of security while not being afraid of any change of legislation or of changes of the political course of Moldova. In such circumstances, any ambiguous part of the text concerning the guarantees afforded to it by this law should have been interpreted in its favour. If a State interpreted contradictions within its legislation for its own benefit, that constituted a breach of the principle of lawfulness, and accordingly a breach of the right to respect for one's ."], "id": "286764cd-bb38-4c71-8bc3-f151d479d09a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants submitted that the interference with their had no basis in law. Having failed to pay their debts, the State deprived them of the actual possession of their property, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They maintained that the public interest justifications mentioned by the Government could not be relied on at their expense, and that it was for the State to find a solution for the payment of their salaries."], "id": "d20b303d-0b03-4b53-b859-1307f60edf6e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government criticised the Chamber judgment, considering it methodologically inappropriate and legally incorrect to confuse compensation for an expropriation and the court fees to be paid. Referring to the dissenting opinion attached to the judgment (see paragraph 5 above), the Government considered that the Chamber's conclusions confused two legally different things: \u201cthe credit and the debt, [which were] two completely separate things\u201d. The Government gave the example of a situation where a creditor lodged a claim to recover a certain sum, and the debtor filed a counter claim for a sum higher than that claimed by the creditor; if the court allowed the counterclaim, the creditor would receive nothing and, in addition, would have to pay the costs, without there being, the Government argued, any interference with the peaceful enjoyment of ."], "id": "15a91f3c-5430-4c01-9a19-f98420874d32", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicant complained that since the Turkish invasion of the northern part of Cyprus in July 1974, Turkey had prevented her from exercising her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her home and . She submitted, in particular, that on 9 December 1990 she had been prevented from returning to her home and property. The applicant observed that she had produced documentary evidence that she was the owner of the properties at issue. Relying on the principles laid down by the Court in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey ((merits), 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), she alleged that the interference with her property rights had lacked any legal justification."], "id": "a254886c-1dcc-4c03-a31f-2ce73b49efd4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicants further submitted that the deprivation of the second applicant\u2019s was also not carried out under \u201cconditions provided for by law\u201d, namely Article 225 of the Civil Code. According to that provision, only the owner of a property could claim the termination of the right of use enjoyed by another person in respect of that property. In the present case, however, it was the Government that initiated the proceedings seeking to terminate the second applicant\u2019s right of use and therefore there was no legal basis to grant this claim."], "id": "f142aa31-2a51-433a-92b3-f43d10e9d07f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["13. The applicants complained that they had been unable to enforce the judgments in their favour owing to the domestic court\u2019s refusal to provide them with copies of the said judgments. They further alleged that the non-enforcement of those judgments had violated their right to peaceful enjoyment of . They relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "00412a2b-3e83-41d6-bc21-210959963552", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["107. The applicants reiterated that, prior to the entry into force of section 5 bis of Law no. 359/1992, their land had already been expropriated and they had brought legal proceedings seeking compensation to which they could legitimately expect to be entitled under Law no. 2359/1865. As the law in question was applicable to expropriations that were under way and to the related proceedings, including the ones concerning them, it had had the effect of depriving them of a substantial part of the compensation to which they were entitled. The enactment of that law therefore amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to the peaceful enjoyment of their that was incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "b3209e65-8ccd-48f0-bbe1-4f8932eaea9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicants argued that the quashing of the binding and enforceable judgments of 11 December 2001 delivered by the Ryazan Garnison Military Court in their favour violated the principle of legal certainty and, therefore, their right to a court and the right to peaceful enjoyment of their . They emphasised that the defendant military unit did not use the available means of appeal against the judgments before they became binding and enforceable and that the subsequent supervisory review upon application of the President of the Moscow Circuit Military Court could not be justified by the higher court\u2019s mere disagreement with the decision on the merits."], "id": "b7303a2f-aecc-45e1-b23f-46377705e188", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings complained of and the subsequent non-enforcement of the part of the in-court settlement of 11 March 2004 concerning the return of her vehicle had infringed her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her because she has been unable to use her vehicle for a prolonged period of time. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows:"], "id": "098f7524-e8b7-4cce-bd82-0f1791f1afbb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant complained of an infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his , a plot of land which he had purchased in good faith but of which he had been deprived by the domestic court decisions to recognise the State\u2019s title to it, without compensating him for any loss sustained. He alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "6d162dbe-022c-42c8-a2b4-53c722ecaae2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant's daughter sought enforcement of the judgment of 19 January 1998, namely to be allowed to take possession of the 2.13 hectares of land and to receive ownership titles. She also claimed 2,130,000 Euros (EUR) for the loss of profit or any benefit from her , representing the value of the rent she could obtain by renting the land for a period of ten years (10 Euros per square metre per year). In respect of non\u00adpecuniary damage, she claimed EUR 4,000."], "id": "52a11515-b20d-4968-bac3-90b13aff18c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government acknowledged that the adjudicated claims of the applicant company had constituted \u201cpossessions\u201d and that their quashing had amounted to an interference with those within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, they emphasised that the quashing of the judgments in question had been in full compliance with the law, legitimate, and had not placed an excessive individual burden on the applicant company."], "id": "3d7c6b0a-20bc-4c86-a4d2-2545dee1ad84", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["102. The applicants complained that the revocation by law of their licences without any compensation had breached their right to peaceful enjoyment of their , guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The second applicant also complained that that provision had been breached on account of the suspension of her licence in May 2009. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads:"], "id": "ad3ebc63-3458-4eb1-ba9f-f734451b5000", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["55. The applicants noted that they were not obliged to submit repeated complaints about the delay in question since there was an ex officio obligation on the part of the Commercial Court to enforce its own final decision. Further, the said court did not take adequate steps to bring the impugned proceedings to a successful and speedy conclusion. Lastly, the applicants referred to Article 20 of the Property Act (see paragraph 27 above) and stressed that they have been deprived of their as of February 1991, which is when the Commercial Court's decision of 27 December 1990 had become final. "], "id": "7e1f4ef4-b3c3-471d-b9f6-2076a6303c33", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicant complained that the drastic decrease in his monthly disability allowance, which had prevailed between 1 July 2012 and 31 December 2013, amounted to an unjustified deprivation of in view of the fact that his underlying medical condition had not changed. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention."], "id": "339328a1-7972-4af7-abda-4896880ac232", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the act of quashing of the final judgment of 15 July 2002, as amended on 12 September 2002, had violated her \u201cright to a court\u201d and her right to peaceful enjoyment of . The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "e8f6955b-3752-4dab-b824-d2f9ae8bcddd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["19. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their as a result of the national authorities\u2019 refusal to recognise them as the legal heirs in respect of the immovable property which had been owned by the late Polikseni Pistika. They alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:"], "id": "920bf311-9016-477a-b0d9-1fe0fcb1f85d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["96. The applicants complained that the judgments by which the Prosecutor General\u2019s actions for annulment of the contracts of lease and sale of land were upheld had had the effect of infringing their right to peaceful enjoyment of their as secured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Government disputed the applicants\u2019 contention and argued that the applicants did not have a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In particular, they were simple tenants and not owners of the 5.63 hectares of land, while the rest of the land was obtained by them unlawfully."], "id": "f1eec4ba-d1b8-4c1c-ae53-abf7a32946da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government concluded that there had been no interference with the applicants' as they remained the lawful owners of the land and could still use it. The mere fact that the land served public purposes in that it had been used for the construction of roads accessible to the general public and that the applicants had had to finance the construction of these roads themselves was insufficient for finding that their possessions had been interfered with."], "id": "e0802121-1299-40a4-aef2-fab8158777b7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant complained that the prolonged non\u2011enforcement of the judgment of 20 January 2000 as upheld on 6 April 2000 in his favour violated his \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of as provided in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, read as follows:"], "id": "ca4b39db-f3ef-49b7-9195-859a37cac613", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant claimed that it had been deprived of its . It stated that it had remained owner of its assets during the bankruptcy proceedings; the bankruptcy estate had only administered these assets. In any event, the applicant maintained that the assets relevant in the present case had undoubtedly belonged to the applicant before the declaration of bankruptcy and that they had thereafter been appropriated to pay costs caused by that erroneous declaration. Allegedly, already in those circumstances, the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated."], "id": "c64e7a19-4d6e-4350-9e31-464f4d5ba973", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained that the lengthy non-enforcement of the court judgment in his favour rendered by the Kronshtadt Garrison Military Court on 7 March 2002 constituted a breach of his right to a court and his right to peaceful enjoyment of his . Article 6 \u00a7 1 and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention, relied on by the applicant, insofar as relevant, read as follows:"], "id": "93cb0864-90eb-4f47-a2ef-244b541c4eae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["72. The Government were of the opinion that the applicants had obtained full redress for any delays in securing possession of the property restored to them. Therefore, there had been no interference with their peaceful enjoyment of for which the Government could have been held responsible. Although the applicants\u2019 property had remained for a time in the possession of the public company, their rights had been safeguarded by the civil law and they had already obtained redress at the domestic level."], "id": "9cc5f26e-4077-4671-8843-3bc45bfa2278", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["39. The Government submitted that the activities of the Chechen Savings Bank had been suspended in August 1996 in view of the difficult political, economic and social situation in Chechnya, and that it had been impossible to resume the activity of the bank, as it had sustained significant pecuniary damage and had lost a considerable number of its primary documents and official seals, which could have enabled the falsification of claims concerning the reimbursement of deposits made with it. In such circumstances, in December 1996 the Management Board of the Savings Bank of Russia had taken a decision to wind up the Chechen Savings Bank. The Government thus argued, referring to these facts, that the Savings Bank of Russia had had no real opportunity to restore the applicant's savings deposited in the Chechen Savings Bank and transfer them to the Moscow branch of the Savings Bank of Russia and that it had had no intention of depriving the applicant of his ."], "id": "85397867-dbfe-4b5f-a55a-51b79963398f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["101. The Government recognised that the sale of the applicant\u2019s property and the eviction constituted an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his . However, they submitted that the sale served the purpose of securing the payment of taxes and therefore, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case-law (J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, \u00a7\u00a7 65-66, ECHR 2007\u2011III, and Gasus Dosier- und F\u00f6rdertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, \u00a7 59, Series A no. 306\u2011B), should be considered as a control of use of the applicant\u2019s property not as a deprivation of it. Following this case-law, the State should be allowed a wide margin of appreciation when passing laws for the purpose of securing the payment of taxes and the Court would respect the legislature\u2019s assessment in such matters unless it was devoid of reasonable foundation (Gasus, \u00a7 60)."], "id": "d91ca353-b0c6-4d1c-93dc-9468172efe09", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government argued that, since the disputed clause was unlawfully entered into, the Department was not obliged under domestic law to execute it, and the refusal to do so could not amount to an interference with the applicant\u2019s . However, given the terms of the agreement, which Mr R. entered into with the applicant on behalf of the Department, the Court is of the view that the Department\u2019s actions may be regarded as having frustrated the applicant\u2019s legitimate expectations under the contract and depriving him, in part, of the consideration which he gave in entering into the agreement. Regardless of whether this is an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant\u2019s possessions, within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1, or a deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of that provision, the same principles apply in the present case, and require the measure to be justified in accordance with requirements of that Article, as interpreted by the established case-law of the Court (amongst many authorities,Gasus Dosier- und F\u00f6rdertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, judgment of 23 February 1995, Series A no. 306-B, \u00a7 55)."], "id": "7fe508be-86a2-4342-be91-56413ec7af88", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government submitted that the interference had lasted until the decision allowing V.P. to use the applicant's property had been set aside. From then on, the State had no longer interfered with the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his but had rather attempted to provide for the repossession of his property. The Government admitted that the repossession proceedings had lasted for a long period of time. However, in this respect they referred to their arguments concerning the applicant's length complaint."], "id": "e3028c0c-d10d-4530-ac15-a3f3ac5cf779", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["93. The applicant submitted that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his had been violated when his property was sold at public auction, and he was subsequently evicted, for an enforceable debt amounting to no more than SEK 6,721 on the day of the sale. In his view, this measure constituted an irrevocable and definite deprivation of his property and was completely disproportionate to the aims pursued, in particular as the decision to sell the property had not gained legal force when the property was sold and when he was evicted."], "id": "3a838e4a-90a0-43f0-9044-31feeb1b13f8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government in their submissions disputed the assertion that the awards made by the domestic courts to the applicants constituted within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as they concerned payments for judicial benefits provided by the State. They further alleged that the claims in respect of the arrears granted did not even amount to legitimate expectations, as they had been directed against the wrong institution \u2013 the Ministry of Finance instead of the State Judicial Administration. The Government further referred to the difficult financial situation of the State (see Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281\u2011A, \u00a7\u00a7 27 and 30) and the technical complications encountered in the course of the enforcement proceedings. Moreover, they contended that the State had taken active steps to solve the problem, as it had made a budgetary allocation of UAH 1,067,200[7] for the payment of the various arrears. They further asserted that these judgments had been enforced in full and without undue delay, and that accordingly there had been no infringement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "08be6dae-462b-4029-abed-cb0d81c14fdd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["145. The applicants recalled that in the restitution process the State was not supposed to create disproportionate new wrongs while trying to attenuate old injuries. The legislation should make it possible to take into account the particular circumstances of each case, avoiding putting a disproportionate burden on persons who had acquired in good faith (see Pincov\u00e1 and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, \u00a7 58, 5 February 2003, and Velikovi and Others, cited above, \u00a7 178). In the present case, the disproportion lay in the repeal of the tenant\u2019s right to purchase under the \u201cthird model\u201d. From the year 2000 onwards the two alternatives available to the applicants (namely, continuing to lease the existing dwelling or moving out of it and obtaining a financial incentive) were neither a suitable compensation for the loss of the specially protected tenancy nor a comparable alternative to the right to purchase. In this connection, the applicants submitted the following arguments."], "id": "4521c4a3-d646-499c-884b-eb5abb72731e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that the judgments of the domestic courts given in the applicants\u2019 case were based on well-established and extensive case-law. The courts had conducted an extensive examination of the evidence in the case and had explained in detail their decisions to uphold the assessment of the Social Insurance Authority. It was not the task of the Court to take the place of the domestic courts, as it was in the first place for them to interpret domestic law (Tejedor Garc\u00eda v. Spain, 16 December 1997, \u00a7 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII). Accordingly, the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to the peaceful enjoyment of their complained of in the present case was prescribed by law."], "id": "fc04eedc-217c-4afd-a19b-d89ee0e0e284", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government admitted that the compulsory lease of the land under sections 3 et seq. of Law no. 64/1997 constituted an interference with the applicant's rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It reflected the legislator's position, according to which it was in the general interest that the rights of persons using the land for gardening purposes should prevail over the rights of the owners of the plots of the land in garden colonies. The work the gardeners had done had considerably increased the value of the land, which at the time the colonies were established had generally been unusable and of low quality. The Government argued that a fair balance had been struck between the general interest and the rights of the original land owners. Given the margin of appreciation which the Contracting States had in similar cases, the interference in issue with the applicant's right to peacefully enjoy her was not contrary to the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "ab62cadb-2f32-4a38-9dd0-38eb105ae9ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicant company pointed out that the State had not previously suggested, either in 2008 or during the domestic proceedings, that it could or should have changed its business model. It was no answer to a claim of loss of livelihood or interference with to say that the operator should have altered an important aspect of its business. It was even an implicit admission that its rights had been impacted."], "id": "911d7123-e60e-4f10-866e-1dc4d06e5a26", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government submitted that the authorities had made three attempts to enforce the judgment of 18 March 2002. The delay in enforcement had been due to objective reasons, namely the difficulty in identifying an equivalent land, as well as the fluctuant conduct of the applicant, who requested only in 2006 compensation with land in the neighbouring plot. They also argued that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her , since the authorities had offered her different lands in compensation. Were the Court to hold that there had been interference based on delay in enforcement of the judgment of 18 March 2002, the Government submitted that the alleged interference had been justified and proportionate."], "id": "985b99f7-8325-422c-8613-cdced3e57b4b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government in their submissions confirmed that the amount awarded to the applicant by the domestic court constituted a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They acknowledged that the non-enforcement of the judgment in favour of the applicant could be considered to be an interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his . However, the Government claimed that such interference was justified in the general interest, namely the need to control the export of contaminated materials from the Chernobyl area. The large number of creditors of the liquidated company required the liquidation commission and the State to develop comprehensive measures to satisfy all claims."], "id": "74751475-7655-4400-9c12-b776d3caa0a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants complained that their right to peaceful enjoyment of had been violated because of the domestic authorities\u2019 continuing failure to decide on the expropriation of their plot of land and their consequent inability to make use of their property during that period. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which read as follows:"], "id": "a6e0da14-3a18-4ff3-95c2-5a48b0d9756e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of her when the local authorities had placed another person in the applicant's flat. However, they repudiated the applicant's contention that, by issuing a decision allowing M.V. to use her flat shortly after she had instituted civil proceedings to evict him, those authorities had acted in bad faith. In the Government's view, it was highly unlikely that the local authorities had been aware of the pending civil proceedings instituted only three days before they had given the impugned decision."], "id": "68f19ff0-5b0e-4a0f-98be-b88cb4d9e996", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that the renewal of the time-limit for an ordinary appeal after a considerable lapse of time and the consecutive quashing of the judgment of 5 October 2001 had violated the principle of legal certainty and unlawfully prolonged the judicial proceedings. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of . The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "c2acc6cb-7f52-4007-aff8-a78bc79a0dcf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicant company submitted that it had been deprived of its building unlawfully, alleging that such deprivation had been based on the resolution of the Plenary Court of 15 February 2001 which had contravened the principle of rule of law. It further submitted that there had been no public interest which could have justified the deprivation of its ."], "id": "aac4cabe-e613-41c8-9fb8-4f15c17dbda8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments of 7 June 2001 and of 27 September 2002 violated her \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and her right to the peaceful enjoyment of as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "45632813-37ed-4c82-acbe-0caf944ce0fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government also argued that any interference with the applicant company\u2019s rights could only be regarded as a \u201ccontrol of use\u201d of , that had been applied in the general interest. In the present case, the general interest was clear, namely the protection of the environment in accordance with the requirements of EU law. As the Court had repeatedly recognised in its case-law, this was a weighty consideration, which was of growing importance for contemporary society. In support of their argument the Government referred to a series of cases decided by this Court, notably: Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, ECHR 2010; Malfatto and Mieille v. France, nos. 40886/06 and 51946/07, 6 October 2016; Matczy\u0144ski v. Poland, no. 32794/07, 15 December 2015; Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland, no. 33538/96, 28 July 2005; and Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, ECHR 2002\u2011VII. The pursuit of this aim was not confined to the applicant company\u2019s particular circumstances, but extended to all aquaculture operators based in designated locations around the coastline."], "id": "f58f07dc-9351-4ced-aad7-4aef6fa0e1c6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["36. The applicant alleged that his forced eviction from Nurettin village and destruction of his house and by the State security forces as well as his inability to return to his village had given rise to breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads in so far as relevant as follows:"], "id": "f803b095-e396-4608-a342-23e4331571ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["141. The applicants argued instead that the interference with their had not been lawful on other grounds. They noted that at the time of the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision repealing the \u201cthird model\u201d (November 1999 \u2013 see paragraph 37 above), Slovenia had already ratified the Revised European Social Charter, making it fully part of its domestic legal order. In its decision of 8 September 2009 (see paragraphs 97-100 above), the European Social Committee had found that the \u201ccombination of insufficient measures for the acquisition of or access to a substitute flat, the evolution of the rules on occupancy and the increase in rents\u201d were contrary to Article 31 \u00a7 1 of the Charter and that the discrimination between former holders of occupancy rights in the right to purchase was incompatible with Article E. It followed that the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision had violated a binding ratified international instrument."], "id": "3e75de8a-4d7c-43b1-bdec-d7e16a1412bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant submitted that he had had a proprietary interest in the plots of land at issue at least from 1974 onwards, which was before the date on which Turkey had accepted the jurisdiction of the Commission and the Court. As a consequence, there had been an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his after that date. He relied on the principles laid down in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey ((merits) 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), where the Court had denied legal validity to Article 159 of the \u201cTRNC\u201d Constitution and to all subsequent legislation enacted by the \u201cTRNC\u201d authorities."], "id": "f51f72f5-c123-4089-81bc-a7721b70e0c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that the applicants' complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They referred to the Convention institutions' case-law according to which the Convention did not guarantee the right to have property returned, since Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 protected only a person's existing and did not guarantee the right to acquire possessions."], "id": "fcda1454-95d4-4cdf-8e75-0c66ed5b0bb9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["11. The applicant complained that the quashing of the final judgment of 25 December 2002, as upheld on appeal on 17 February 2003, made in her favour had violated her \u201cright to a court\u201d and her right to peaceful enjoyment of . The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of these provisions read as follows:"], "id": "b60159b2-dce4-4866-b558-81ed12dc3589", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government argued that, since the enforcement of the disputed assignment was dependent on an administrative decision not issued, the courts' dismissals of the applicant's action could not amount to an interference with its . However, having regard to the considerations outlined in paragraph 28 above and paragraph 33 below, the Court is of the view that the courts' decisions may be regarded as having frustrated the applicant's legitimate expectation to benefit from an assignment acquired for consideration (Fedorenko v. Ukraine, no. 25921/02, \u00a7 25, 1 June 2006). Regardless of whether this is an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant's possessions, within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1, or a deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of that provision, the same principles apply in the present case, and require the measure to be justified in accordance with requirements of that Article, as interpreted by the established case-law of the Court (amongst many authorities, Gasus Dosier- und F\u00f6rdertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, Series A no. 306-B, \u00a7 55)."], "id": "53cf05c4-490e-42db-89aa-092836ee1360", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government acknowledged that the seizure and confiscation of the lorry constituted an interference with the applicant company\u2019s . During the period of seizure the applicant company had not been able to use it and, therefore, its property had been controlled. When the court\u2019s confiscation decision became final, the applicant company had lost its title to the lorry. However, it had regained this right by purchasing the lorry at auction."], "id": "dc99c573-8239-4464-b5c3-a78121e9a02b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["14. The applicants complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of their respective awards provided for in the judgments of 7 August 2000 and of 22 January 2001 violated their \u201cright to a court\u201d under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of as guaranteed in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. These Articles in so far as relevant provide as follows:"], "id": "fea56be2-1f2d-42e0-84d1-bec87b57ea41", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "possessions", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 allegation that the moratorium was in place for an indefinite period was not true. Each extension of the moratorium had contained a clear endpoint, and each new extension had been adopted before the previous end date and at no point could the applicants entertain any expectation that they would be able to sell before the end date. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could not be interpreted as protecting the applicants against the changes in the legal regime of their . The Government cited Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands (26 June 1986, \u00a7 43, Series A no. 101) in support of their argument. The extensions had been passed following a wide discussion of the matter and the applicants could not claim to be unaware of the possibility of those extensions."], "id": "6bf71dd2-6777-4dc0-9ee4-25b08434e859", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["71. The applicant further contended that the judgment of 20 November 1998 declaring his complaints against the bailiffs well-founded (see paragraph 55 above) was a mere declaration of the State bailiffs\u2019 inactivity. It was not enforceable. He also submitted that it was unnecessary to complain to the domestic courts about the bailiffs as it was in any event an obligation and a particular task of the State bailiffs to enforce final judgments without undue delay. This obligation was and they should therefore have used all available and possible legal means to comply with their duty of enforcing judgments."], "id": "0d5a2138-e6e8-498e-a7da-9ac790cc58bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant submitted that it had been deprived of its possessions unlawfully. The domestic courts had relied on the resolutions of 10 April 1992 and 4 February 1994 (see paragraphs 17 and 18), even though under Article 321 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 36 above) a person could be deprived of property only under conditions , namely by the laws of Ukraine. It also stated that in the Supreme Court decision of 4 February 2015 it had been established that the issue regarding holders of title to property of Union-wide civic organisations of the former Soviet Union had not been regulated by domestic law. In the applicant\u2019s opinion, the Supreme Court had thereby recognised the absence of legitimate grounds for depriving it of its property. The applicant also stated that the fact that it had been deprived of its property more than twenty years after the adoption of the above-mentioned legal acts constituted a breach of the principle of legal certainty. In any event, those acts concerned property of Union-wide civic organisations of the former Soviet Union before their successors had been determined, and not that of the Federation, which in October 1990 had stopped functioning under the charter of trade unions of the Soviet Union and had declared itself the successor of trade unions of the Ukrainian SSR. Moreover, the above-mentioned legal acts gave the State temporary rights regarding the property of Union-wide civic organisations of the former Soviet Union until their successors had been determined, and did not provide for transferring title to relevant property to the State. Even assuming that the interference with its rights was based on formal grounds in the domestic law, that law did not correspond to the \u201cquality of law\u201d requirements, as in cases nos. 137/7, 48/202-20/191 and 51/227 the domestic courts had concluded that the transfer of property from the Federation to UPO had been lawful. However, that had not precluded the HCCU from reaching the opposite conclusion in the applicant\u2019s case. Furthermore, the applicant considered that there had been no public interest in depriving it of its property: since the Federation was a legal successor of the trade unions of the Ukrainian SSR, the transfer of management of the disputed property to the State, let alone its ownership, under the resolutions of 10 April 1992 and 4 February 1994, had not pursued any legitimate aim. The applicant stated that even assuming that the above-mentioned legal acts had been applicable, their application twenty years later had constituted a disproportionate burden on it. Lastly, it had not received any compensation."], "id": "44366904-899e-4c53-84ac-6bb1585cfad4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government of Cyprus observed that the interference by the Turkish police with the peaceful assembly which was taking place in the buffer zone had not been , was unnecessary and grossly disproportionate in relation to any conduct by the applicant or any claimed public-order issue which could have arisen. The laws of the Republic of Cyprus, applicable to the area where the demonstration took place, did not permit such an interference. The respondent Government could not alter the legal system in the occupied territory and had not invoked any Turkish law that could have provided a legal basis for its agents' behaviour."], "id": "7383c564-1446-44c2-a6e6-3a98e139c708", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["107. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "fb1c81b3-1b35-49f6-a41c-752ee5080fbd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government contended that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as he had not challenged the Bailiffs' actions. They also maintained that the applicant, while re-submitting the enforcement writ, had failed to comply with the procedural formalities . They asserted in this regard that he was no longer interested in the enforcement of the judgment in question."], "id": "4edd2520-2f3e-46e7-b6b8-e15d0da638b4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["116. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "4ad14cc5-0ac7-41b3-af4f-ae3d13db955a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a procedure and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "78fd2790-cbab-487d-9a17-cc82c92a93e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government submitted that there had been no interference with the applicant\u2019s possessions since the proceedings instituted by the applicant concerned exclusively the issue of cancelling the children\u2019s registration at her flat. In this respect, the Government reiterated that, under Armenian law, the registration of a person at a flat by a passport section of the police did not serve as a legal basis for establishing any property rights in respect of that flat. In particular, registration at the police was nothing but a system of data on permanent, temporary or factual place of residence kept to promote an effective realisation of citizens\u2019 rights and freedoms such as, for example, to vote in an election or to be served a court summons. As to the right of use of accommodation, such right originated only from the moment of its state registration in a manner . Besides, the applicant\u2019s allegation that she was unable to rent out her flat was groundless since there was no evidence in the case indicating that she was ever deprived de jure or de facto of the possibility to do so."], "id": "eb151412-44bc-4044-862d-00b93e9dd87c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["113. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "de9bf166-6abb-45cc-ac28-d5bd4016142e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government admitted that in the instant case there had been interference with the applicants\u2019 right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It clearly followed from the domestic courts\u2019 case-law that a decision whereby a property was added to the list of historic monuments constituted such interference. However, the interference had been , namely section 14 of the Protection of the Cultural Heritage Act and had pursued a legitimate aim (the protection of historic monuments). The grounds for the listing decision were explained therein and had therefore been known to the applicants."], "id": "dce39058-5f67-4331-ab79-fdb0fed91234", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government stated that, since bankruptcy proceedings were and pursued a legitimate aim, namely ensuring that creditors recovered at least part of their debts, the resulting deprivation of property did not infringe Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As to the length of the proceedings, the Government said that it was primarily attributable to the unsuccessful attempts that had been made to sell the applicant's house at auction. Following attempts on unspecified dates in 1985, 1991 and 1995, the sale had finally been fixed for 19 April 1996, then adjourned to 21 April 1996. The applicant was also responsible for the length of the proceedings, as he had resorted to every means possible to block the liquidation process. He had made an application for a composition with the creditors, which had been declared inadmissible on 1 April 1996, requested the bankruptcy judge on 5 April 1996 to refer an issue to the Constitutional Court thereby causing the proceedings to be stayed, made an application on 17 April 1996 for a stay of execution of the order for sale (which was dismissed the following day) and followed that up with a like application on an unspecified date to the Court of Cassation."], "id": "de19472a-1d59-4aa0-9e5d-d28b48639cf4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government submitted that the judgments of the domestic courts given in the applicants\u2019 case were based on well-established and extensive case-law. The courts had conducted an extensive examination of the evidence in the case and had explained in detail their decisions to uphold the assessment of the Social Insurance Authority. It was not the task of the Court to take the place of the domestic courts, as it was in the first place for them to interpret domestic law (Tejedor Garc\u00eda v. Spain, 16 December 1997, \u00a7 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII). Accordingly, the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions complained of in the present case was ."], "id": "4884bdb2-5de9-4fea-8240-f2f9c7bb9d7c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government submitted that in the cases at hand the applications for supervisory review were lodged by a party to the proceedings and within the time-limit and the proceedings had fully complied with the requirements set out in the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. The quashing had been justified because the judgments had been based on a misapplication of law and hence had contained a fundamental defect. Review of binding judgments had been legitimate in a democratic society and known to such countries as Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Besides, the Council of Europe had been satisfied with reforms of the supervisory-review procedure in Russia. As regards the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Presidium had found that the applicants\u2019 claims had been unfounded and therefore they had not had a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The fact that they had not appealed against the judgment of 25 December 2003 showed that they considered the initial multiplier incorrect."], "id": "0f3ee397-7580-42ca-a88c-8fc89aee26cd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied his liberty in circumstances which did not follow a procedure and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "2aff687f-c952-49db-9ea5-ea1382238616", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant strongly denied having committed any offence or entered into conspiracy with any State officials, in particular with A.B., or having conducted any illegal dealings with V., or having evaded tax. She had bought the flat for her own use and lived there with her son, having complied with all the requirements for her to become its lawful owner. The mere fact that the flat was being re-sold within a short period of time did not strike her as unusual, because many people buy real estate for investment and resell it as soon as it becomes commercially sound to do so. V. had been questioned in the criminal proceedings and this had not led the investigating authorities to suspect him of involvement in fraud. The applicant had no reason to doubt that he had bought and re-sold the flat in good faith. She has never been suspected of any illegal dealings and the Government\u2019s allegations of unlawful conduct on her part were unfounded."], "id": "0d4a13fc-371c-4543-a3ae-a1f4217723f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that the applicant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies. In particular, they claimed that, despite the fact that the applicant alleged a violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions because the children of her late niece enjoyed a right of use of accommodation in respect of her flat, the proceedings instituted by her before the domestic courts concerned exclusively the issue of cancelling their registration. However, a right of use of accommodation originated from the moment of state registration of that right, in accordance with the procedure , and not from the moment of obtaining registration at a flat. In addition, the only body competent to terminate that right was a court. This was in fact mentioned by the Court of Cassation in its decision of 23 July 2004, in which it informed the applicant about a possibility to restore her property right by instituting separate court proceedings. Hence, the applicant did not avail herself of the only effective remedy under the domestic law to terminate the children\u2019s alleged right of use of accommodation in respect of her flat. Moreover, it was still open for the applicant to apply to a court and to restore her rights through the court proceedings as suggested by the Court of Cassation."], "id": "7e47303c-f2e2-45b4-b8fd-65e157a9e22d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicant company submitted that the refusal to allocate it any broadcasting frequencies amounted to interference with the exercise of its rights under Article 10 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan, cited above, and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov, cited above). The interference had not been , as required by the Convention, on account of the unforeseeability of the transitional legislation passed by the national parliament. The applicant company further pointed out that the Italian courts had applied the legislation in question and had found that compensation should be calculated with effect from 1 December 2004, contrary to what the ECJ had held in its judgment."], "id": "2b9519e4-6375-499d-b81d-ee050b31a1b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["117. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant's right to demonstrate under Article 11 of the Convention had been interfered with in an aggravated and serious manner. The acts of the respondent Government were a deliberate and provocative attempt to disrupt a lawful demonstration in an area which was subject to UN patrols and not even within the claimed jurisdiction of the \u201cTRNC\u201d. The interference with the applicant's rights was not and was an excessive and disproportionate response to a peaceful and lawful demonstration. The respondent Government had not identified any legitimate aim that they were seeking to serve by assaulting the applicant."], "id": "cf96ad99-ffa5-4e9d-a0cf-884cf8258ff4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant argued that the measure in question had not been and that it had not pursued any legitimate aim. Furthermore, it had not been proportionate because he had purchased the flat in question pursuant to the relevant laws and the contract of sale had been approved by the competent State Attorney\u2019s Office. He could not move into the flat because an illegal occupier had already moved in beforehand. The findings of the national courts in his case had been contrary to the established practice of the Supreme Court."], "id": "e4780ece-1529-47e4-9083-a58da6ec135c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a procedure and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "cdd3b06d-68a5-451a-86c5-9cc378a0b051", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants submitted that by virtue of the law, couple S. obtained the right to continue occupying the premises by title of lease. Thus, the law imposed a unilateral relationship allowing the tenants to indefinitely reside in the applicants\u2019 property. In their view, the law was neither precise nor foreseeable and no procedural safeguards were in place to ensure the balance of interests between those of the tenants and the applicants as owners. Their attempt to evict the tenants had been unsuccessful and no other remedy existed for them to recover possession of their premises. Similarly the rent having been imposed by law, the Rent Regulation Board could not alter such rent or increase it beyond the limits ."], "id": "86766e2a-a463-416a-b818-c2ed3afaa2b0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "prescribed by law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government of Cyprus observed that during the applicant's initial arrest, subsequent detention and prison sentence following the court conviction, the applicant was denied her liberty in circumstances which did not follow a procedure and which were not lawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention. Moreover, the authorities' failure to inform the applicant of all the reasons for her arrest constituted a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 2."], "id": "f67478e6-c100-40db-9869-094e0b8b31f1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government also submitted that the with the applicant\u2019s property rights had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of others, notably people in need of housing. The Government further noted that the repossession of the flat by the municipality had not placed an excessive burden on the applicant. She had not been evicted and continued to reside in the flat. In addition, the applicant had owned other real estate which she had sold once the prosecutor had brought an action against her in respect of the flat. Lastly, the Government submitted that the applicant had been put on the waiting list of people in need of social housing. She had also been successful in the action against the person who had sold the flat to her."], "id": "a03953a8-1625-4305-9f28-598a150914ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["39. The applicants submitted that they had a statutory entitlement to receive compensation for the property destroyed during the counterterrorist operation. For administrative reasons, their duly lodged claims had not been processed for years. The administrative authorities and courts acknowledged that they were entitled to a decision on compensation, but refused to apply any other mechanism of compensation even though the processing of their claims had been blocked. Referring to the Court\u2019s case\u2011law (Malysh and Others v. Russia, no. 30280/03, \u00a7 85, 11 February 2010, and Yuriy Lobanov v. Russia, no. 15578/03, \u00a7 54, 2 December 2010), the applicants alleged that there had been a disproportionate with their right to property."], "id": "6233f247-062f-423b-a299-cd6da7cea6d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["136. The applicants in the present case disputed the aim of the with their property rights by arguing that there were no forests on the land which had been given to them, or that those forests were not of national importance (see paragraph 121 above). In this connection, the Court reiterates that it is not its task to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as such errors may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Garc\u00eda Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, \u00a7 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Jantner v. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, \u00a7 32, 4 March 2003). In other words, the Court cannot question the assessment of the domestic authorities unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness (see, among many other authorities, Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, \u00a7 89, ECHR 2007\u2011I). It therefore considers that in the present case it was primarily the role of the domestic courts to establish whether the applicants\u2019 land included forests and whether those forests were of national importance, in accordance with domestic law. The Court cannot overlook the fact that in some of the applicants\u2019 cases different public registers provided inconsistent information about whether their land was forested (see paragraphs 15, 23 and 67 above), or that the various authorities in charge of the protection of forests had not objected to the restoration of that land to the applicants (see paragraphs 16, 43 and 65 above). However, the domestic courts held that the presence of forests on the applicants\u2019 land had been sufficiently established by the information provided by the State Forest Management Service (see paragraphs 23, 26 and 67 above). The courts also found that those forests were urban forests because the areas in which they were situated had become part of the Vilnius city municipality in 1996, and that they had been officially designated as forests of national importance in 2000 (see paragraphs 19, 26, 46 and 67 above). Having examined the domestic courts\u2019 reasoning, the Court cannot regard their findings as arbitrary and sees no reason to substitute them with its own assessment."], "id": "294adddb-142b-43cd-a6df-557fc40268a9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government contested the assertion that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s property rights within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on the basis that the law at issue had already been in force when the applicant had inherited the property. The Court notes that the application of legislation affecting landlords\u2019 rights over many years constitutes a continued interference for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Hutten\u2011Czapska [GC], no. 35014/97, \u00a7 210, ECHR 2006\u2011). Thus, in circumstances such as those of the present case, both the applicant\u2019s mother and subsequently the applicant suffered interference with their property rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Amato Gauci, cited above, \u00a7 51). For the purposes of this case, however, the complaint is confined to the application of the 1979 amendments to the applicant\u2019s rights over his property, from 3 November 2008 onwards."], "id": "f756ecd1-bf99-4db7-9628-c634013d1d60", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicants complained under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about an with their property rights, notably about not having been issued with a building permit for a shopping centre in the first set of proceedings. They also complained about: (a) the length of the administrative proceedings related to the completion of the urban plot of land (see paragraphs 17-23 above) and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard, and (b) the length of the enforcement proceedings pursuant to the Commercial Court\u2019s judgment of 7 April 2006 (see paragraph 31-39 above), and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard."], "id": "909b6b76-81d6-4095-8b24-813649b5f488", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government submitted that the case did not disclose any with the applicant\u2019s property rights. They explained that the applicant had complained against the second-instance judgment, which had reversed that of the first-instance court passed in his favour. However, since he could not have acquired any right under the first-instance judgment that had not become final, the judgment of the second-instance court could not have interfered with his property rights."], "id": "aabcff6a-bd6c-4737-96a0-557941dd3b4c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["68. The Government claimed that the with the applicant\u2019s property rights had been lawful and justified. In particular, divesting the applicant of his right to the early-retirement pension had been provided for by law and was in the public interest. There was also a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference and the interests pursued. In the Polish social security system only retirement pensions granted under the general scheme were, in principle, permanent and irrevocable. All other benefits, based on conditions subject to change were subject to verification and possible revocation."], "id": "d8602feb-9dc0-459c-8da6-141072edeced", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government conceded that the applicant should be awarded the damage which he had incurred for loss of rent for the excessive length of the proceedings but contested the period calculated by the applicant. As regards the costs incurred in the domestic proceedings, the Government argued that the costs of the proceedings on the merits were not related to the alleged violations and that the costs incurred during the enforcement stage were due only for the period that was regarded as being a disproportionate with the applicant\u2019s right of property. "], "id": "92136b96-502b-4e10-b939-eebd9d98a151", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government disputed that there had been any with the negative aspect of the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of association, as provided for in Article 11 of the Convention. It submitted that the applicant company was merely under the obligation to pay contributions to the Social Welfare Fund which were used to pay benefits to employers and employees in the building industry. The applicant company did not become, nor was it obliged to become, a member of the Social Welfare Fund on account of the declaration of general applicability of the VTV, nor of the employers\u2019 associations which concluded the VTV. It was not threatened with sanctions or other disadvantages if it did not join. There was, therefore, no compulsion that the applicant company join an association."], "id": "3ba3ca91-4315-4038-bc05-c412903f1247", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant company further argued that the in question had not been proportionate, as it had failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and its own right to protection of its property rights. In particular, although it agreed with the Government that States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in implementing fiscal legislation, their discretion in that respect could not be considered to be limitless. In that connection it argued that it had had to bear an individual and excessive burden which upset the fair balance that had to be maintained between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the right of property. In particular, although the applicant company had complied with its VAT reporting obligations fully and in time, because of its supplier\u2019s failure to discharge its VAT reporting obligations in the same manner (a) it had still been denied the right to deduct the input VAT of BGN 3,610 (EUR 1,851); (b) it had then been ordered to pay the VAT of BGN 3,610 (EUR 1,851) a second time, but this time to the State budget; (c) it had additionally been ordered to pay interest of BGN 200.24 (EUR 102) on that amount; (d) the VAT it had paid to its supplier had not been recognised as a tax-deductible expense and corporate income tax had then been charged on it; (e) it had incurred additional court fees and expenses in challenging the tax assessment; (f) it had thus been unduly and severely sanctioned for an infringement by the supplier, which had in fact discharged its VAT reporting obligations, but with a slight delay; and (g) general uncertainty had arisen in the fiscal affairs of the applicant company because all its VAT supplies could similarly be compromised by the failure of a supplier to discharge its VAT reporting obligations. Moreover, the applicant company would have no knowledge of this until such time as the tax authorities refused to recognise the right to deduct the input VAT relating to a particular transaction."], "id": "e7eab64d-7f7d-40e2-8df0-377e72870bf8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government submitted that the making of the contested confiscation order did not amount to a disproportionate with the applicant\u2019s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. In particular, they submitted that the order was in accordance with the law; it represented a control of the use of property in accordance with a recognised public interest; and it was proportionate to the aim pursued."], "id": "6b8c3a79-77fa-40a3-adfc-83d2dd53d7d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant argued that the with his property rights could not be justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The policies of the \u201cTRNC\u201d could not furnish a legitimate aim since the establishment of the \u201cTRNC\u201d was an illegitimate act. In any event, the need to re-house displaced Turkish Cypriots could not justify the complete negation of the applicant\u2019s property rights. This conclusion was reinforced by the fact that much of the property taken from Greek Cypriots had been used to house settlers from mainland Turkey. The fact that property rights had been one of the subjects under discussion in the inter-communal talks could not justify the taking of property without compensation."], "id": "87a0ada0-26b8-4627-93e6-09086a3bc6ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government reiterated the criteria set out by the Court for a measure to be qualified as State with the use of property, and stressed the State\u2019s considerable margin of appreciation. Concerning the legality of the UAR\u2019s decision of 27 June 1996, they submitted that the task of interpreting and applying domestic law lay primarily with the national courts, although the Court could intervene in cases of manifest abuse, a description which did not apply to the applicant\u2019s case. As to the legitimate aim of the measure, the Government asserted that the UAR\u2019s decision had been designed to promote the general interest, having been intended to ensure that all the decisions concerning admission to and exclusion from the legal profession were made by the same competent body under the relevant legislation."], "id": "94b9da62-38b9-4ffb-9b70-87464f29d2e6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government considered that the complained of was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate in the circumstances of the case. They submitted that the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions was not absolute and that certain restrictions were permissible. The restrictions in the present case were based on the general interest, namely protection of the natural environment. The Government further submitted that the property in question had been classified as \u201cfarmland\u201d when the applicant bought it and that it had never been designated for construction purposes, even before the creation of the Wigry National Park and the adoption of the local development plan of 1994. Consequently, the Government invited the Court to find the present application manifestly ill\u2011founded."], "id": "8ee2f095-5837-4d87-b11d-31939b4a77c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government noted that the judgment in the applicant's favour had been quashed after it had become final and enforceable. Accordingly, there was an with the applicant's right to receive the funds awarded to him by that judgment. However, they maintained that the interference did not have any consequences for the applicant's right to receive those funds as it merely changed the procedure for recovering the indexed deposit. They further maintained that there are other people with deposits at the State Savings Bank who are also not entitled to retrieve their money. Therefore the interference with the applicant's rights was in accordance with the general interest and complied with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "9be3fe7a-8850-4f23-bbf3-4dd674dc81c8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government accepted that there had been an with the applicant\u2019s property rights but they considered that such interference had been in accordance with the law and that it had pursued a legitimate aim of securing the payment of public contributions and penalties, namely the enforcement of a possible confiscation order against the applicant. The Government also argued that the seizure of the applicant\u2019s real property had not disproportionately affected his rights and had not imposed an excessive individual burden on him."], "id": "ab51a39c-300c-46bf-962b-c0636fed5600", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["124. The applicant bank submitted that its licence was essential to the continuation of its activity and its withdrawal could accordingly be analysed as an with its possessions. Under Bulgarian law, revocation of the licence automatically triggered winding-up proceedings and the eventual disappearance of the bank as a legal person, without there being any possibility of a reversal of the course of events. Admittedly, the BNB had to be vested with supervisory and enforcement powers, but the inability to seek judicial review of its decision to revoke the licence at any time was disproportionate and did not serve any legitimate public interest. The aim of avoiding harm to the banking system could be achieved through depriving any appeal of suspensive effect and appointing special administrators with immediate effect. Such an arrangement would have the advantage of making it easier to correct mistakes by the BNB. It would also facilitate the relatively seamless resumption of the affected bank\u2019s activity."], "id": "b0737136-1ed9-4b6e-a281-a81dff326d9e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicant alleged that the compensation awarded to her was unfair and inadequate, as it was many times lower than the market value of the land when she lost her title to it. Therefore, she could not afford to acquire a new comparable plot of land, especially taking into account her advanced age and the fact that she had had a disability since 1994. The applicant also did not agree with the Government\u2019s allegation that such was necessary to protect the public interest."], "id": "eb09c6b7-72d1-443d-9dc4-9676fde2a395", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The applicants maintained their complaints. Mr Sergunin considered that he had bought the plot of land in good faith and, as a matter of law, Kazan City Council should have been prevented from recovering the said property from him. He further considered that the had not pursued a legitimate aim and that the Government had failed to specify any such aim in their submissions. The lawfulness of the transactions with the plot of land had been subject to State control. Each time the property had changed hands the registration authorities had had an opportunity to verify the legitimacy of the transaction. The first transaction had taken place in 2009 and it had taken the authorities almost four years to detect the fraud committed by G. The Government had failed to furnish any explanation as to why the fraud had been discovered with such a delay. The mistakes and errors committed by the authorities had been corrected at the applicant\u2019s expense placing an excessive burden on him."], "id": "e5fb07ae-5420-41d5-bc8b-b9393cf52a6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["130. The Government further submitted that under the law the courts which had annulled the applicants\u2019 property rights could not award them compensation at the same time, but the applicants had retained the right to have their property rights restored in one of the forms provided for by law (see paragraphs 92 and 93 above). They submitted that there was enough vacant land in the Vilnius Region and the adjacent areas which could be given to the applicants. At the same time, the Government stated that the Convention did not guarantee the right to restitution of property in natura (see Jasi\u016bnien\u0117 v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, \u00a7\u00a7 40-41, 6 March 2003). They also argued that cooperation of applicants with the public authorities in the restitution process was of key importance when determining the proportionality of the with their property rights. They submitted that the domestic authorities had been active in contacting the applicants and informing them about the process, but they were not entitled to take over the initiative from the applicants. The restitution could not be finalised until the applicants expressed their intentions as to their preferred form of restitution. While the Government acknowledged that the first and second applicants had cooperated with the authorities, they argued that the third and fourth applicants had failed to do so."], "id": "1d796c84-7dfa-487c-b592-6e4bd24bb303", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["83. The Government further argued that, if the Court found that the applicant had had possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the with his possessions had been lawful, pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate. Regarding the lawfulness of the interference, the Government pointed out that Croatia had agreed to pay YPA military pensions under certain conditions, which were even more flexible than the conditions later set out in the Succession Agreement. Referring to the case-law in Carson and Others (cited above) the Government argued that the payment of pensions abroad had been possible only under a treaty or a reciprocal agreement, which were legitimate requirements of the domestic law within the State\u2019s margin of appreciation. There had been no international treaty or reciprocal agreement with Serbia on payment of YPA military pensions abroad, and the applicant\u2019s misinterpretation of the relevant law, notably the Social Insurance Agreement, had had no bearing in this respect. Since at the time Serbia was not paying pensions to YPA military pensioners living in Croatia, the Government saw no reason why Croatia should be paying such pensions in Serbia. In the Government\u2019s view, the domestic authorities had sufficiently reasoned their decisions when dismissing the applicant\u2019s request, and it appeared from his submissions to the Court that he had himself understood the whole situation. The Government also pointed out that the applicant had dual citizenship, Croatian and Serbian, and that it had been open to him to apply to the Serbian authorities for a pension. He had, however, failed to do so, and had then later returned to Croatia, following which the payment of his pension was resumed since the previously existing impediments had been removed. The Government also submitted that Annexe E of the Agreement on Succession Issues was not applicable to the applicant\u2019s situation at the time, since it had come into force only later. In any event, under that Agreement the obligation to pay the applicant\u2019s pension had been on Serbia. The Government also considered that ILO Convention 48 was not applicable to the applicant\u2019s case, since it concerned contributory pension systems, and the applicant had not been a member of such a scheme in Croatia."], "id": "6f07f9d6-cb5a-4ffe-89e3-dc3b19fa02f3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government admitted that the national courts\u2019 decision to order the applicant\u2019s eviction had constituted an inference with his right to respect for his \u201chome\u201d under Article 8 of the Convention. They considered that such had been lawful, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of persons eligible for social housing and that it had been proportionate to that aim. In particular, the applicant had only lived in the flat for about eleven months before his eviction, which in their opinion was insufficient to develop a long-lasting connection to it. He had moreover not asked that eviction be suspended."], "id": "0900da3b-281d-4f8f-83f4-fde33ce976eb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, given that the forfeiture of their various assets and payment of the fine had not constituted a deprivation of property or some other type of with the peaceful enjoyment thereof, but rather a voluntary decision to reimburse the damage caused to the State by the first applicant\u2019s criminal activity and, as a lawful and entirely proportionate measure, had formed part of the relevant plea bargain."], "id": "7f97f1c1-7a0b-4465-b163-6358397b9b6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government accepted that there had been an with the applicant company's property rights but maintained that it was necessary for an efficient fight against organised crime and was proportionate to that aim. The Government referred particularly to the opportunity the applicant company had at any time to make requests to the authorities and courts for the seizure to be terminated, and maintained that the length of the seizure had been necessitated by the complexity and extensiveness of the investigation."], "id": "9b103e23-7b59-4131-997f-60d3b2cac0ce", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["46. The Government argued that the execution of the judicial orders had pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring compliance with the applicant's contractual obligations. Thus it had been in the public interest. The execution had been carried out in accordance with the law then in force. In the circumstances of the case, the had not been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."], "id": "1709231b-7d61-4d00-a9fb-f17f5b9a61de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government stressed that the applicants had failed to adduce evidence of any pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged violation. As regards the costs incurred in the domestic proceedings, the Government argued that the costs of the proceedings on the merits were not related to the alleged violations and that the costs incurred during the enforcement stage were due only for the period that was regarded as being a disproportionate with the applicants' right of property. "], "id": "362884f8-5d07-43e4-a782-fe668e27da6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant had not left the northern part of Cyprus of her own will, but had been forced to flee. Between 1974 and her death, there had been continuous with her enjoyment of her right to property. Moreover, there had been a significant change in the treatment of Greek-Cypriot property in the northern part of the island with the enactment by the \u201cTRNC\u201d of Law No. 52 of 1995, which gave effect to Article 159 of the \u201cTRNC\u201d Constitution, a provision allowing expropriation."], "id": "a88d3f81-9eb3-4ba2-abd4-3188ccefbcf3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government submitted that the had been in accordance with the substantive legal provisions applicable at the time of the interference, which had taken place on 15 May 2004, the date on which the BCEA order had been issued. On that date, the applicant did not have any right to the plot of land underneath the house. The house itself was not in the applicant\u2019s private ownership at that time either. Therefore, the provisions of the 1982 Housing Code concerning dwellings belonging to the State and public housing funds, which were in force at the material time, were applicable in the present case. The Government argued that, on the other hand, \u201call the legal provisions referred to by the applicant [had come] into force after that date [15 May 2004] and therefore [could not] be applied in the present case\u201d."], "id": "b663c4d7-e1ad-4d16-8c41-bd39b35ce5d4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["289. The Government pointed out, first of all, that the relevant applicants had not adduced any documents proving their title to the houses, or any detailed description of the property allegedly lost by them. The Government argued that it was incumbent on the relevant applicants to have their property rights confirmed under domestic law by the competent national authorities. They further argued that the alleged with the relevant applicants\u2019 rights secured by Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been lawful, as the counter-terrorism operation in the Chechen Republic, in the context of which the strikes of 19 October 1999 had been executed, had been launched and carried out on the basis of Presidential Decrees nos. 2137, 2166 and 2155c of 30 November and 9 December 1994 and 23 September 1999 respectively, Governmental Decree no. 1360 of 9 December 1994, and the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998. In the Government\u2019s submission, the aforementioned decrees, except for certain provisions, had been found compatible with the Russian Constitution by the Russian Constitutional Court. The Government insisted that all the aforementioned legal instruments had met the requirements of foreseeability and accessibility."], "id": "9f1f358c-13ba-4a05-b47b-9fa6c8d0591a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government submitted that the had been lawful and justified: it was in the public interest to protect the rights of other citizens to the disputed land, which had previously been assigned to the applicant by mistake. They also observed that the applicant had made no major investments in or improvements to the plot before it was taken away by the State. As a result, the interference was proportionate."], "id": "becc8fa6-e662-4f36-ab6d-0558abefc413", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government first submitted that the case did not disclose any with the applicant's property rights. They argued that when a judgment could not be enforced because the enforcement had become time-barred, this did not constitute interference within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They explained that the right of a creditor to enforce his or her claim lapses upon the expiration of the statutory limitation period, which periods were determined by clear legal regulations, and their expiration did not depend on any actions or acts by the state authorities. Moreover, if the debtor fulfilled his or her obligation after the expiration of the limitation period, he or she could not claim back what had been given. Furthermore, the debtor must plead that the limitation period had expired, because the court could not take it into account of its own motion, but only if the debtor raised it. Therefore, the Government argued that the applicant's claim still existed, but, due to the expiration of the statutory limitation period in which he had failed to undertake necessary legal steps for its enforcement, he could no longer enforce his claim through the courts. For this reason, the Government argued that his claim had not been extinguished or limited and therefore there had been no deprivation or control of possessions by the state authorities."], "id": "f236171f-4ec5-4cde-834a-8f4d42a1f61e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government argued that the applicant had no legitimate expectations to possess the licence given that he had failed to satisfy the applicable criteria. The licence included an authorisation to carry out a public service and could not amount to a possession. It had been revoked on the basis of valid law and this could thus not amount to an with property. The Government further submitted that the applicant\u2019s property had not in any way been affected by the contested measure. Although he could no longer work as a liquidator, he could exercise other professions."], "id": "5e70f156-1260-4653-92cd-448029bf8713", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["18. The applicant observed that he had produced prima facie evidence that in 1990 he had become the owner of a field with trees in the village of Ayios Epiktitos. Relying on the principles laid down by the Court in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey ((merits), 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), he alleged that the with his property rights had been unlawful, had not served a legitimate aim and had been in any event not a proportionate act maintaining a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the public interest."], "id": "b6e50063-d854-4d14-9415-2b578f2abb34", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government admitted that there had been an with the applicant company's property rights but maintained that it was necessary for the efficient fight against organised crime and was proportionate to that aim. The Government referred particularly to the possibility of the applicant company at any time to petition the authorities and courts, to terminate the seizure and maintained that the length of the seizure had been necessitated by the complexity and extensiveness of the investigation."], "id": "63da04c2-1964-4c29-ab83-28580e41e0fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["871. The Government claimed, referring to Ferrazzini, cited above, that the recovery of unpaid company taxes from the first applicant cannot be analysed in terms of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 since it was not an \u201cinterference\u201d with the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by this provision. The Court considers, however, that the Government\u2019s reading of Ferrazzini is misconceived. The question for the Court in the present case is not to define whether the \u201ctax proceedings\u201d are \u201ccivil proceedings\u201d for the purposes of Article 6 \u00a7 1, but to define whether Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is applicable to the court order recovering a certain amount of unpaid taxes from a taxpayer. Even if tax proceedings are not civil (cf. Yukos judgment, \u00a7\u00a7 527 and 528), a pecuniary award made against a taxpayer within such proceedings may still constitute an \u201cinterference\u201d with his possessions. As the Court held in Burden, cited above, \u201ctaxation is in principle an with the right guaranteed by the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, since it deprives the person concerned of a possession, namely the amount of money which must be paid\u201d (\u00a7 59). The fact that the State enjoys a large margin of appreciation in this sphere does not affect that conclusion."], "id": "fd25b338-d529-40ae-9a27-215176b4cf58", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government stated that the applicant\u2019s complaint concerned neither an \u201cexisting possession\u201d nor a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d. They further maintained that there was no unjustified with the applicant\u2019s property rights, since the national courts had not recognised the applicant\u2019s entitlement to a 20% increase in salary or annual bonuses, as the effect of the relevant legislative provision had been suspended. They further maintained that there was a conflict between two Acts - the Education Act and the State Budget Act - for the relevant year, but the provisions of the latter prevailed, being a lex specialis."], "id": "001501c7-b793-4eee-9163-5b31e33f912d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["80. The applicant company submitted that the stemmed from the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 23 January 2001, which had attached greater weight to the Bilateral Agreement of 1986 than to the chronologically earlier application for registration of the \u201cBudweiser\u201d mark. It was that judgment which had effectively deprived the applicant company of its right of property of the mark in circumstances which, in its submission, infringed the relevant international instruments and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for failure to comply with the priority rule. Had the Bilateral Agreement not been applied, the applicant company\u2019s application for registration would necessarily have been accepted, since it satisfied all the other applicable statutory conditions."], "id": "544b23f7-aabe-43df-a58d-aef1173eb46d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant claimed that the was not \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d because the search had been authorised by a deputy prosecutor rather than by a court, as the Constitution required. The Court observes that under the Russian Constitution, the right to respect for a person's home may be interfered with on the basis of a federal law or a judicial decision (see paragraph 26 above). The RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure \u2013 which had the status of federal law in the Russian legal system \u2013 vested the power to issue search warrants in investigators acting with the consent of a prosecutor (see paragraph 27 above). The Court is satisfied that that procedure was followed in the present case and that the interference was therefore \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d."], "id": "eba9acba-ca83-4b2f-b825-6ab6ce638b0f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicants\u2019 right of property thus became precarious and defeasible over a long period of time (see Sporrong and L\u00f6nnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, \u00a7 60, Series A no. 52). There was therefore an with the applicants\u2019 right of property. It remains to be ascertained whether the interference in question breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "4e66de85-57b7-4d0d-ad9a-53ae72a07380", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government further contended that cooperation of applicants with the public authorities in the restitution process was of key importance when determining the proportionality of the with their property rights. They submitted that the domestic authorities had been active in contacting the applicant and informing him about the restitution process, but were not entitled to take over the initiative from him. The restitution could not be finalised until the applicant expressed his intentions as to his preferred form of restitution. However, the applicant had failed to cooperate with the authorities and he had actively precluded the finalisation of the restitution process by refusing to choose any plots until his case was decided by the Court (see paragraphs 14-18 above)."], "id": "d8590f68-364a-4b47-8ebf-a85646e3a826", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government admitted that the applicant had been deprived of his property, but argued that such deprivation was in compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They submitted that the land had been assigned and sold to the applicant in breach of \u201cimperative legal norms\u201d protecting the interests of former owners, so the relevant administrative decisions and purchase agreement had been annulled in accordance with the Civil Code. They also maintained that the with the applicant\u2019s property rights was justified as being \u201cin the public interest\u201d, namely in defence of the rights of former owners who had lost their title to land during the Soviet regime."], "id": "50aecd78-b17e-4485-815d-ec40c2689dac", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government further maintained that the , provided that the Court found that there was one, was in the public interest and was justified on ethical, health and sanitary and hygiene grounds. In particular, determination of the time of death, special diligence in cases of communicable diseases and special hygiene requirements concerning the transport and keeping of remains did not allow for a free market regime in this field. In addition, it would be unethical and not in the interest of the consumer to allow competition in this area of services. Control of these services by local authorities was therefore essential."], "id": "2907953a-03de-4083-9e8b-60495e6bd4e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government maintain that the measures in question amount to a control of the use of property which pursues the legitimate aim of avoiding the social tensions and troubles to public order that would occur if a considerable number of orders for possession were to be enforced simultaneously. In their opinion, the with the applicant's property rights was not disproportionate; therefore, there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "ce283b76-2e33-464a-9d8c-c69d235d0978", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government admitted that those measures constituted an with the applicant's property rights. They maintained however that the interference was lawful. In particular, the Instruction had been validly adopted and was foreseeable in its application. In their opinion the Instruction could be viewed as \u201claw\u201d for the purpose of the Convention. Moreover, the application of progressive taxation to all types of the applicant's income was supported by the Presidential Decree and the Income Tax Decree."], "id": "e855c23e-9e7e-4550-badd-73e7809a874d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government firstly argued that the applicants had not had any \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as they could only submit the photocopies of their share certificates instead of the originals of them and the shares in Demirbank had no monetary value at the time when it had been taken over by the Fund. They further maintained that the by the public authorities in the operation of Demirbank had a legal basis in domestic law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely to maintain financial stability of the economic system and that regard must be had to all the circumstances of the cases as a whole. They therefore invited the Court to find no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "9d279db2-d985-40aa-8530-ae81392ae9dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government submitted that, in accordance with the general rules of international law, the provisions of the Convention and its Protocol did not bind a Contracting Party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the Convention and its Protocols with respect to that Party (see Kadi\u0137is v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, judgment of 29 June 2000). The Court\u2019s temporal jurisdiction was to be determined in relation to the facts constitutive of the alleged . The subsequent alleged failure of remedies aimed at redressing that interference could not bring it within the Court\u2019s temporal jurisdiction (see Ble\u0109i\u0109 v. Croatia, no. 59532/00, judgment of 8 March 2006, \u00a777). The Convention did not impose on the Contracting States any specific obligation to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopeck\u00fd v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, \u00a7 38, ECHR 2004\u2011IX). Any other approach would undermine both the principle of non-retroactivity in the law of treaties and the fundamental distinction between violation and reparation that underlies the law of State responsibility."], "id": "60250787-3440-4e6b-869d-46d4401f4de9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government claimed that the with the applicant\u2019s property rights had been lawful and justified. In particular, divesting the applicant of her right to the early-retirement pension had been provided for by law and was in the public interest. There was also a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference and the interests pursued. In the Polish social security system only retirement pensions granted under the general scheme, were, in principle, permanent and irrevocable. All other benefits based on conditions subject to change were subject to verification and possible revocation."], "id": "983494e9-2b5f-4b5b-8ef2-be2395d6f2d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicants alleged that it appeared from the contract signed by their father that the requisition, made in time of war, had been intended as a temporary measure and that the authorities would at some future stage hand back the keys. However, this had not happened. Moreover, the contract in issue had taken effect on 1 March 1941, when no requisition had yet existed. Interferences of short duration during war time would have been in the public interest; in the present case, however, there had been continued which was prolonged even after the legislation on requisitions had been repealed. Furthermore, in 1979 the government had acquired properties belonging to the Church and to the British military while it was stationed in Malta. After this date, the use of the applicants\u2019 property could not be considered legitimate and necessary."], "id": "03d4a1a6-4769-4db9-8347-9393969aa9bd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["140. The applicants argued that it was not in doubt that there had been an with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They were forcibly evicted from their homes and land by the security forces and restrictions were imposed by the authorities on their return to their village. As a result of continuous denial of access to the village they were effectively deprived of their revenue and forced to live in poor conditions in other regions of the country."], "id": "87cbd891-8acf-4abb-a067-a3e0d97c4421", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants reply that their claims were enforceable. In accordance with the constant case-law at the time, they had \u201ca legitimate expectation\u201d that the courts would have found in their favour if they had applied the provisions of the relevant ministerial decision as they were understood prior to the legislative . They further maintain that Law no. 2233/1994 did not observe a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the objective to be achieved and the burden that was imposed on them."], "id": "96e8b2a7-0cfb-4f5b-89f2-81e2d74993aa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government further argued that entitling M.V. to use the applicant's flat had been a measure to control the use of property. The resultant had been based on law, namely section 5 of the Takeover Act and, later on, the Termination Act and the 2002 Amendments. Moreover, the impugned measure had been in accordance with the general interest as it had pursued a legitimate aim. The aim of these statutes and the ensuing measure had been: (a) to protect from deterioration and devastation the property which had been abandoned by its owners, (b) to enable the persons whose homes had been destroyed in the war to solve temporarily their housing needs, (c) to secure repossession of property of persons who had left Croatia but were subsequently returning, and, at the same time, (d) to protect those refugees and displaced persons who had been placed in the abandoned houses and flats."], "id": "208e1db5-2242-47e5-b1e2-c66e746602f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government considered that the courts\u2019 refusal to declare null and void the sale to a third party had not represented an with the applicant\u2019s right. Were the Court to hold that there had been interference, the Government submitted that it had been provided for by law and proportionate to its aim. The sale to the third party was legally performed, in accordance with Law no. 112/1995 and with his valid title to property."], "id": "853c9139-fe9f-4954-9fb3-a47e1dfc9d14", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government disputed this claim, observing that the applicant complaints were only in respect of \u201cfield plots\u201d and not in respect of her \u201chome\u201d. Moreover, she was no longer living in the area where she alleged she had had her \u201chome\u201d. In any event, the applicant\u2019s inability to return to northern Cyprus had been an inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the UN buffer zone. The alleged with her rights under Article 8 had therefore been necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, for the prevention of disorder and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."], "id": "5cdd54b3-db0d-4743-88ed-d24e3cc27320", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government contested the period calculated by the applicants. As regards the costs incurred in the domestic proceedings, the Government argued that the costs of the proceedings on the merits were not related to the alleged violations and that the costs incurred during the enforcement stage were due only for the period that was regarded as being a disproportionate with the applicants\u2019 right of property. "], "id": "c17bb533-4b5b-44d5-ab2b-7be2dca54cb9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government claimed that the with the applicant\u2019s property rights had been lawful and justified. In particular, divesting the applicant of her right to the early-retirement pension had been provided for by law and was in the public interest. There was also a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference and the interests pursued. In the Polish social security system only retirement pensions granted under the general scheme, were, in principle, permanent and irrevocable. All other benefits based on conditions subject to change were subject to verification and possible revocation."], "id": "2484f8e7-9235-4ae6-a86a-500b56be7b8f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government acknowledged that the repossession of the first applicant\u2019s flat by the City of Moscow and the ensuing eviction had constituted an with her property rights. However, they considered that such an interference had been \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d and that it had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of Ol., a vulnerable person suffering from a psychiatric disorder. The Government conceded that the first applicant had sustained a certain financial loss as a result of the repossession of the flat by the City of Moscow. However, her losses had been caused by the fraudulent acts of other individuals and she could recover the damage by bringing a civil action for damages against the person(s) who had sold the flat to her. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the loss of the real property in such circumstances did not amount to a disproportionate burden for the first applicant, given that she and her daughters had not been evicted and continued to reside in the flat. Should she consider herself in need of social housing, it remained open to her to lodge the relevant application with the authorities."], "id": "7f0f989b-8982-4cf5-b987-f0a31f3a759e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["50. The applicant considered that the with his property rights had not been in accordance with the applicable laws. In his view, the City of Moscow had not had standing, under Article 302 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, to reclaim the flat from him given that he had bought it in good faith. The City of Moscow had decided of its own will to cede ownership of the flat and to transfer it to K. It had verified and authorised all the transactions in respect of the flat. The applicant considered that his situation bore close resemblance to the one examined by the Court in the case of Gladysheva (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 77-83). In particular, he claimed that the loss of his flat had amounted to a disproportionate interference with his rights, as set out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The authorities had placed an excessive burden on him. Even though he had acquired the property in good faith, they had failed to ensure a fair balance between their decision to reclaim the property from him, and his own interests. He further argued that the State bore responsibility for the fraudulent transactions in respect of the flat he had later purchased. It had been incumbent on them to verify the compliance of those transactions with the applicable laws. However, the authorities had failed to do so in a timely and diligent manner and had managed to recover the property from him only by flagrantly disregarding his interests. Lastly, the applicant submitted that he had been deprived of his property without compensation."], "id": "07f10580-4349-4da2-83da-fc2e1dd1fed1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["97. The Government questioned whether there could have been an with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions in a situation where the State had in no way restricted the owners\u2019 acquired rights, but, on the contrary, the owners themselves had entirely voluntarily entered into the existing tenancy relationships as the original owner-landlord with full knowledge of the regulations on tenancy agreements as valid at that time. In the Government\u2019s opinion, the new owners had thus, in a way, waived their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions in so far as their ownership rights had been restricted at the time when they had voluntarily acquired them. Nor could the owners have any specific legitimate expectation that in the future the restriction of their ownership rights would be abolished as regards rent control."], "id": "26089f72-f341-4172-bde6-fa819324cd84", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["142. The Government relied on sections 13 and 21 of the Law on Suppression of Terrorism and the presidential decree of 23 September 1999 as the basis for the in question. As regards section 13 of the Law on Suppression of Terrorism, the Court accepts the applicant's argument that the said provision provided grounds for State agents' access to private housing or other premises during the immediate pursuit of a suspect rather than authorising occupation of such housing or premises even for a short time. In the Court's view, this legal provision clearly could not be regarded as the basis for the interference at issue."], "id": "e43b1d3a-ae2f-464b-9bfe-007c01af28cf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government submitted that the authorities had made three attempts to enforce the judgment of 18 March 2002. The delay in enforcement had been due to objective reasons, namely the difficulty in identifying an equivalent land, as well as the fluctuant conduct of the applicant, who requested only in 2006 compensation with land in the neighbouring plot. They also argued that there had been no with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, since the authorities had offered her different lands in compensation. Were the Court to hold that there had been interference based on delay in enforcement of the judgment of 18 March 2002, the Government submitted that the alleged interference had been justified and proportionate."], "id": "ade2fe7a-fbd0-4c6a-90aa-959978fe136c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government further asked the Court not to take cognisance of the allegations of discrimination in so far as they had not been raised before the domestic courts. In conclusion they considered that the had been necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, namely that of an environmental nature and, in the circumstances of the present case, it had not imposed an excessive individual burden."], "id": "8ba393ad-dcce-44cc-9990-0cc830e898bf", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government stressed that the applicant had failed to adduce evidence of any pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged violation. As regards the costs incurred in the domestic proceedings, the Government argued that the costs of the proceedings on the merits were not related to the alleged violations and that the costs incurred during the enforcement stage were due only for the period that was regarded as being a disproportionate with the applicant's right of property. "], "id": "a6e9d809-4c77-4387-88df-dcad43de10ca", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government further submitted that, should the Court find that there had been an with the applicants\u2019 peaceful enjoyment of their property, that interference was in line with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The cancellation of the property restoration and the ordering of restitution by payment of monetary equivalent were in accordance with domestic law, and they were applied in order to protect the public interest \u2013 to ensure that title to land was not restored to persons who did not have a right to have land restored to them."], "id": "dcd5392b-821e-4f90-9b8e-75d9cedaea3d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government admitted that the applicant had been deprived of her property, but argued that such deprivation was in compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They submitted that the land had been assigned and sold to the applicant in breach of \u201cimperative legal norms\u201d protecting the interests of former owners, as found by the Constitutional Court, so the relevant administrative decision and purchase agreement had been annulled in accordance with the Civil Code. They also maintained that the with the applicant\u2019s property rights was justified as being \u201cin the public interest\u201d, namely in defence of the rights of former owners who had lost their title to land during the Soviet regime."], "id": "3ca0da0f-a19b-4449-8376-9cb3d549c6c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["94. The Government submitted that the present case was to be distinguished from those previously examined by the Court in connection with the question of \u201clegislative validations\u201d, and particularly from the cases of Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis and Zielinski and Pradal & Gonzalez and Others, cited above. The law complained of was different in nature and could not be classified as \u201cvalidating\u201d legislation nor be compared to those previously criticised by the Court. The object of the Law of 4 March 2002 had not been to frustrate actions going through the courts but rather, following the debate on the Perruche judgment, to clarify liability rules which were causing difficulties. Intervening independently of any particular dispute, in a field which was appropriate for legislative intervention, and without interfering either in pre-existing contractual relations or with the proper administration of justice, Parliament had enacted a law which was not really retrospective but essentially interpretative. Moreover, the State was not in any way a party in the dispute which had given rise to the present case, nor was it defending its own interests. It followed that the legislature\u2019s intervention did not amount to and had not been intended to influence the outcome of the dispute. Furthermore, even if it were accepted that there had been such interference, it was justified since the Law of 4 March 2002 pursued several legitimate objectives, to which the Conseil d\u2019Etat had drawn attention in its opinion of 6 December 2002 (set out in paragraph 62 above). Lastly, the Government repeated their argument that there was a \u201creasonable relationship of proportionality\u201d between the objective pursued by the legislature and the means it had employed. It emphasised the level of assistance provided by way of national solidarity, referring not only to the measures already taken domestically but also to those planned for the future."], "id": "b128215e-9da3-43d4-99d9-2fe2e0e90e4a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicant further challenged the Government\u2019s assertion that the with his property rights had pursued a legitimate aim. He argued that, following recognition of the State\u2019s title in 2005, the flat had remained unoccupied until 2011. The authorities had failed to register their title to the flat and to assign it to anyone in need of social housing."], "id": "98c7c45d-db37-499f-9e3a-737806761bb6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants argued that the policies of the \u201cTRNC\u201d could not furnish a legitimate aim since the establishment of the \u201cTRNC\u201d was an illegitimate act that had been condemned by the UN Security Council. For the same reason, the could not be found to have been in accordance with the law and the general principles of international law. Nor had it been proportionate. The need to rehouse displaced Turkish-Cypriots could not justify the complete negation of their property rights."], "id": "0163ddb8-ad7d-4dcd-9198-fbe425b73d06", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government first submitted that there had been no with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The plot bought by the applicant had originally been designated for agricultural purposes. Even if there had been no public investment planned for his plot, the applicant would not automatically have had the right to use it for housing construction, or to demand its designation for such purposes (Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden, no. 18/1987/141/195, 25 October 1989, \u00a7 60; Matti and Marianne Hiltunen against Finland (dec.), no. 30337/96, 28 September 1999). In 1991, when the applicant had acquired ownership of the land, the planned course of the new ring-road had already been known."], "id": "3ffe2cd1-e340-4ac0-8cfa-eb4e5a5970f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government submitted that there had not been any with the applicants\u2019 peaceful enjoyment of possessions for which the Government could be held responsible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They further submitted that \u201calthough it took some time until the compensation was paid to the applicants, their rights were safeguarded by the civil law and they have already obtained redress at the domestic level for any negative consequences\u201d. The Government did not dispute that the payment of the compensation had been delayed. However, in their view it had not led to increased financial loss for the applicants."], "id": "107c6fc6-592d-48fd-95c1-e32800bfb4d8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["51. The Government considered that the with the applicant\u2019s property rights had been \u201cin accordance with the law\u201d. In their view, the flat had left the City\u2019s possession against its will and the City had the right to reclaim the flat even from a bona fide purchaser. The Government also considered that the interference with the applicant\u2019s property rights had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of others, notably persons in need of housing. The transfer of the flat to the State should not be viewed as having been carried out in the State\u2019s interests only. The City of Moscow was responsible for providing affordable housing to people on low incomes. Accordingly, the City had reclaimed the flat in the interests of those people. Lastly, the Government argued that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right could not be considered disproportionate given that he had been allowed to use the flat and to obtain title to it through the privatisation scheme."], "id": "f4902d55-ccd6-4579-aa6a-c8f6529fb14f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government claimed that the with the applicant\u2019s property rights had been lawful and justified. In particular, divesting the applicant of his right to the early\u2011retirement pension had been provided for by law and was in the public interest. There was also a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference and the interests pursued. In the Polish social security system only retirement pensions granted under the general scheme, were, in principle, permanent and irrevocable. All other benefits based on conditions subject to change were subject to verification and possible revocation."], "id": "02ed2d83-130b-4668-8b52-9b380a3d5d2b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government did not dispute that the apartment had been the applicant\u2019s home and that the amount of damages awarded to him had been below the market price of comparable apartments at the time when that award had been made. They acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s eviction from his home had constituted an with his rights, but argued that that interference had complied with the requirements of the Convention \u2013 in particular, that the applicant had not had to bear an individual and excessive burden."], "id": "fcad86a3-c0c6-45ac-a63c-f2a0c3c38b99", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicant submitted that he had successfully farmed the land. The prosecutor\u2019s action and the outcome of the ensuing proceedings had interfered with his peaceful enjoyment of his land. The farmers had never presented any claims. The prosecutor had failed to submit how the land possession was to be organized and whether Luch Farm would retain its possession of the land. The domestic courts had not determined this issue either. In those circumstances, the aim of the prosecutor\u2019s suit was simply to take away the land possessed by Luch Farm, without any intention of restoring state and public interests. It had not been legitimate and proportionate and it had imposed an excessive burden on Luch Farm. The had destroyed Luch Farm and the quality of the land, which had not been farmed. The domestic courts had failed to find a fair balance between the genuine public interest and the private interests of Luch Farm. An excessive individual burden had been imposed on the applicant as a result of the uncertainty concerning the legal status of the possession of the plot granted to Luch Farm, because a permanent threat of expropriation by the other persons involved of the results of his efforts, such as the crops, had hung over him. The national authorities had thus violated the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "5baaff4e-64bb-4aaf-96df-330d8c10cee7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant maintained in particular that the complained of could not be justified in the general interest of a democratic society as it placed the gardeners at an advantage without any justified reason. The owners had been unable to use the land for forty years and the relevant law had impaired their situation in that it had allowed the gardeners to continue benefiting from the land on conditions which were detrimental to the owners. In particular, the applicant alleged that the rent which the gardeners had been obliged to pay for the use of her land was negligible compared with the market rent which could be received for the land."], "id": "e7481d16-af4a-4ef9-a045-54694c1196ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["55. The Government also submitted that the in question had sought a legitimate aim, in that that the reopening of the proceedings concerning the size of S.F.\u2019s land had been necessary to ensure that property rights were not restored to undeserving claimants, and to prevent unjust enrichment at public expense. They argued that rights to restoration of title in respect of S.F.\u2019s land had been transferred to over a hundred individuals, and the total value of their claims had amounted to approximately LTL 1,908,000 (EUR 552,600), and thus the State had been justified in seeking to prevent such a considerable loss from its budget."], "id": "e8dd1312-78d8-455b-bf23-3b57f177a940", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["69. The applicant submitted that once he had paid the debt in full, the enforcement court had to discontinue the enforcement proceedings of its own motion pursuant to section 67(1) of the Enforcement Act (see paragraph 45 above). He contested, in particular, the Government\u2019s submission that he had already lost his share in the property on 17 March 2011 when the second public auction had been held (see paragraphs 21 above and 75 below). He explained that under the Enforcement Act, an award decision had to become final before ownership could pass to the buyer (see paragraphs 50-52 above). In his case, however, on 17 March 2011 the enforcement court had not even issued such a decision. Nothing had therefore prevented that court from discontinuing the proceedings and ordering restitution. Consequently, the with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had not been provided for by law."], "id": "6ac759c9-c5af-4f34-8c1a-632649fb617a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["15. The applicant disagreed with the Government\u2019s proposal and argued that the Government\u2019s submissions about the authorities\u2019 failure to find the defendant were untrue and abusive. According to the applicant the non-enforcement of the final judgment in his favour was due to the defendant\u2019s political influence and to the of those in political power in the affairs of the judiciary."], "id": "14ac377b-a504-4b4d-9f44-98553d4e7173", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government accepted that the amount awarded to the applicant company by the domestic courts constituted a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and that there had been with its right of property on account of the non-enforcement. Nevertheless, they maintained that the provision had not been breached since the interference was reasonably justified and pursued a legitimate aim in the general interest."], "id": "39f565e0-2d76-4777-9b24-d83c0d83eb2a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["66. The applicant considered that the failure of the State to enforce a binding legal judgment of 26 August 1998 formed part of the multi-stage \u201ccontinuing situation\u201d of with his rights. Although the domestic court did not specify the means by which the liquidator should have provided the applicant with redress, it had been open to the liquidator to either recover the money from those to whom it had been unlawfully distributed or to employ any other means within his discretion. Those possibilities were not in any way precluded by the debtor\u2019s lack of funds. In fact, the continued absence of assets was caused precisely by the liquidator\u2019s unlawful actions and his failure to comply with the terms of the court order to rectify the situation (assuming that the bank indeed had no assets)."], "id": "932074db-73e9-42d1-998c-67e515e7c54b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government pointed out at the outset that the Court was not empowered to examine questions linked to the deprivation of property itself, such questions clearly being beyond its jurisdiction ratione temporis. In the Government\u2019s submission, it was the lack of any payment of compensation for expropriation which constituted an with the applicants\u2019 right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The applicants agreed with that submission and complained that, in depriving them of any compensation, judgments nos. 3156/1995 of the Salonika Court of Appeal and 1302/1997 of the Court of Cassation had imposed an excessive burden on them."], "id": "1e089623-9787-4e77-8caf-edef14dcc4c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government considered, however, that the pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate. They claimed that Z.B. and G.B.\u2019s numerous complaints to the authorities had to be examined following the procedure provided for by law, taking into account the interests of all the relevant parties to the proceedings. The authorities had to balance the right of Z.B. and G.B. to respect for their home on one hand and the right of the applicants to peacefully enjoy their possessions on the other. While acknowledging the delayed enforcement of the decision of the \u0160iauliai District Court of 21 December 2011 (see paragraph 7 above), the Government stated that the behaviour of Z.B. and G.B. had to be taken into account also when assessing the question of proportionality. In this context, the Government submitted that the bailiff had immediately taken action to enforce the judgment of the \u0160iauliai District Court on forced eviction (see paragraph 7 above) by issuing repeated notices to Z.B. and G.B. to vacate the house and, when that had been unsuccessful \u2013 by issuing notices of forced eviction. The bailiff also drew the courts\u2019 attention to the fact that Z.B. had possibly abused his procedural rights. However, the domestic courts had not taken that into account. The Government further stated that the bailiff had tried to help the applicants by advising the first applicant to lodge court proceedings in order to be able to evict other persons temporarily present in the house (see paragraph 21 above). Furthermore, the bailiff had asked Z.B. to submit the relevant documents concerning G.B.\u2019s illness, had asked Z.B.\u2019s daughter and the Children\u2019s Rights Protection Service about the place of residence of Z.B.\u2019s granddaughter. Numerous applications submitted by Z.B. and G.B. had to be thoroughly examined by the domestic courts, seeking to carefully balance the competing interests of the debtors and the applicants. After the court had concluded that Z.B. had been seeking to delay the enforcement of the judgment of the court and the court then had urged the bailiff to continue the eviction proceedings (see paragraph 25 above), the eviction had taken place straight away (see paragraph 28 above). The Government concluded that it had been Z.B. and not the authorities who had delayed the eviction proceedings by submitting numerous complaints, sometimes even false information, which the courts had had to examine nevertheless."], "id": "69cf6d0a-aa4b-4742-a495-005684666fdb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["212. The Government further contended that the alleged with the applicants\u2019 rights had been lawful, given that the counter-terrorism measures within the territory of the Chechen Republic had been taken on the basis of the Suppression of Terrorism Act (see paragraph 138 above) and \u201crelevant legal instruments of State bodies\u201d. The Government insisted that the interference in question had been in the public interest as it was necessary to suppress the criminal activity of the illegal armed groups. They added that they had complied with their obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by enacting a number of legal instruments enabling the applicants to obtain compensation for their lost property. The Government thus concluded that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case."], "id": "ecca64ff-c76e-4f2e-9b1c-712f015a5180", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["81. The Government admitted that the order to return the 0.05 hectares to the State had constituted an with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, but argued that the interference had been in compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They submitted that the land had been assigned and sold to the applicant in breach of \u201cimperative legal norms\u201d (see paragraphs 16, 25, 61, 64 and 65 above), so the decision to apply restitution had been taken in accordance with the relevant domestic law. They also maintained that the interference with the applicant\u2019s property rights had been justified as being \u201cin the public interest\u201d, namely to protect the lawful sale of State land and the structure of the street."], "id": "cdda9b2a-9e74-459d-bdcc-92961820f5f7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants considered that they had a possession provided for by domestic law that fell within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Their right to a pension had been based on the salaries they had earned; however, because of Law no. 296/06 that right had been denied to people like the applicants who had worked in Switzerland. While it was true that the Italo\u2013Swiss Convention had provided for the possibility for the State to enact specific norms regulating the matter, norms which totally reshaped the law to the detriment of the applicants had only come into being thirty-eight years after the adoption of that Convention. By that time, in the absence of a lex specialis, the rights in question had matured and become part of the applicants\u2019 patrimony in accordance with the applicable general laws. Thus, the new law had interfered with the applicants\u2019 peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, in an arbitrary and radically unjustified manner, drastically reducing their pensions. They further considered the to be discriminatory and aimed solely at those people who had worked abroad, particularly in Switzerland."], "id": "ea815be4-2cd2-4555-86d5-e34e9a3898a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["150. The applicants maintained that, as a result of their displacement and denial of access to their possessions, they had been forced to live in very poor conditions due to the lack of employment, housing, health care and a sanitary environment. They contended that, in the absence of economic and social measures to remedy their living conditions, the complained of could not be described as proportionate to the aim pursued."], "id": "9e9860c3-0372-48eb-9549-e3598d692516", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government pointed out that the with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her property was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. They concluded that, taking into consideration the interests of both the landlord and the tenant, the burden imposed on the applicant had not been excessive. The Government pointed out that the statutory measures had been taken in the general interest to protect tenants, regard being had to the inner-city-housing crisis and the difficulty in providing adequate housing for low-income tenants who have been evicted."], "id": "e855f206-ff15-433d-abca-b8cbc062308f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government emphasised that there had been no with the applicant\u2019s rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, because the special pension she received prior to the lustration decision was a special privilege attached to her position as a retired judge. Hence, its removal should not be regarded as an interference with an inalienable and irrevocable right. It should rather be seen as a refusal by the State to honour, in cases such as the applicant\u2019s, the special privilege given to judges upon the termination of their service on condition that they continued to fulfil the moral qualifications that a judge should possess."], "id": "e76d11e2-13fa-45f6-a4ab-fcb27a9d4f3b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government argued, were the Court to find that the applicant had possession, that the with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was lawful. The judgment ordering the applicant to repay the unemployment benefits had had its legal basis in section 210 of the Civil Obligation Act, which had been clear, foreseeable and publicly available. Further to this, it had been in the general interest for the unduly received benefits to be paid back."], "id": "041c6fdc-4924-4996-9847-56aac7b67bff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government submitted that even if the Court were to find Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applicable to the present case, the State could not be held liable for the alleged with the applicant\u2019s rights in this connection. The Government stated that Latvia could not be held responsible for acts of individuals, in this case the alleged perpetrators of the burglaries, against whom the applicant had filed civil claims during the pre-trial investigation. The Government further reiterated their view that the applicant\u2019s alleged property rights had never been established by a court judgment and that the applicant\u2019s right to compensation had never become enforceable, so that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was not applicable in the instant case. Finally, the Government pointed out that although criminal case no. 225641955 had been terminated, the applicant could still lodge a civil action in order to claim damages."], "id": "8a6b5ff4-1279-49d7-b48e-22138e526bd3", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["57. The applicants claimed that the State's failure to effect payments under the Urozhay-90 bonds amounted to an with their property rights. The laws enacted by the State had not furnished legal and practical possibilities for enforcing the obligations arising out of the bonds. Moreover, by enacting successive laws which had suspended the application of the relevant provision of the Commodity Bonds Act, the State had elevated itself to a privileged position and thereby breached the constitutional principle of equality before the law."], "id": "d4c10a30-587f-40eb-be6a-e372f06127dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government admitted that the final restitution order given in the applicant\u2019s favour constituted a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and that the quashing of the order amounted to a deprivation of his possessions. However, they submitted that the had been lawful; it had pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest; and it had been proportionate. In this connection they stated that it had been carried out in accordance with sections 267 and 268 of the Administrative Proceedings Act (see paragraphs 44 and 45 above). The Solicitor General, as a party to the proceedings, had sought revocation of the restitution order, which had been impossible to enforce, given the errors noted by the Commission and the Supreme Court. The restitution order of 2000, which had been adopted at a particular political moment and in an extremely short procedure in which State interests were not represented, had disregarded or failed to establish certain relevant facts, namely: the share in the property of the former owners indicated in the 1945 judgment; the property that could have been the subject of restitution, given the fact that the 1999 judgment had concerned only one former shareholder; that the property in question had meanwhile been developed with public funds; and that there were socially owned apartments on the site (referring to the \u201cworkers\u2019\u201d apartments), which accommodated thirty-three families. In this connection they submitted letters that the Restitution Commission had sent on 10 July 2008 to twenty-three individuals, seeking information regarding their tenancies. Those issues had made the enforcement of the restitution order burdensome."], "id": "c13752a3-0f1f-45cb-a254-154da87202fb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["45. The applicants complained that the enactment of Law no. 296/2006 and its application to their cases constituted an unjustified with their possessions. Moreover, it was arbitrary since it created a disparity in treatment between people who had chosen to work in Switzerland and those who had remained in Italy. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. The relevant provisions read as follows:"], "id": "c58f44dc-e6f6-4eb2-947e-8aff110a6edc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants submitted that the with their possessions had no basis in law. Having failed to pay their debts, the State deprived them of the actual possession of their property, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They maintained that the public interest justifications mentioned by the Government could not be relied on at their expense, and that it was for the State to find a solution for the payment of their salaries."], "id": "5698b5c4-313c-4b48-befc-e9fedb21f509", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government in their submissions confirmed that the amount awarded to the applicant by the domestic court constituted a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They acknowledged that the non-enforcement of the judgment in favour of the applicant could be considered to be an with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. However, the Government claimed that such interference was justified in the general interest, namely the need to control the export of contaminated materials from the Chernobyl area. The large number of creditors of the liquidated company required the liquidation commission and the State to develop comprehensive measures to satisfy all claims."], "id": "0deb3fdd-1d41-4adc-bf8e-ef2133b7b47c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["58. The Government claimed that the with the applicant\u2019s property rights had been lawful and justified. In particular, divesting the applicant of his right to the early\u2011retirement pension had been provided for by law and was in the public interest. There was also a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference and the interests pursued. In the Polish social security system only retirement pensions granted under the general scheme, were, in principle, permanent and irrevocable. All other benefits based on conditions subject to change were subject to verification and possible revocation."], "id": "510b2dbd-7bcf-42f7-979c-da38176707e7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["126. The Government submitted that the revoking of the licence did not constitute deprivation of possessions, but was a control of the use of property. They further argued that that was lawful and sought to safeguard an important public interest: the stability of the banking system. The interference was also proportionate to the attainment of that aim. Both conditions for withdrawing the licence were satisfied."], "id": "61cd8b4a-d7ab-4b1a-9cdd-8d2e405737ef", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government pointed out that the with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. They concluded that, taking into consideration the interests of both the landlord and the tenant, the burden imposed on the applicant had not been excessive. The Government pointed out that the statutory measures had been taken in the general interest to protect tenants, regard being had to the inner-city housing crisis and the difficulty in providing adequate housing for low-income tenants who have been evicted. The Government added that a large number of leases had expired in 1982 and 1983 and that the simultaneous execution of repossession orders in respect of all the premises concerned would have resulted in severe social unrest. The purpose of the measures in issue had therefore been to maintain order. It had been necessary to stagger the provision of police assistance because it was impossible to guarantee everyone assistance at the same time."], "id": "c32b9bd0-50b4-4732-af0e-72dbe8d7bf74", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["35. The applicant company contended that the retrospective application of section 31(2) of the Turkish Patent Institute Act, which had later been annulled by the Constitutional Court, had stripped the protection afforded to its trademark by Legislative Decree no. 556 of all meaning. That provision had constituted by the legislature, in that it had entered into force in order to resolve the case in favour of the other party, a powerful media group. Moreover, the other newspaper, Vatan, had not been published between 1977 and 2002 and could not have been considered a well-known trademark as alleged by the domestic authorities."], "id": "194ec7a4-9ff7-4b06-a4ed-acd544263428", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["26. The applicant argued that the rent\u2011control scheme constituted an with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property. He claimed that the statutory basis regulating the rent\u2011control scheme lacked consistency, and that the scheme had constituted a disproportionate burden on his ownership rights. He argued that the regulated rent was substantially lower than the market prices for similar flats in the area, and submitted that the level of regulated rent was less than one-tenth of the market rent for comparable flats. As a result he had been forced to satisfy the housing needs of other people at his own expense, with no possibility of terminating the leases or receiving adequate compensation for them. In this connection he argued, inter alia, that the rent he had been entitled to charge for his flats under the rent-control scheme had not even covered the costs of their maintenance. He argued that owing to the repeated delays in deregulation of rents, he was in a permanent state of uncertainty and his health had deteriorated."], "id": "3691880c-3e9c-4acc-94c6-b17b0ad548a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "interference", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government further contended that even assuming that to a certain extent there had been an with the applicant company\u2019s rights, that interference was proportionate. They maintained that during the proceedings G.G. and M.N. had exercised their procedural rights to request provisional measures with a view to securing their civil claims. Those rights, as well as the applicant company\u2019s right to seek to defend its property rights by ordering the claimants to secure its eventual losses, were set out in the Code of Civil Procedure. In addition, the Government noted that as early as February 1996, and prior to the initiation of the civil proceedings in question, it was clear that the applicant company had failed to comply with its obligations under the said mortgage loan agreement."], "id": "998cc6de-b88d-4e1b-8fe9-2b513ae272a0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["41. The applicant argued that the seizure of the fuel had been unlawful because there had been no decision issued by an investigator or prosecutor under Article 84 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP) (see paragraph 25 above). Furthermore, the decision to discontinue the proceedings against Mr P had not included a ruling on what was to happen to the fuel, in breach of Article 85 of the CCrP. Article 84 of the CCrP governed relations between the authorities, the safe keeper of movable property and its owner, where the property in question was attached as physical evidence in criminal proceedings. The fuel in question had not constituted such evidence. The retention of the fuel thereafter amounted to a . Nor had the seizure of the fuel or its retention pursued any legitimate aim."], "id": "0f2c635e-adc0-47a5-9f23-ad89bd4c4256", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government further submitted that the applicant had only started paying land taxes after the institution of the civil proceedings. In addition, they claimed that she had acquired the land without participating in a public auction and had paid an advantageous price. The Government acknowledged that a had taken place, but justified it by the need to protect the public interest."], "id": "5c543fcf-608b-4333-a131-ee160cc041ad", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant argued that the rent\u2011control scheme had constituted an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property. He claimed that the restrictions imposed on the use of his property and their duration could amount to a de facto . He had been forced to satisfy the housing needs of other people at his own expense, and had had no possibility of terminating the leases or receiving adequate compensation for them."], "id": "191dd7c9-07f3-4948-9f3a-45da22ac5816", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicants maintained that the proceedings under consideration concerned a wide scope of complex legal issues relating to the lawfulness of their . Such issues could not be determined in a fair manner without hearing the parties. They contended, with reference to the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding that Article 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure was contrary to Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, that their right to a public hearing before a tribunal had not been respected."], "id": "ae3a62c4-b7a2-46b0-9571-74cedd7a2464", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["51. The applicant's ownership share in the real property in issue was transferred to the other co-owner in the context of execution proceedings brought with a view to obtaining sums of money which the domestic courts had earlier ordered to be paid to the applicant's creditor. Even if the interference in question did not involve an expropriation by the State, the contested measure resulted in deprivation of the applicant of his property. The Government have not contested that there was a within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 1 and the Court will accordingly examine it under the \u201crule\u201d set out in that provision, it being understood that the three rules set out in that provision are not \u201cdistinct\u201d in the sense of being unconnected (see, for example, Bruncrona v. Finland, no. 41673/98, \u00a7 65, 16 November 2004 or Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, \u00a7\u00a7 108-14, ECHR 2000-I)."], "id": "c2a90d7b-36de-4a6f-8cf6-906bea0611ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government considered that the applicants\u2019 had not been arbitrary, but governed by strict rules meant to balance the interests of pre-nationalisation and post-nationalisation owners. They argued that the applicants had had a possibility to receive adequate compensation through compensation bonds, but had failed to make due use of it. Furthermore, the applicants themselves bore responsibility for the outcome of the restitution proceedings, as they had failed to mount an effective defence in relation to the defect found in their title. In this regard, the Government submitted two judgments of the Supreme Court of Cassation where actions under section 7 of the Restitution Law, based on claims that the respective decisions of the municipal authorities to sell property to citizens had not been approved by the Minister of Finance, had been dismissed. Lastly, the Government pointed out that in 2008 the first applicant had been accommodated in municipally-owned dwelling and considered that the second and third applicant had not suffered \u201cany special hardship\u201d because at the time when the first applicant had been evicted they had not been living in the disputed flat."], "id": "f03be1aa-74eb-46f3-bc34-3e1feb69918e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government further argued that there was no direct connection between forfeiture of bail and acquittal. The purpose of bail was to replace custody and at the same time to discourage a person being prosecuted from frustrating or avoiding criminal prosecution. If the person did not comply with the conditions of bail, the logical consequence of such behaviour was the forfeiture of the bail, and it was therefore a legitimate in this respect. The fact that the accused had eventually been acquitted did not in any way affect the lawfulness of the custody. The purpose of bail and the purpose of punishment were very different. If the conditions provided for by law were fulfilled, the bail was returned. Bail was not punishment for an offence committed, but was a form of security."], "id": "bcbdd5f4-67c6-4979-8785-8cf974c62beb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicants disagreed. They were of the view that the decisions of the land commission and the Teteven District Court allowing their restitution claims had resulted in their acquiring property rights, and that the ensuing impossibility of the enforcement of these decisions, once the civil courts had found that the preconditions for restitution in kind had not been met, amounted to . The applicants also contended that this deprivation had not been provided for by law and that it had not been in the public interest. In addition, they argued that the compensation which they had received, namely through compensation bonds which they had sold for the sum of BGN 2,823.88, had been inadequate. They argued also that the restitution proceedings had been too lengthy and that they had been placed in a situation of prolonged uncertainty. They claimed that the procedure had continued until 2013, because it had been only then that they had been able to sell the compensation bonds received in 2006."], "id": "ed7ad6e0-59b2-42b7-8a2d-90da1cb3979c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["49. The applicant maintained her complaint. Firstly, her eviction from the Pushkinska flat and the annulment of her title to the property to it had been unlawful as it had not been based on any legal provisions providing for such an expropriation. Articles 110 and 112 of the Housing Code cited by the domestic courts concerned eviction from State-owned buildings and provided the method of the latter, whereas the Pushkinska flat had been her private property. Article 346 \u00a7 2 of the Civil Code was a reference rule but neither the Yalta authorities nor the courts had cited any relevant law which would have provided for a in her situation. There was a legislative gap in that connection."], "id": "c448b1da-9c81-4d33-bbff-fd3509e3cc2d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government conceded that, whilst Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 did not in all circumstances guarantee a right to full compensation for , the normal circumstances of the present case did entitle the applicants to compensation at such a level. Having regard to the wide margin of appreciation afforded to the State, the Government considered, however, that the compensation for the expropriated property had been reasonably related to its market value at the relevant time. The Government concluded therefore that the interference with the applicants' property rights had been proportionate to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved."], "id": "1805628f-b705-40bf-b04c-9113b70310db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government stated that, since bankruptcy proceedings were prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely ensuring that creditors recovered at least part of their debts, the resulting did not infringe Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As to the length of the proceedings, the Government said that it was primarily attributable to the unsuccessful attempts that had been made to sell the applicant's house at auction. Following attempts on unspecified dates in 1985, 1991 and 1995, the sale had finally been fixed for 19 April 1996, then adjourned to 21 April 1996. The applicant was also responsible for the length of the proceedings, as he had resorted to every means possible to block the liquidation process. He had made an application for a composition with the creditors, which had been declared inadmissible on 1 April 1996, requested the bankruptcy judge on 5 April 1996 to refer an issue to the Constitutional Court thereby causing the proceedings to be stayed, made an application on 17 April 1996 for a stay of execution of the order for sale (which was dismissed the following day) and followed that up with a like application on an unspecified date to the Court of Cassation."], "id": "f144b19c-3e60-48af-8a3c-dac569c41065", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant company argued that the interference had not amounted to control of the use of property, because it had not been intended to prevent tax evasion, but rather had been a . It also submitted that the interference had not been lawful and that the Excise Act 1994 had been wrongly applied. The company went on to argue that during the inspections in the clubs the authorities had failed to establish the owner of the alcohol. Lastly, the company submitted that the impounding and forfeiture of the alcohol had been disproportionate because it had not been allowed to take part in the administrative\u2011penal proceedings."], "id": "b66f645c-087f-44e5-96ff-1196f40bd023", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants claimed 47,500 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage representing the average between the two valuations submitted by the experts for the unlawful and, in the alternative, had the Court to consider the measure lawful, they claimed EUR 33,250 in the light of the public purpose behind the deprivation. They further claimed EUR 15,000 in non-pecuniary damage."], "id": "c56be4ef-327c-46c2-8357-9139803a363b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant submitted that divesting her, in the circumstances of the case, of her acquired right to an early-retirement pension had amounted to an unjustified . She also argued that even if the right had indeed been granted erroneously, an individual who had applied for the right in good faith should not be expected to pay the price for the mistake of public authorities acting without due diligence."], "id": "2bcc8942-da87-4927-a198-a3ca38120abb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicants submitted that they had been deprived of the house lawfully purchased by the first applicant under the court administered tender procedure. In their view, the fact that the court bailiff's fault had been established in the domestic proceedings should have entailed the State's full liability for damages. However, all they had managed to obtain through the domestic proceedings was compensation for part of the reconstruction costs. The applicants claimed that this compensation was insufficient to buy a comparable dwelling. The applicants presented calculations based on the 2003 Directive issued by the State Construction Agency which stated that the market value of residential real estate in the Saratov Region in the last quarter of 2003 was RUR 8,200 per square metre. On this basis the applicants claimed that at the time it was paid the award of RUR 89,522 was sufficient to pay for only 10.9 square metres, while the forfeited house measured 78.3 square metres. As for the social housing they received, they maintained that even in combination with the above award it was insufficient because of its unsatisfactory quality and size, and in any event they did not own it. They considered that their overall losses were so substantial as to amount to a for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "5d9532ce-856b-46e2-9154-1808e89b61a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government submit that, even if the Court finds that there has been a , the finding of a violation would, in the circumstances, constitute sufficient just satisfaction. In effect, the Government submit that the applicant could and still can bring proceedings before the domestic courts and seek compensation, especially following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Cathleen Georgallides v. The Attorney-General; there is a potential eventuality of the applicant ending up with double compensation. However, if the Court decided to grant an award, the Government stress that the deprivation of the property took place on 27 March 1978 and maintain that it would be difficult to accept the relevance of the market value of the property at any time after that date, in particular in view of the fact that in 1992 she transferred her rights to her children. Furthermore, the Court should take into consideration that in 1978 the market value of plot 565 was 70 Cyprus pounds per square meter, and that by 1978, because of the street-widening scheme, considerable betterment had accrued to the remaining part of plot 565 and its market value thus increased."], "id": "6cf490d4-bc96-42b8-b342-596bf687201c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["22. The applicant argued that the interpretation according to which its claims against \u00c1PV Rt were unenforceable for want of a decision by the Tax Authority was wrong and amounted to an inadmissible interference by the State with market relations, as a result of which its claims, acquired onerously on the market, had become worthless. This had amounted to arbitrary ."], "id": "e4419755-a51e-42a2-88cf-3d9178aa0c7a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant submitted that divesting him, in the circumstances of the case, of his acquired right to an early-retirement pension had amounted to an unjustified . He also argued that even if the benefit had indeed been granted erroneously, an individual who had applied for it in good faith should not be expected to pay the price for the mistake of public authorities acting without due diligence."], "id": "8c53ad70-f67d-4118-9e7d-3d5d6591b845", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["108. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, given that the forfeiture of their various assets and payment of the fine had not constituted a or some other type of interference with the peaceful enjoyment thereof, but rather a voluntary decision to reimburse the damage caused to the State by the first applicant\u2019s criminal activity and, as a lawful and entirely proportionate measure, had formed part of the relevant plea bargain."], "id": "da0d3057-46ba-49d9-a6a3-5c17fab01870", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["38. The applicant submitted that he had suffered interference with his property rights as he had been deprived of his possessions unilaterally on 20 November 2000. Although the original grant in temporary emphyteusis had expired, contrary to his expectation that the property would revert to him vacant on termination of the contract, the 1979 Act gave the tenants the right to retain possession of the property under a new lease. Thus, the fact that he retained ownership in circumstances in which he was unable to foresee when, if ever, the property would revert to him, could not exclude a in the Convention sense. Indeed the concept of tenant was a wide one (see \u201cRelevant domestic law\u201d paragraph 22 above) and the applicant had legitimate fears that the property would not revert to him in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the sums paid in succession tax related to a time when the property was still under the original emphyteusis and could not justify the subsequent interference."], "id": "3bd7425c-e2f2-4633-95de-af1b007835c0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["60. The applicants submitted that the unlawful house sale, the ensuing litigation, the , the eviction from their home and their subsequent hardships living in cramped and substandard accommodation with a large family including small children and an elderly person had caused them severe distress. They claimed EUR 228,000 for non-pecuniary damage, which amount they claimed on behalf of eight family members each of whom had been through six years of sufferings."], "id": "bfcca793-ade7-4faa-b461-79e24630ef38", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["64. The Government submitted that the was in accordance with the Ordinance and was thus lawful. The premises had been taken in order to relocate the Office of the Attorney General. However, the implementation of the project had stalled because part of the premises had been occupied by squatters and steps had to be taken for their eviction. After that there were problems with the issuing of the relevant permits (as the previous one had expired) by the planning authorities, mainly because of planning restrictions related to Valletta\u2019s World Heritage status, as well as the fact that the fa\u00e7ade of the building had to be preserved while rebuilding the interior. In the Government\u2019s view the fact that, to date, the property had not yet been used did not cancel the original public interest behind the taking given that the authorities\u2019 action had been constant, as had also been held by the Constitutional Court which was best placed to assess the public interest requirement. Relying on the Court\u2019s case\u2011law, they noted that placing in reserve expropriated property even for a long time, did not necessarily entail a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They noted that from the witness testimony during the domestic proceedings it transpired that the property was abandoned and in total dilapidation, generating no revenue for the owners. Furthermore, any increase in the value of the property was reflected in the compensation offered to the applicant companies, which they could withdraw, and contest if they did not agree with the quantum."], "id": "8d456769-af22-443d-bd43-5f81ffa61039", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government argued that the primary aim of the impugned measure had to be taken into consideration when deciding on the nature of the interference. Since it had been clear from the relevant law that the properties affected by the establishment of a water protection zone could not remain in the ownership of the applicants, any measure interfering with the applicant\u2019s rights aimed at and amounted to a . Furthermore, even in the absence of a formal expropriation, regard must be had to the realities of the situation, that is the de facto expropriation of the applicants\u2019 property with effect from 2002 (see paragraph 31 above). Moreover, the case was to be distinguished from situations where expropriation of the applicants\u2019 property had been engaged but not carried out (see Sporrong and L\u00f6nnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52), and where the Court examined the case under the first rule in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "973bf3b3-5633-433c-a669-f07fd3b7905a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government pointed out at the outset that the Court was not empowered to examine questions linked to the itself, such questions clearly being beyond its jurisdiction ratione temporis. In the Government\u2019s submission, it was the lack of any payment of compensation for expropriation which constituted an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The applicants agreed with that submission and complained that, in depriving them of any compensation, judgments nos. 3156/1995 of the Salonika Court of Appeal and 1302/1997 of the Court of Cassation had imposed an excessive burden on them."], "id": "9bb846b9-1783-4ea3-83f5-b083f979ef2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["63. The applicants contended that there was, however, one significant difference between Amato Gauci and the present cases, which should have a decisive bearing as regards the applicable rule. Whereas in Amato Gauci there was uncertainty as to when the forced extension of the lease would end, in the present case there was no such uncertainty because the extension of the lease would never end \u2013 the lease was extended in perpetuity. Consequently, it was in reality not a restriction on the lessors\u2019 rights but rather a ."], "id": "8f753d50-57da-413e-950e-45b572c87041", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["50. The Government considered that the case did not concern because the Sozopol agricultural land commission\u2019s decision of 23 May 1992 had not created title to property for the applicants. The Government argued that the applicants could not have legitimately expected to have their property restored, given that the land they claimed had been within the boundaries of the Duni resort. They pointed out that Duni, later Duni AD, had not participated in the restitution procedure and had not had an opportunity to present its claims."], "id": "44caa683-bd7b-4b3e-ac48-faea55e6f2ba", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["106. The applicants challenged the legitimacy of the aim pursued by the impugned expropriation. In this connection, the Court reiterates that, because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is \u201cin the public interest\u201d. Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures of . Here, as in other fields to which the safeguards of the Convention extend, the national authorities accordingly enjoy a certain margin of appreciation. Furthermore, the notion of \u201cpublic interest\u201d is necessarily extensive. In particular, the decision to enact laws expropriating property will commonly involve consideration of political, economic and social issues. The Court, finding it natural that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one, will respect the legislature\u2019s judgment as to what is \u201cin the public interest\u201d unless that judgment is manifestly without reasonable foundation (see Former King of Greece and Others (merits), cited above, \u00a7 87; James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, \u00a7 46, Series A no. 98; and Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, \u00a7 112, ECHR 2000\u2011I)."], "id": "221b72bf-a89d-47ee-a59a-5ef20d8f8999", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["232. The Government did not contest the losses sustained by the third applicant, nor the amount. They argued that the was in compliance with the second sentence of part 1 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, because it was done \u201cin the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law\u201d. The criminal investigation into the attack concluded that no crime had been committed, and the applicant could have sought compensation in civil proceedings."], "id": "f32e81ec-0dd2-4619-baaf-b5074817c03c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["21. The Government submitted that the was an instantaneous act and did not produce a continuing situation. They pointed out that it was the former Yugoslav legislation that allowed for the applicants\u2019 property to be expropriated without at the same having determined or awarded them compensation. The subsequent 1994 Croatian legislation amended those rules, but could not have changed the applicants\u2019 situation. In any event, all of these facts having occurred prior to Croatia\u2019s ratification of the Convention, i.e. 5 November 1997, the Court is not competent ratione temporis to entertain the present application."], "id": "b24e7765-9397-43b5-853e-939be3c14643", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government submitted that the determining question in the case, in the light of the Court\u2019s case-law concerning similar complaints on forfeiture or loss of pension, was whether a fair balance had been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirement of the protection of the individual\u2019s fundamental rights. They noted that, in line with the Court\u2019s case-law, the forfeiture of a retirement pension fell to be considered under the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, since it acted neither as a control of use nor as a . In the Government\u2019s view the required fair balance had not been exceeded."], "id": "e7c23d06-a72e-409b-895c-596b0dd8a714", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government submitted that the fuel had been seized for inspection under Article 178 of the CCrP (see paragraph 26 above). The above measure amounted to lawful control of use rather than a . The Government contended that the commercial court had rejected the applicant\u2019s claim for lack of jurisdiction because claims against officers of the Ministry of the Interior, including claims arising out of the alleged unlawful seizure of property in the framework of criminal proceedings, were to be examined by the courts of general jurisdiction. The commercial court had indicated that the applicant should have directed his claims against the military unit rather than the Ministry of the Interior. The storage contract was regulated by Article 84 of the CCrP and Article 906 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 24 and 25 above). It was incumbent on the military unit under Article 902 of the Civil Code to pay damages for any loss caused to the applicant\u2019s property."], "id": "3b4c3061-f2e9-480a-aeeb-758b4fb3d2f2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["278. The applicant company G.I.E.M. S.r.l. submitted that the confiscation measure constituted a . It argued that, by allowing, through a general formulation, the extension of such confiscation beyond the land directly concerned by the unlawful development, section 19 of Law no. 47/1985 infringed Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. That Article allowed legitimate interference only on the basis of a law that was accessible, precise and foreseeable. The applicant company took the view that section 19 should have indicated in greater detail the limits within which it was possible to decide on confiscation in relation to the established facts, by indicating, according to a principle of reason and proportionality, the extent of the land that could be confiscated in relation to the buildings erected thereon and the unlawful conduct as established in material and mental terms. It explained that the lack of clarity and precision of the national law, and of the regional law, which had been regarded by the Court as \u201cobscure and poorly worded\u201d in its Sud Fondi S.r.l. and Others judgment (merits, cited above), had made it possible to confiscate land of an area that was three times as large as that covered by the planning permission issued by the Bari municipal authority. An even more serious consequence was that this had also affected the applicant company\u2019s property even though the company had not been involved in the acts in respect of which the criminal proceedings had been brought."], "id": "b814ba88-2a33-4ab7-b124-90f43c91c534", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["21. The applicants reiterated their arguments that the had been arbitrary. They contended that no adequate compensation was available to them as the compensation procedure had been delayed for years. This delay was attributable to the authorities who had failed to notify the applicants of any developments following the order of the regional governor of 17 April 2001."], "id": "9b31b163-8a74-436a-a279-dcca1d97bc2e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, because they had not sought to be accommodated in a municipally-owned dwelling or to be allowed to buy such a flat at a regulated price. In addition, the Government considered that the applicants\u2019 had not been arbitrary, but governed by strict rules meant to find a balance between the interests of pre\u2011nationalisation and post-nationalisation owners. They argued that the applicants had had a possibility to receive adequate compensation through compensation bonds."], "id": "343119f5-41e5-4e4b-986c-b1ca8b0a57e4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["26. The Government submitted that the restitution laws adopted after the fall of communism had had the aim of restoring justice. In the applicants\u2019 case, the courts had applied the relevant law correctly. The requisite fair balance had not been upset because the applicants had benefited from the use of the apartment and had received compensation through bonds. Referring to the case of James and Others v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1986, Series A no. 98), the Government argued that in cases of , Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 did not require full compensation."], "id": "45af57b7-6473-43a5-ab33-753b45e3c786", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "deprivation of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["32. The applicants stated, inter alia, that they had been the victims of an arbitrary and unlawful which had been disproportionate to the legitimate aims of the Restitution Law. The applicants had suffered an excessive burden. In particular, the bonds compensation scheme which the applicants did not use did not secure adequate compensation because at the relevant time they could not obtain more than the equivalent of approximately EUR 12,300 \u2013 20% of the value of the apartment as assessed in accordance with the applicable law."], "id": "3c68e862-2505-47f6-9c5c-c471875912a7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government acknowledged that the applicants\u2019 right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been limited by the fact that the local development plan, as amended in 1994, had prevented them from constructing on their plots. However, the interference had been justified by the of the community, namely by the need to build a roadway which would serve local transport needs. Moreover, it had been consistent with the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity of laws. By adopting these provisions, the legislature had given the local government authorities time to adjust local development plans to the new needs of their municipalities, without being obliged to compensate individual owners for the consequences of local development plans adopted before 1989, when the transformation of the legal and economic system of the State had been undertaken."], "id": "22c378bd-3514-4bdd-85d9-0c09d4e5bf63", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["98. The Government submitted that the confiscation of the items taken from R. had had a legal basis in Article 63 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which the property received as a result of a criminal offence, the legal owner of which could not be identified, was to be confiscated. It had also had a legitimate purpose \u2013 confiscation of criminally acquired property operated in the in combating criminal activities and as a deterrent to those considering engaging in criminal activities."], "id": "782769ea-bdc3-4ae4-9172-9e945f401b0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["36. The Government considered that the applicant had not been deprived of his possessions; nor had there been a de facto expropriation. The requisition order and the rent-control measure were matters of housing and social policy, which constituted a control of use of property in the aimed at ensuring a just distribution and use of housing resources as well as a better use and preservation of old houses in a densely populated and small country where land available for construction was severely limited in relation to demand."], "id": "a5382d82-c970-40ab-b4ae-0ceead189096", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government further argued that under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 Contracting States had a right to enact such regulations as they deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with . This provision left a wide margin of appreciation to the national authorities. In the Government\u2019s view, the relevant domestic law concerning car registration pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining the safety of road traffic."], "id": "10d2b46c-b7ed-4004-afea-fc63ad957820", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant company complained of an infringement of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. Noting that a trade mark constituted a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it said that it had been deprived of that possession by the application of a bilateral treaty that had come into force after it had filed its application to register the mark. It argued that the Supreme Court\u2019s decision had to be regarded as an expropriation (as it had prevented the applicant company from enjoying the protection of its intellectual property right), but had not been effected in the . Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads as follows:"], "id": "da0ed0ef-7864-41ca-ba64-f74865cfbab9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government further submitted that due to the size of the Zenica-Doboj Canton\u2019s public debt, postponement in the enforcement was justified as otherwise macroeconomic stability and fiscal sustainability would be jeopardised. The cantonal government was willing to enforce all the final judgments against it and all the measures taken to that end were designed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual\u2019s fundamental rights. In 2014 the cantonal government provided BAM 400,000 in its budget for that purpose. Moreover, in the same year 38 settlements were concluded."], "id": "2def289a-47b7-46b8-b621-c0c7632ef6ff", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["27. The Government pointed out that the only ground for eviction in the present case was that the lease had expired, a factor that did not warrant the applicant\u2019s being given any priority in the provision of police assistance. The present case was indistinguishable from the case of Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy (see the judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 315-B), in which the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The interference with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her property was therefore consistent with the relevant legislation. The Government concluded that the burden imposed on the applicant had not been excessive. The Government pointed out that the statutory measures had been taken in the to protect tenants, regard being had to the inner-city housing crisis and the difficulty in providing adequate housing for low-income tenants who have been evicted. The Government added that a large number of leases had expired in 1982 and 1983 and that the simultaneous execution of repossession orders in respect of all the premises concerned would have resulted in severe social unrest. The purpose of the measures in issue had therefore been to maintain order. It had been necessary to stagger the provision of police assistance because it was impossible to guarantee everyone assistance at the same time."], "id": "d1c08786-f638-42b8-9505-0cb8dcc72a9c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["70. The Government submitted that the enactment of and the authentic interpretation given to Law no. 326/03 was justified on the basis of compelling reasons. On that issue, the Constitutional Court had delivered judgment no. 274 of 2006, holding that the impugned law did not minimise the role of the judiciary or violate the principle of confiance legitime (sic). It considered that the impossibility of cumulating such benefits had been one of the possible interpretations of the law as from the start. That interpretation had immediately been followed by the INPS, but was then contradicted by the Court of Cassation ten years later. Such a situation had created uncertainty and it had therefore been reasonable to intervene by means of a law of authentic interpretation. The Government further submitted that it had been necessary to enact Law no. 326/03 to re\u2011establish the original interpretation of the applicable legal norms which had been applied consistently for ten years by the INPS but which had been given a different meaning by the domestic courts the first time the issue was brought before them (final judgment no. 14227 of 27 October 2000)."], "id": "6aa78e28-e207-4011-b173-ba7316ad2511", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["11. The Government did not succeed in establishing, in a satisfactory manner, the said to justify the enactment of the legislation. In calling into question the protection of shareholders who believed they were sheltered by the very structure of a limited liability company, can this measure be regarded as serving the common interest? Can the unconditional protection of creditors be seen as an \u201coverriding reason of general interest\u201d (see paragraph 50 of the judgment)? This cannot be so, especially as any analysis of the proportionality of the measure was not a statutory requirement and was not carried out at the domestic level, where the case was considered only in terms of Article 6, without it being examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As we have already said, there were far less drastic measures at the State\u2019s disposal in order to \u201cforce\u201d bona fide shareholders to wind up dormant companies or to punish them in a proportionate manner for not doing so."], "id": "3c059b18-cb7b-4339-9e5b-57e3eaed9de7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government submitted that there had been no breach of the applicants\u2019 right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and that the State\u2019s responsibility had not been engaged on account of the refusal by the courts to order the tenants\u2019 eviction. They declared that the impugned judicial decisions had been based on facts attributable to the applicants, namely their failure to comply with the statutory procedure for notification of tenants provided for by Article 10 \u00a7 1 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 40/1999, which had led to the automatic extension of the existing tenancy agreements pursuant to Article 11 \u00a7 1 of that Ordinance. Referring to Robitu v. Romania (no. 33352/96, Commission decision of 20 May 1998, unreported), they considered that the statutory extension of tenancy agreements \u2013 provided for in the Ordinance and noted in the present case by the domestic courts which entertained the applicants\u2019 eviction actions \u2013 pursued an aim that was in the , namely the protection of tenants\u2019 interests in a situation characterised by a shortage of cheap housing. This statutory extension, in the Government\u2019s view, struck a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of individuals\u2019 fundamental rights."], "id": "26d84f3b-625a-4fdb-bff5-1c3e526ba487", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government disputed the applicant\u2019s submissions. It was clear that the legislative amendments in question were the logical and necessary consequences of the financial position of the Pension Fund at the material time. Their aim was to serve the of its members and the amendments had been made in accordance with the law. The Government emphasised that the decision to adopt new criteria for the assessment of disability applied in an objective manner to all those who were in the same position. The changes made had been instigated by the Fund\u2019s Board, composed of representatives of employers and employees, including those of the employees\u2019 organisation of which the applicant was a member."], "id": "9434bb91-1f66-4b0d-8e75-cef3ed81191c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["33. The applicants stressed that in 1964 at the time when the land in question was obtained by them, forests and woodland did not enjoy a legal status comparable with the special status which they enjoy after the enactment of the 1975 Constitution, as systematically interpreted by the courts from 1980 onwards. Thus, they had every reason to believe that they could build their homes on the land in question. This was all the more so as in 1966 the Royal Decree of 6 May had included the land in the revised urban development plan and in 1974 Legislative Decree no. 303/1974 had declassified the land from being reafforestable. Hence, when the new Constitution entered into force, their land was already a residential area in the process of being developed. However, the State had unlawfully reversed their rights without paying them any compensation and without even granting their request to exchange their land for new land of equal value or to expropriate it. Moreover, their funds diverted to their housing projects were now lost, since the value of land in this particular part of Athens, if one could not secure planning permission for building purposes, was close to zero. The applicants asserted that the interference with their property rights had not taken place by means of any law and had not respected the fair balance which should be struck between the demands of the of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual\u2019s fundamental rights."], "id": "b5f73574-0bc9-4139-af1f-371aada4641a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government submitted that a possible, more favourable amount of pension could not constitute an already established possession. Thus, at the time the first applicant\u2019s only possession was that awarded by the INPS under the impugned law. Moreover, on the basis of the reasons argued above, there had been no violation of the said provision, particularly in view of the invoked, namely the need to ensure the economic and financial stability of the Italian welfare system."], "id": "e594b7e6-6351-4c97-a6c5-74be89010e6b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["25. The applicants referred to the conditions laid down in Article 17 \u00a7 2 of the Constitution as to the award of full compensation in advance, and submitted in conclusion that they had suffered a significant pecuniary loss upsetting the fair balance that should be struck between the protection of the right of property and the requirements of the ."], "id": "a1f1020a-f70d-4db5-9be3-2ef8b9709605", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government submitted that the measures complained of had pursued the legitimate aim of securing land for the implementation of the local development plan. The impugned measures had served the as they had been intended to resolve the communications and environmental problems of the municipality of Milan\u00f3wek. As the Court has acknowledged on many occasions, such matters correspond to the general interest of the community."], "id": "661c8dc9-4d97-4aac-9f53-15fabfd5f9f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["46. The applicant submitted that the limitations imposed on the use of his land by the Federal Hunting Act were disproportionate. The German legislature had failed to strike a fair balance between his interest in enjoying the use of his property and the alleged in the practice of hunting. As he was the only landowner within the hunting association who was opposed to the practice of hunting, he was materially unable to prevent the leasing of the hunting rights."], "id": "6f9e23b6-4681-4292-84c0-f7ec48f1550f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["16. The applicant complained that the confiscation of his goods had been a disproportionate measure, bearing in mind that the ingots had been lawfully acquired and that he had also been fined for the same offence. He also alleged that the proceedings which he had initiated afterwards had failed to establish a fair balance between the and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions."], "id": "6a7b04db-599c-4449-98f5-bb734a0535c9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["35. The Government argued that, although the new rules of schoolbook procurement might have indirectly interfered with the applicant companies\u2019 financial interests, such interference had complied with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No 1. The measure complained of was lawful; it allowed sufficient time for the applicant companies to adjust their business practice to the new circumstances, and did not interfere with the existing contracts between the applicant companies and their clients. Furthermore, as to the existence of a , the Government stressed that the New Regulations\u2019 legislative objectives could be clearly identified from the legislature\u2019s explanation attached to the amendment proposals (see paragraph 14 above). The Government argued that the schoolbook market had been a distorted one where the end-consumers (that is, the pupils or their parents) did not freely select the product and the product was not paid for by the schools or the teachers who actually selected them."], "id": "f1fa852e-a61a-427d-b507-de526794d24f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["31. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicant\u2019s property rights had been lawful and justified. In particular, divesting the applicant of her right to the early-retirement pension had been provided for by law and was in the . There was also a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference and the interests pursued. Moreover, the applicant remained unemployed only for 82 days after the revocation of the pension thus the burden placed on her had not been excessive."], "id": "84396487-5e30-437f-9a56-58a5a2bc7b8d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government maintained that the interference was necessary as there was a reasonable suspicion that the assets originated in criminal activities of the former manager of the applicant company and that it was proportionate even considering its length due to the importance of the at stake and the very complex and extensive nature of the crime that had to be investigated. The Government further argued that a violation should be found only were the procedure manifestly arbitrary or the duration of the seizure manifestly unreasonable."], "id": "2ebf56d8-24e5-40dd-80fe-d9e9fe3f3d82", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["40. The Government noted that the judgment in the applicant's favour had been quashed after it had become final and enforceable. Accordingly, there was an interference with the applicant's right to receive the funds awarded to him by that judgment. However, they maintained that the interference did not have any consequences for the applicant's right to receive those funds as it merely changed the procedure for recovering the indexed deposit. They further maintained that there are other people with deposits at the State Savings Bank who are also not entitled to retrieve their money. Therefore the interference with the applicant's rights was in accordance with the and complied with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "70e421b2-999c-44d2-883d-6de8f8e748ab", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant submitted in reply that, by quashing the final and binding judgment in her favour, the State failed to strike a \u201cfair balance\u201d between the and her property rights. She indicated, inter alia, that the average price per square meter of housing in the Podolsky District of Kyiv was approximately USD 1,000, and that the current design of the corridor impeded her access to the room in the house which she occupied."], "id": "c9e02e0b-e519-46df-bda9-69c3eb19b416", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government submitted that under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, States were entitled to control the use of property in accordance with the by applying relevant laws. States had a wide margin of appreciation in that connection. The geographical location of Bulgaria as a route for drug trafficking in the Balkans and the country\u2019s European Union obligations were determinative for the State policy on fighting this illicit trade. The high degree of danger for society from drug smuggling explained the extension of civil liability associated with the crime of smuggling to property belonging to third persons. The application of Article 242 \u00a7 8 of the Criminal Code in the present case was lawful, justified and proportionate to the aim pursued."], "id": "407a1351-b1ac-431d-99fe-70568bfeec56", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["15. The Government specified that in their view the application concerned only the part of building no. 38 which had been sold, without the appurtenant land and without the flat where the applicant lives, emphasising that the applicant could also have claimed compensation for this part. Then the Government dwelt on the difficulties connected with the legislative evolution in the field of property and on the new developments which had occurred after 1989. In this respect, they considered that the latest reform regarding property, namely the Law no. 247/2005, had aimed at restitutio in integrum of immovable property wrongfully seized by the State during the communist regime and, when the property could not be returned, at granting compensation. Law no. 247/2005 grants compensation at market value in the form of participation in a common system of placing for movable securities, organised in the form of a joint stock company, Proprietatea. The persons having a right to compensation will receive securities at face value which will be transformed into shares once Proprietatea is listed on the stock market. The Government considered that the compensation granted once Proprietatea is put in place is in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the delay in the effective payment does not impinge upon the fair balance that must be struck between the demands of the of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights."], "id": "8872af04-5d06-4d96-a8b0-cf55f0c1fee6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["30. The Government stressed that the main aim of Legislative Decree no. 1195/1942 was to serve the by preventing banks, limited companies and other legal entities from collecting the capital or income from securities when the holders of the securities had remained inactive; this was due in most cases to their having died without descendants or having decided to renounce their claims."], "id": "5db868b9-0fc2-4617-a79b-26db15dc2399", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["62. The applicant companies relied on the Court\u2019s principles regarding access to court and legislative intervention under Article 6 of the Convention, and referred in particular to the Court\u2019s judgment in Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) ([GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006\u2011V). They considered that there existed no legitimate reasons or compelling reasons which could allow the Italian legislator to legitimately intervene in pending proceedings by enacting a law with retroactive effect concerning facts which had already come to be and proceedings which had already been initiated, thus usurping the function of the judiciary and violating the applicants\u2019 right to a fair trial as well as impairing the very essence of the their right to a court. Indeed, the only reason behind the intervention had been financial, namely to avoid payments in a number of judgments, at first\u2011instance and on appeal, which had found in favour of the applicant companies and other companies in the same position. This was clear even from the name of the law \u2013 Urgent dispositions to favour development and to adjust the trend in public finances (Disposizioni urgenti per favorire lo sviluppo e la correzione dell\u2019andamaneto dei conti pubblici). Without the intervention, and in accordance with the established case-law arising from a multitude of cases including judgments of the Court of Cassation, the applicant companies\u2019 claims would have succeeded. However, the intervention ensured that, contrary to what had already been established, the INPS would be successful."], "id": "3d77c369-38ed-4989-a586-3d50191d12c2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["85. The Government further argued that the impugned measure was in accordance with the . The official data taken into account in the preparation of the FOCA revealed that, as at 28 February 1999, 6,587 companies had accounts frozen for more than a year, their debts amounted to SIT 84,452,000,000, and 6,083 of them (namely, 92%) had no employees. The only solution available to the Slovenian authorities at that time was to start winding-up proceedings of their own motion, but that would have taken 30 years and would have cost the State around SIT 900,000,000. The Constitutional Court held that the impugned measure was indeed in the general interest: for the protection of creditors and the security of legal transactions in general (see paragraphs 48 and 50 above)."], "id": "5cc4f964-0612-402d-82d7-061ea2814874", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicants have thus had to bear an individual and excessive burden which has upset the fair balance that should be maintained between the demands of the on the one hand and protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions on the other. There has therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "d1a51dfe-1de0-4e14-ac0a-aad2414ac953", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government submitted that the authorities had complied with the national legislation and that their refusal to issue a plan of the applicant\u2019s plot before 2006 had not been unjustified, seeing that the plan of newly formed plots for the area had not been approved. They stated that the applicant\u2019s restitution procedure had been completed after the approval of the plan of newly formed plots in 2006 and that the applicant had received a plan of his property. They further noted that the State had introduced such laws as it had deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the . Finally, they stated, without elaborating further, that the proportionality requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been complied with."], "id": "6c8b5f1d-1c81-46bd-a667-7fedef799ad0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government accepted that the amount awarded to the applicant company by the domestic courts constituted a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and that there had been interference with its right of property on account of the non-enforcement. Nevertheless, they maintained that the provision had not been breached since the interference was reasonably justified and pursued a legitimate aim in the ."], "id": "0d4d3355-31a7-46ca-8d24-47a4666a1736", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government further argued that entitling M.V. to use the applicant's flat had been a measure to control the use of property. The resultant interference had been based on law, namely section 5 of the Takeover Act and, later on, the Termination Act and the 2002 Amendments. Moreover, the impugned measure had been in accordance with the as it had pursued a legitimate aim. The aim of these statutes and the ensuing measure had been: (a) to protect from deterioration and devastation the property which had been abandoned by its owners, (b) to enable the persons whose homes had been destroyed in the war to solve temporarily their housing needs, (c) to secure repossession of property of persons who had left Croatia but were subsequently returning, and, at the same time, (d) to protect those refugees and displaced persons who had been placed in the abandoned houses and flats."], "id": "b7c88c66-8098-4fa9-b706-c1945f28e216", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["54. The applicant in the present case was the lawful owner of the electronic devices which the investigator removed from his flat and kept as physical evidence in a criminal case. This situation falls to be examined from the standpoint of the right of a State to control the use of property (see Smirnov, cited above, \u00a7 54). The decision to retain the devices was based on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and could be considered necessary in the interests of proper administration of justice, which is a \u201clegitimate aim\u201d in the of the community (ibid., \u00a7 57)."], "id": "f57210d6-3c04-4bc1-82f7-3bc7ff9ce3fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government submitted that the measures complained of had pursued the legitimate aim of securing land for the implementation of the local development plan. The impugned measures had served the as they had been intended to resolve the communication and environmental problems of the municipality. As the Court acknowledged on many occasions, such matters corresponded to the general interest of the community and the measures taken in the present case had been dictated by the difficult situation concerning the communications network in the municipality."], "id": "028a72da-1c55-47d7-b407-4b41f761d4ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government submitted that the measures applied in the applicant\u2019s case flowed directly from the relevant rules of the domestic law as amended and pursued the of rationalising the system of disability benefits. They stressed that the change in the amount of the benefit received by the applicant had resulted from a real change in her state of health, rather than from the change in the methodology and the restructuring of the disability benefit system. They pointed out that with her current state of health, she would no longer have been entitled to any benefit had the new system not been put in place. The benefit she was currently receiving should be compared with that scenario, rather than with the amount received under the old regime of benefits."], "id": "b0b85ef6-9be2-4737-b231-e4de6fce66a4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["6. The Government argued that, by subjecting the sale of duty-free goods to a system of licences, the Moldovan legislation took measures to implement the national policy in this field. This was in line with Moldovan economic policy generally, the objective of which was to control the use of merchandise in the . It is further argued that the amendment to the Customs Code in April 2002 was designed in the general interest to contribute to the reduction and elimination of violations of the law of a financial and fiscal character."], "id": "b4701695-c2a8-4ac5-8ded-dd5592057a90", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["93. The Government concluded that the rent-control scheme met the of society and was compatible with the interests of house and flat owners as (i) the maximum level of rent chargeable had been regularly increased, (ii) the number of houses to which the rent-control scheme was applicable after 2011 had been reduced, (iii) a legal framework for resolving the housing shortage and ending the rent-control system had been devised, and (iv) the legislation were amended to support modernisation of houses including those which are owned by the applicants."], "id": "7eb65cec-6a8f-409b-9b72-e6f067ad0312", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["142. The applicants did not contest that the abolition of the specially protected tenancy and the restitution of nationalised property might have been regarded as pursuing a legitimate aim and as being in the . They considered, however, that the same could not be said of the absence of compensation for the loss of their occupancy rights and for the abolition of the right to purchase."], "id": "91f26fb6-64d6-46ea-a9cb-20277807b337", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["73. The Government indicated that the aim of the interference arising out of a demolition order made on the basis of town and country planning legislation was to protect the environment. That was a legitimate aim, in accordance with the for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as the Court had already affirmed in Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland (29 November 1991, \u00a7 57, Series A no. 222). The applicant could not claim any legitimate expectation on the basis of the age of the building. She had inherited a property which was in contravention of the law and had immediately carried out acts which themselves required planning permission, without making any attempt to apply for that permission or to ascertain whether or not the building could be made compliant. She could not therefore claim any tolerance on the part of third parties that had prejudiced her own rights. The measure complained of was therefore in no way disproportionate."], "id": "6e9fef05-57db-48bc-a937-704d70fb4446", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government further observed that the applicant had refused a proposal for a friendly settlement consisting of paying him a sum representing 80% of his claim (see paragraph 13 above). They inferred from this that it had been the applicant himself who had chosen not to collect his debt, while the State, faced with the exceptional situation of an insolvent municipality, had rapidly sought to protect the rights of creditors. They referred to the case of B\u00e4ck v. Finland (no. 37598/97, ECHR 2004-VII), in which the Court had found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in spite of the annulment, without compensation, by retrospective legislation, of the applicant\u2019s claim against an individual in the context of a social policy. They explained that, in the present case, the law on insolvent local authorities was not directed at a specific dispute, but was necessary for budgetary reasons and in pursuance of economic and social policies and that, as it had concerned a municipality and not an individual, it was in accordance with the . They further submitted that the very substance of the applicant\u2019s right had not been impaired, and that there had been only a slight reduction in relation to his claim."], "id": "533fa4cb-34d3-4280-81c0-b6726c25aa6d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["16. The Government, after specifying that in their view the application concerned flat no. 1 only, dwelt on the difficulties connected with the legislative evolution in the field of property and on the new developments occurred after 1989. In this respect, they considered that the latest reform regarding property, namely the Law no. 247/2005, had aimed at restitutio in integrum of immovable property wrongfully seized by the State during the communist regime and, when the property could have not be returned, at granting compensation. Law no. 247/2005 grants compensation at the market value in the form of participation in a common system of placing for movable securities, organised in the form of a joint stock company, Proprietatea. The persons having right to compensation will receive securities at face value which will be transformed into shares once Proprietatea is listed on the stock market. The Government considered that the compensation granted once Proprietatea will be put in place is in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the delay in the effective payment does not impinge upon the fair balance that must be struck between the demands of the of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights."], "id": "cb550a2f-ce84-425b-9b31-dd466a0af2d2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["59. The applicants were of the view that the circumstances of the case amounted to a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Their land had been designated for expropriation at an undetermined future date and this state of affairs had lasted for a long period of time, despite the fact that no funds had been available throughout this period to finance the planned investment. The public authorities, while they were obviously entitled to take appropriate measures to implement their spatial planning policies, should have also eliminated uncertainty concerning the future fate of the properties affected by such policies. The applicants stressed that uncertainty \u2013 whether originating from legislative or administrative sources or arising from practices applied by the authorities \u2013 is a factor to be taken into account in assessing the State\u2019s conduct. Indeed, where an issue in the is at stake, it is incumbent on the public authorities to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner (see Vasilescu v. Romania, judgment of 22 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, p. 1078, \u00a7 51; Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, \u00a7\u00a7 110 in fine, 114 and 120 in fine, ECHR 2000\u2011I; Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, \u00a7\u00a7 97\u201198, ECHR 2002\u2011VII)."], "id": "02337a53-b731-4347-9d4d-72c105c8c0f6", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government argued that neither the provisions of Polish law nor of Protocol No. 1 imposed on the Polish authorities an obligation to change the character of use of land by individual owners. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 States had a right to enforce such laws as they deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the . The applicant had bought a property designated for agricultural use and should have been aware that his ownership right had not encompassed the right to build a house on this land. He had been entitled to use or dispose of his plot only within the limits prescribed by the law, the principles of reasonable social co-operation and the socio-economic purpose of ownership. The applicant's situation was therefore different from that in the case of Sporrong and L\u00f6nnroth v. Sweden (judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, \u00a7 11) in which the restrictions were imposed on the property in the centre of the capital."], "id": "7999d285-603e-4d33-b0c9-c012d769d9a1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["29. The Government pointed out that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. They concluded that, taking into consideration the interests of both the landlord and the tenant, the burden imposed on the applicant had not been excessive. The Government pointed out that the statutory measures had been taken in the to protect tenants, regard being had to the inner-city housing crisis and the difficulty in providing adequate housing for low-income tenants who have been evicted. The Government added that a large number of leases had expired in 1982 and 1983 and that the simultaneous execution of repossession orders in respect of all the premises concerned would have resulted in severe social unrest. The purpose of the measures in issue had therefore been to maintain order. It had been necessary to stagger the provision of police assistance because it was impossible to guarantee everyone assistance at the same time."], "id": "14e979a3-0f4d-41c9-bc25-6ae1d07b0ed1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government agreed that the amount awarded to the applicants by the domestic courts constituted a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They acknowledged that the non-enforcement of the judgments could be considered an interference with the applicants' rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. However, the Government claimed that the interference was justified in the , namely the need to control the export of contaminated materials from the Chernobyl area. The large number of creditors of the company required the liquidation commission and the State to develop comprehensive measures in order to satisfy all the various claims."], "id": "0e4e2a76-8db2-47a8-a750-4b09dda45606", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government pointed out that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her property was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. They concluded that, taking into consideration the interests of both the landlord and the tenant, the burden imposed on the applicant had not been excessive. The Government pointed out that the statutory measures had been taken in the to protect tenants, regard being had to the inner-city-housing crisis and the difficulty in providing adequate housing for low-income tenants who have been evicted."], "id": "fce681c2-66ba-4813-b881-586b3b8a2bfd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["65. The Government admitted that the compulsory lease of the land under sections 3 et seq. of Law no. 64/1997 constituted an interference with the applicant's rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It reflected the legislator's position, according to which it was in the that the rights of persons using the land for gardening purposes should prevail over the rights of the owners of the plots of the land in garden colonies. The work the gardeners had done had considerably increased the value of the land, which at the time the colonies were established had generally been unusable and of low quality. The Government argued that a fair balance had been struck between the general interest and the rights of the original land owners. Given the margin of appreciation which the Contracting States had in similar cases, the interference in issue with the applicant's right to peacefully enjoy her possessions was not contrary to the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "b0559d3c-d18e-47c9-ac11-6bdc11b6d008", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["155. The applicant considered that no public interest could possibly justify the State's persistent failure to resolve the problem of the Bug River claims, which had been recognised by Polish law for nearly sixty years. He stressed that under the Republican Agreements the State had taken upon itself the obligation to return to the Bug River owners, without any conditions or financial or other limitations, the value of the property they had had to abandon. While it might be acceptable that the implementation of that obligation should, on account of the of the community, be achieved over a period of time, nothing could explain the adoption of legislative policy that for several decades had completely disregarded the obligations towards the Bug River claimants."], "id": "e7da8c78-83cd-42a8-8ad9-361bf4f3179b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government also argued that any interference with the applicant company\u2019s rights could only be regarded as a \u201ccontrol of use\u201d of possessions, that had been applied in the . In the present case, the general interest was clear, namely the protection of the environment in accordance with the requirements of EU law. As the Court had repeatedly recognised in its case-law, this was a weighty consideration, which was of growing importance for contemporary society. In support of their argument the Government referred to a series of cases decided by this Court, notably: Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, ECHR 2010; Malfatto and Mieille v. France, nos. 40886/06 and 51946/07, 6 October 2016; Matczy\u0144ski v. Poland, no. 32794/07, 15 December 2015; Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland, no. 33538/96, 28 July 2005; and Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, ECHR 2002\u2011VII. The pursuit of this aim was not confined to the applicant company\u2019s particular circumstances, but extended to all aquaculture operators based in designated locations around the coastline."], "id": "ad669bfc-0c23-44a6-bf10-2a8fb07760c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["63. The Government further argued that, should the Court find that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s rights, such interference was in the within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant had not been penalised for the fact that she had been a collaborator with the secret police. Rather, the purpose of the 1997 Lustration Act was to castigate those persons holding public office who had made untrue lustration declarations. Collaboration itself had not barred citizens from access to public office; only the truthfulness of the lustration declaration was in issue in the lustration proceedings. The principle of the protection of the citizen\u2019s confidence in the State and law also militated in favour of the solution adopted in the applicant\u2019s case. The requirements of social justice, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Constitution, had made it necessary to draw a distinction between judges who had made true declarations and those who had not. Trustworthiness was one of the values which deserved special protection by the State, especially in respect of judges."], "id": "1f591349-7933-4a19-aa4d-26ec2f113315", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["103. The Government maintained that the interference was necessary as there was a reasonable suspicion that the assets originated in criminal activities of the former manager of the applicant company and that it was proportionate even considering its length due to the importance of the at stake and the very complex and extensive nature of the crime that had to be investigated. The Government further argued that a violation should be found only where the procedure was manifestly arbitrary or the duration of the seizure manifestly unreasonable."], "id": "aa655cc7-c673-45b6-9e84-e2e0ff8423c4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government considered that the length of the proceedings had no bearing on the lawfulness of a building under the town and country planning requirements laid down in the . The applicant had been prosecuted for maintaining an unlawful building, which constituted a continuing offence not subject to limitation. For such time as the offence continued without the building being demolished, the remedial measure could not be excluded by way of compensation for loss incurred as a result of the reasonable time having been exceeded. It should also be pointed out that even if the domestic court had, by way of a penalty for exceeding the reasonable time, declared the proceedings inadmissible, there would have been nothing to prevent the planning inspector or the municipal council from applying for demolition in the civil courts."], "id": "c2727976-06e0-4b27-bd28-b886307672ee", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["91. The Government considered that the interference complained of was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate in the circumstances of the case. They submitted that the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions was not absolute and that certain restrictions were permissible. The restrictions in the present case were based on the , namely protection of the natural environment. The Government further submitted that the property in question had been classified as \u201cfarmland\u201d when the applicant bought it and that it had never been designated for construction purposes, even before the creation of the Wigry National Park and the adoption of the local development plan of 1994. Consequently, the Government invited the Court to find the present application manifestly ill\u2011founded."], "id": "ffcbdda0-5015-4dac-91a0-6150779a0ceb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["59. The Government argued that neither the provisions of Polish law nor of Protocol No. 1 imposed on the Polish authorities an obligation to change the character of the use of land by individual owners. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, States had a right to enforce such laws as they deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the . The applicant had bought a property designated for agricultural use and should have been aware that his ownership right had not encompassed the right to build a house there. He had been entitled to use or dispose of his plot only within the limits prescribed by the law, the principles of reasonable social co-operation and the socio-economic purpose of ownership. The applicant's situation was therefore different from that in the case of Sporrong and L\u00f6nnroth v. Sweden (judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, \u00a7 11) in which restrictions were imposed on property in the centre of the capital city."], "id": "d763a123-efdb-4fca-ae22-7105c66d7a93", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["84. The Government maintained that neither the provisions of Polish law nor of Protocol No. 1 imposed on the authorities an obligation to change the character of use of land by individual owners. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 States had a right to enforce such laws as they deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the . The applicant had acquired a property designated for agricultural use and should have been aware that his ownership right had not encompassed the right to build a house on this land. He had been entitled to use or dispose of his plot only within the limits prescribed by the law, the principles of reasonable social co-operation (zasady wsp\u00f3\u0142\u017cycia spo\u0142ecznego) and the socio-economic purpose of ownership (spo\u0142eczno-gospodarcze przeznaczenie prawa)."], "id": "450888e4-b26b-4366-b663-d41797729dcb", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["20. The Government submitted that even if Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were applicable, the applicant had not sustained any interference with his rights under that provision, since there was no basis in domestic law for him to claim the continuous payment of an unchanged disability benefit, no matter how the circumstances evolved. Moreover, even assuming the existence of an interference, the measures applied in the applicant\u2019s case flowed directly from the relevant rules of the domestic law as amended and pursued the of rationalising the system of disability benefits. They could by no means be considered as disproportionate since (i) the impugned period had lasted only eighteen months; (ii) the applicant had been in receipt of a benefit even during that time; (iii) the amount of that benefit had exceeded one-third of his previous benefit and almost equalled 60% of the minimum subsistence income relevant in the years 2012 and 2013; and (iv) the 2014 amendment, consisting in an equitable adjustment of the law, had resulted in partial compensation for the applicant."], "id": "c6b1f5d8-12ce-4049-9071-0ef67fc279a5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["89. The Government submitted that the authorities had searched the vessel on suspicion of organised arms smuggling into Turkey. The arms cargo had thus been seized in accordance with section 12 of Law no. 6136 and Article 36 of the former Turkish Criminal Code as well as Articles 2 and 25 of the Montreux Convention and Article 19 \u00a7 2 and Article 39 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. The above-mentioned provisions of the Montreux Convention and the Convention on the Law of the Sea empowered the Government to limit the transit passage of commercial vessels through the Straits if the vessels posed a threat to the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the State or in any other manner violated the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. In this connection, arms smuggling was a threat to international peace and order and in violation of the principles of international law and customs. Thus, the provisional seizure of the arms cargo was necessary for the prevention of crime and the protection of public safety in accordance with the ."], "id": "5f509b18-ee3b-4041-b45f-4bfad857d755", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government contended that, if Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was at all applicable, what had occurred in the present case had to be considered as a control of the use of property falling within the scope of its second paragraph. They left it to the Court to decide whether an interference giving rise to State responsibility had occurred. They submitted, however, that the alleged interference had been lawful. Furthermore, the wage monitoring system that followed from the Construction Agreement, and the costs to which the applicants were compelled to contribute, served not only the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, but also pursued the of the community, namely to uphold the legitimacy of the Swedish approach in the area of industrial relations."], "id": "5f80a531-e2a9-4b9f-bf92-94f9ce9c7602", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["102. The Government further submitted that, if the Court were to find that there had been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in the present case, that interference had been lawful and necessary to control the use of property in the . It had also been proportional as it had achieved a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the protection of the applicant\u2019s property rights."], "id": "cb8236e8-dd0a-4b25-a7e7-78957e8c809a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["56. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicant\u2019s property rights had been lawful and justified. In particular, divesting the applicant of her right to the early-retirement pension had been provided for by law and was in the . There was also a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference and the interests pursued. In the Polish social security system only retirement pensions granted under the general scheme were, in principle, permanent and irrevocable. All other benefits based on conditions subject to change were subject to verification and possible revocation."], "id": "e08db18c-4c6e-4af0-8d68-f942facb62a2", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["76. The Government further asked the Court not to take cognisance of the allegations of discrimination in so far as they had not been raised before the domestic courts. In conclusion they considered that the interference had been necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the , namely that of an environmental nature and, in the circumstances of the present case, it had not imposed an excessive individual burden."], "id": "8bfdcf84-257d-4d1c-864b-9e800c488444", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["125. The applicants had neglected the principles of spatial development and insisted on their interests. If this were accepted, that would mean that from the moment a location was granted the State would be tied by interests of the investor, and that in each change of DUP private interest would have a priority over the public interest. However, when adopting planning documents the State had an \u201cimperium position\u201d, and individual and legal persons had to tolerate the decisions reached by the authorities, provided these were in accordance with principles of protection of human rights. The Government submitted that the States had a wide margin of appreciation in this regard and that the Court must respect the domestic legislature\u2019s assessment as to what was in the , unless that assessment was manifestly without reasonable foundation."], "id": "c1ccd1a6-5c94-4201-a03c-69ee9c9c2050", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["62. The Government admitted that there had been an interference with the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions when the domestic authorities had allowed V.P. to use his property. They argued that this measure amounted to control of use of property and that it was not disputed that the interference had been based on law and had been in the . As to proportionality, the State had been amending the relevant legislation as the circumstances and the need for the control of possessions had been changing. Namely, the legislation granting rather extensive powers to temporary occupants at the beginning had been amended over time to benefit the owners. Therefore, the interference had met the conditions of the extraordinary post-war situation and had not placed an excessive individual burden on the applicant."], "id": "625d6648-67b1-4b1d-bfc8-5d6fcd280dae", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicant organisation maintained that by having been ordered to enter into a licence agreement with terms of remuneration which did not compensate the authors for the use of their works, the domestic courts had manifestly breached the balance between the right to receive remuneration for the use of musical works and the . They also argued that the above restriction had not been justified by any public interest because the defendant in the first set of proceedings had been a commercial broadcaster and had transmitted authors\u2019 work to gain profit. They added that in any event any public interest to have access to musical works could have been satisfied by those broadcasters in Latvia which had concluded a licence agreement with the applicant organisation. In reply to the Government\u2019s argument that by the contested measures the domestic courts had solved a long-running dispute, the applicant organisation contended that the resolution of the case had not been in favour of the authors. In this connection they argued that before the contested proceedings the broadcasters had used the musical work without any licence and that the applicant organisation had done everything to reach an out-of-court settlement in the dispute with them."], "id": "2b11a15e-7536-4549-94c1-07e5ec2fe9c7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants submitted that they had suffered a violation of their property rights as acknowledged by the domestic courts. They pointed to the fact that while a legitimate aim may have existed at the start, none existed twenty years later as shown by the fact that the tenants had abandoned the property. Moreover, the difference between the rent paid to them under the applicable law and that on the market was substantial (the rent payable according to law was one seventeenth of the market value). Thus, the State had failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the and those of the applicants. Moreover, the state in which the property was returned to them caused them a further burden."], "id": "f162be85-cd3a-4312-b498-daca79d9a2b5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["29. The applicant disputed that he could have insisted on a longer lease term as argued by the Government. It was uncontested in the domestic proceedings that he had negotiated for such a term and refused it. He stated that the deprivation of his possessions which he has suffered is wholly disproportionate as the loss caused to him as a result of failure to grant or enforce the option outweighs any real or perceived benefit to the in applying the ultra vires principle, and that of corporate incapacity, on the facts of this case. He points to the lack of any compensation payable and to the passing of legislation which now permits local authorities to grant such options."], "id": "035bb840-888e-4f4e-b177-3d1191954caa", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government submitted that they were entitled to take that social measure. They contended that the fact that rent restriction provisions for commercial leases had to be made was also in the , as it safeguarded the stability of businesses and the public services such businesses provided. The measure also sought to protect the employment of those persons who depended on the activity of those businesses and safeguarded against property owners taking advantage of the economic activity of a tenant."], "id": "2c0a6284-6196-4119-9932-fe54717a2120", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government argued that the interference had been based on law and pursued legitimate aims of protecting the property rights of others, namely those of the municipality of T\u0159eb\u00ed\u010d, and legal certainty. It had also been proportionate. The procedural requirements of the national law, for example, that a person must ask for the restitution of property according to rules set out in the restitution laws, including certain time limits, could not in general be considered disproportionate. The requisite \u201cfair balance\u201d between the demands of the of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual\u2019s fundamental rights had been observed even in the particular circumstances of the present case."], "id": "aa75ced6-6748-4549-978c-2361fb102cdc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["33. The Government submitted that the interference complied with the law and served the , i.e. in securing the correct application of the law. The Government stated that the applicant's case was not terminated by the supervisory court but was remitted to the first instance court for an examination of the merits. They further maintained that the size of the disputed part of the house was miniscule and thus the interference did not place an excessive burden on the applicant."], "id": "70fd299f-7c75-47c2-902d-dbf5227a37da", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["17. The Government disputed this claim, submitting that there was no evidence whatsoever of the applicant's ownership of property, particularly regarding the land in Sysklipos. Those plots of lands belonged to another person, Mrs Anastassia Christodoulou, with the exception of plot no. 368 (sheet/plan XI/47), which belonged to a certain Irini Hj. Christofi. In any event, the situation regarding the applicant's present inability to have access to property in northern Cyprus was the inevitable consequence of the political state of affairs on the island and of the existence of the inviolable United Nations Buffer Zone; until an overall settlement of the Cyprus problem, Convention rights were, of necessity, restricted in the envisaged by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "4462fb01-3d72-420a-8001-436492e639c1", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted that the measure had been lawful and in the , namely an important social aspect which forms part of the cultural identity of citizens. The Constitutional Court had referred to the social and cultural aim to stimulate the local musical talents and this general interest persisted even though such a service was given by a private entity. The Government admitted that the applicant had suffered a violation of her property rights up to the judgment of the Constitutional Court. They considered, however, that the violation had not continued thereafter, given that in 2010 the rent increased to EUR 185, and would continue to increase every three years. The rent reform also imposed certain obligations on tenants relative to maintenance of the premises."], "id": "9c17568d-40ff-4213-a1b1-eff2c2124210", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government noted that the domestic courts had established that the apartment at 33 Punane Street had been acquired through crime. It had been confiscated on the basis of Article 83 \u00a7 3 (2) and Article 83-1 \u00a7 2 (2) of the Penal Code. The confiscation measure had been effected with a view to preventing the illicit acquisition of property through criminal activities, and thus pursued a legitimate aim in the . The Government considered that a fair balance had been struck between the public and individual interests in the present case. They pointed out that the applicant had received the apartment at 33 Punane Street free of charge, and argued that the fact that V. had later sold the applicant\u2019s apartment at 9 Mahtra Street was of no relevance and could only give rise to a claim by the applicant against her mother V. The Government also noted that the applicant was not living in the apartment at 33 Punane Street, either at the time of the attachment or in 2011, so the confiscation had not resulted in the applicant\u2019s losing her home."], "id": "1a313a96-3e3d-4337-9d4e-3410547ffd18", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["54. The Government conceded that the obligation to tolerate hunting, which ran counter to the applicant\u2019s convictions, had interfered with his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Nevertheless, they pointed out that in Germany \u2013 in contrast to the situation in France and Luxembourg, where hunting rights were transferred completely to the hunting associations \u2013 the landowner remained the holder of the hunting rights and was thus not deprived of any possessions. He merely had to cede the right to practise hunting. Privately owned land, which was limited in quantity, had a particular social relevance which entitled the legislature to limit its use in the ."], "id": "91146bf5-4aa5-4140-afff-d80796e751fd", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government argued, were the Court to find that the applicant had possession, that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was lawful. The judgment ordering the applicant to repay the unemployment benefits had had its legal basis in section 210 of the Civil Obligation Act, which had been clear, foreseeable and publicly available. Further to this, it had been in the for the unduly received benefits to be paid back."], "id": "44ccd584-6dae-4e88-a21b-dfe83415ade9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["44. The Government submitted that although the applicants had suffered a violation of their property rights resulting from the fact that the rent did not increase over the years during which the property had been subject to a requisition order, the applicants could no longer complain once they had been compensated by the domestic court. They considered that that compensation was sufficient: while the applicants\u2019 architect had estimated the rental value in 2007 as being EUR 6,990 annually, according to the Government a more realistic rental market value for the property was EUR 1,500 annually. The Government further noted that the requisition had been issued in the namely social housing, and that the applicant\u2019s appeal, which had only concerned the amount of compensation, had not referred to this matter."], "id": "2a4f1d88-46ce-4a4d-85f7-4b95f758b62c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government submitted that the sums claimed were excessive and did not take into consideration the fact that the legislature had a right to control the amount of rents in the . Moreover, even if the premises had never been requisitioned, the applicant would have received a rent established by the Rent Regulation Board, which would have been equal to the rent paid in 1984 by any other tenant. In the Government's view, no interest was due to the applicant since he had failed to claim interest by judicial letter, as required by domestic law."], "id": "0b1d2034-b3d3-4658-b7f8-f247a230e36f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["42. The Government argued that under the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ownership was not ius infinitum. A State had the right to enact such laws as it deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the . The forfeiture of the arms held without a licence had amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. It had served the public interest as it had been ordered in order to safeguard public safety and to control the possession of arms by individuals. All States were entitled to control access to weapons as a fundamental power vested in them on the strength of their sovereignty. They were also under a positive obligation to ensure safety by way of licensing the possession of weapons. The States enjoyed a margin of appreciation in this regard. Under the Court\u2019s case-law the scope of this margin varied depending on the issue concerned in a case. The State\u2019s margin of appreciation in issues concerning arms control was particularly wide. A requirement to obtain a licence to possess weapons fell within the State\u2019s margin of appreciation and could not be regarded as imposing an excessive individual burden on the applicant. The licensing system would be illusory if it was not attended by criminal sanctions or by the possibility to order forfeiture of illegally possessed arms."], "id": "80710c8c-1bf3-49d2-a02b-1b5d32dd76db", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["32. The Government in their submissions confirmed that the amount awarded to the applicant by the domestic court constituted a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They acknowledged that the non-enforcement of the judgment in favour of the applicant could be considered to be an interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. However, the Government claimed that such interference was justified in the , namely the need to control the export of contaminated materials from the Chernobyl area. The large number of creditors of the liquidated company required the liquidation commission and the State to develop comprehensive measures to satisfy all claims."], "id": "6b4803e8-a05e-4e8e-8878-a288326cab81", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["41. The Government argued that the state was entitled to enact laws and to give administrative decisions necessary in order to control the flow of merchandise into its territory. The decisions given in the present case had therefore pursued the . As to the proportionality of the interference, they first argued that the applicants' business activities had involved storing of goods which were entering the territory of the state and leaving it. Moreover, the authorities had been under an obligation to supervise whether the applicants' business activities were in accordance with international agreements entered into by Poland. The lack of any control whatsoever performed by the customs authorities could have led to substantial losses in the state budget."], "id": "46dd1554-19ce-4884-b757-863dea25b4dc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["80. The Government agreed with the findings and reasoning of the Chamber judgment (see paragraphs 68-70 above). In their opinion the expropriation of the applicants\u2019 land had been carried out \u201cin the public interest\u201d and \u201csubject to the conditions provided for by law\u201d, and a fair balance had been struck between the requirements of the of the community and the demands of the protection of the individual\u2019s fundamental rights."], "id": "aa24e284-d179-449a-95a3-10280e982d7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government admitted that confiscation of the property belonging to the applicant could be considered as an interference under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In any event, the confiscation of part of the family\u2019s property had been in accordance with domestic law (Article 72 \u00a7 3 of the Criminal Code) and amounted to a justified control of the use of property in the . Referring to the Court\u2019s case-law (Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A), the Government contended that, in the interests of crime prevention, the State had a wide margin of appreciation in controlling property obtained by unlawful means or used for unlawful purposes. Referring to the decision of the Court of Appeal of 25 October 2004 and the applicant\u2019s conviction on 30 June 2005, the Government considered that a fair balance between the public and individual interests had been achieved in the present case, particularly as the applicant, with her knowledge of her husband\u2019s criminal activities, must have known full well that the property in question had been obtained from money gained unlawfully."], "id": "03626ba4-4794-4ae0-8d70-7e6fcb6f2b40", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government maintained that the relevant legislation regulating the use of prisoners\u2019 money was compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They argued that that provision did not impair the right of States to adopt such laws as they deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the or to secure the payment of taxes and other contributions or penalties."], "id": "a7bd35c0-11e5-4584-8814-46bac8982366", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["18. The Government admitted that the confiscation of the two ingots had amounted to an interference with the applicant\u2019s right of property. However, that interference had been lawful and had pursued a legitimate aim. In particular, the Government argued that the confiscation, as a sanction for the administrative offence in question, had been prescribed by Romanian Customs Regulations, which had been sufficiently clear, accessible and foreseeable. The Government further submitted that the confiscation had had a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the of checking certain goods prior to their entry into commercial circulation and ensuring a functioning customs regime, which entailed the adequate collection of taxes and other contributions. As to proportionality, the Government stated that Romania\u2019s geographical position at the border of the European Union called for strong enforcement of border crossing legislation as an obligation flowing from its status as a Member State. Referring to the legal framework applicable in the case (see paragraphs 12 above), the Government contended that once the commission of an offence had been uncovered, the authorities had no other choice but to apply a fine and to confiscate undeclared goods. Nevertheless, the authorities had applied the minimum fine provided for by law in the current case."], "id": "4b6aaac1-6806-4355-ab53-e9134fe15e77", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["24. The Government pointed out that the interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. They concluded that, taking into consideration the interests of both the landlord and the tenant, the burden imposed on the applicant had not been excessive. The Government pointed out that the statutory measures had been taken in the to protect tenants, regard being had to the inner-city housing crisis and the difficulty in providing adequate housing for low-income tenants who have been evicted. The Government added that a large number of leases had expired in 1982 and 1983 and that the simultaneous execution of repossession orders in respect of all the premises concerned would have resulted in severe social unrest. The purpose of the measures in issue had therefore been to maintain order. It had been necessary to stagger the provision of police assistance because it was impossible to guarantee everyone assistance at the same time."], "id": "ff549eca-6763-4efa-8933-d9f5a61a6516", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["69. The Government submitted that, in accordance with the Italo-Swiss Convention, the INPS paid out pensions after taking into consideration the working period in Switzerland and contributions paid there, in order to avoid the above-mentioned advantage. In the case of individuals who had not contested the amounts paid by the INPS, the latter was the final decision in respect of the amount of pension. Those who opted to contest that amount could only hope for a favourable outcome. However, the practical effects of Law 296/2006 were that the judicial decisions of the pending proceedings confirmed the original amount awarded by the INPS. Thus, there had been no discrimination, particularly because Law 296/2006 aimed to establish a homogenous situation while eliminating unjustified privileges for persons who had worked abroad. In the Government\u2019s subsequent observations, referring to a report prepared by the INPS, they submitted that any favourable treatment enjoyed by persons whose pensions had already been liquidated was an inevitable situation, in view of the necessity of the Government to regulate possessions in the ."], "id": "b9629f7b-0e7f-4d70-9365-5442620d210a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["43. The applicant company complained that the domestic authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the and the applicant company\u2019s interest. When it had purchased the land, it had not known that the motorway would be routed across the quarry. The chosen route across the quarry, by not bypassing it, had saved costs for the general public but imposed an excessive burden on the applicant company."], "id": "d259bc02-6b4b-4772-8b06-cb5ca4865a4d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["48. The Government contended that a mere finding of guilt without any penalty constituted, having regard to the Court\u2019s case-law, an acceptable consequence of the finding that the reasonable time had been exceeded. Reparation of loss incurred as a result of the time-limit having been exceeded could not preclude reparation of the loss arising, for the , out of acts constituting an offence."], "id": "59f43007-75ee-4b41-a8cb-e5badddcfce4", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["67. The Government contended that the confiscation of the applicants\u2019 property had been in accordance with domestic law and had amounted to a justified control of use of property in the . Referring to the Court\u2019s findings in the cases of Gogitidze and Others and Silickien\u0117 (both cited above) as well as in Phillips v. the United Kingdom (no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII), they submitted that the Convention did not oppose the application of confiscation measures to family members of persons directly accused of offences or of extended confiscation, the measure carried out in the current case. They held that the applicants had benefited from qualified legal representation and had had reasonable opportunity to present their position before the authorities."], "id": "b254b5ab-c205-412c-9255-3e9af1dfdee7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["44. The applicants submitted that the expropriation had pursued no public interest, but rather the commercial interest of the company which had obtained the title to it. Furthermore, there had been no relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued, nor had a fair balance been struck between the demands of the and the interests of the owners of the plot in question. Referring to section 4 of the Act and the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision, the applicants stated that a less restrictive measure could have been applied in their case, as they had unsuccessfully claimed in the impugned proceedings. Their arguments in this respect remained unaddressed. Lastly, they argued that the compensation awarded to them was below the market value of the plot."], "id": "413a8368-5544-4ff6-b637-2320fca418de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["82. The applicant also submitted that the measure was disproportionate. Referring to Agrotexim and Others v. Greece (24 October 1995, \u00a7 66, Series A no. 330 A) and a number of later decisions, the applicant pointed out that according to the Court\u2019s case-law, the lifting of the corporate veil was only justified in exceptional circumstances. In his view, there were no such circumstances in the present case. Referring to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 21 October 2010 in Idryma Typou AE v. Ypourgos Typou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis (C\u201181/09, EU:C:2010:622), he argued that the impugned measure was likewise contrary to the fundamental principles of company law in the European Union. He invited the Court to apply the Vaskrsi\u0107 jurisprudence (Vaskrsi\u0107 v. Slovenia, no. 31371/12, 25 April 2017) and find a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, despite the fact that he had been relatively passive with regard to the destiny of L.E. and its outstanding debt. In the applicant\u2019s view, what was crucial was that he had not acted in bad faith. In this connection, he pointed out that he had attempted to have L.E. dissolved by instituting winding-up proceedings, but his attempt had failed because L.E. was not able to cover the related costs. The applicant further maintained that a fair balance between the and his property rights was upset by imposing on him the onus of demonstrating his \u201cpassive\u201d status. In any event, he emphasised that he had held a managerial position in company L.E. for only a couple of years. This was not sufficient, in his opinion, to hold him liable for debts of the company. The applicant concluded that the impugned measure was profoundly unfair because the Slovenian Railways had fully realised its claim, whereas he had been left with nothing. He had, therefore, been made to bear an excessive burden."], "id": "13c838a6-73ba-4f17-84bb-747c6545e4be", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["47. The applicant company further argued that the interference in question had not been proportionate, as it had failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the of the community and its own right to protection of its property rights. In particular, although it agreed with the Government that States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in implementing fiscal legislation, their discretion in that respect could not be considered to be limitless. In that connection it argued that it had had to bear an individual and excessive burden which upset the fair balance that had to be maintained between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the right of property. In particular, although the applicant company had complied with its VAT reporting obligations fully and in time, because of its supplier\u2019s failure to discharge its VAT reporting obligations in the same manner (a) it had still been denied the right to deduct the input VAT of BGN 3,610 (EUR 1,851); (b) it had then been ordered to pay the VAT of BGN 3,610 (EUR 1,851) a second time, but this time to the State budget; (c) it had additionally been ordered to pay interest of BGN 200.24 (EUR 102) on that amount; (d) the VAT it had paid to its supplier had not been recognised as a tax-deductible expense and corporate income tax had then been charged on it; (e) it had incurred additional court fees and expenses in challenging the tax assessment; (f) it had thus been unduly and severely sanctioned for an infringement by the supplier, which had in fact discharged its VAT reporting obligations, but with a slight delay; and (g) general uncertainty had arisen in the fiscal affairs of the applicant company because all its VAT supplies could similarly be compromised by the failure of a supplier to discharge its VAT reporting obligations. Moreover, the applicant company would have no knowledge of this until such time as the tax authorities refused to recognise the right to deduct the input VAT relating to a particular transaction."], "id": "5600a301-5aba-45c8-9909-5bcac8d86760", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["53. The Government argued that neither the provisions of Polish law nor of Protocol No. 1 imposed on the Polish authorities an obligation to change the character of the use of land by individual owners. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, States had a right to enforce such laws as they deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the . The applicants had bought a property designated for agricultural use and should have been aware that their ownership right had not encompassed the right to build a house there. They had been entitled to use or dispose of their plot only within the limits prescribed by the law, the principles of reasonable social co\u2011operation and the socio-economic purpose of ownership. The applicants\u2019 situation was therefore different from that in the case of Sporrong and L\u00f6nnroth v. Sweden (judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, \u00a7 11) in which restrictions were imposed on property in the centre of the capital city. The applicants\u2019 ownership had therefore not become precarious."], "id": "b57990e0-ed50-42de-9d12-9e7d6ab4c5ea", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["25. The Government pointed out that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her property was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. They concluded that, taking into consideration the interests of both the landlord and the tenant, the burden imposed on the applicant had not been excessive. The Government pointed out that the statutory measures had been taken in the to protect tenants, regard being had to the inner-city housing crisis and the difficulty in providing adequate housing for low-income tenants who have been evicted. "], "id": "8867fdb2-039e-4112-b7f7-fa4215d7048e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to protection of property had been based on law and pursued the of securing the collection of outstanding tax debts. It had moreover been necessary and proportionate in that the share held by the applicant had been attached for want of other seizable assets. In their view, the applicant had not been able to show that the attachment, in its value, had significantly exceeded the amount it had owed; therefore, the measure could not be regarded as excessive."], "id": "fb0fee3e-8961-4192-98b3-887afb4fb536", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government considered that the case was comparable to that of OGIS-Institut Stanislas, OGEC Saint-Pie X and Blanche de Castille and Others v. France (nos. 42219/98 and 54563/00, 27 May 2004), where the Court had found no violation because the interference was aimed at ensuring respect for the original will of the legislator, and where the Court had also given weight to the aim of re-establishing equal treatment between teachers in private and public establishments. In the present case too, the purpose of the legislature\u2019s intervention in enacting Law no. 296/2006 had been to ensure respect for the original will of the legislator, and to coordinate the application of the Italo-Swiss Convention and the new method of calculation which had come into force in 1982 and created an imbalance in the relevant evaluations. It followed that the interference was justified for a compelling reason."], "id": "146fe90f-1012-4d55-a7df-948e99cf98d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["60. The Government submitted that the measures complained of had pursued the legitimate aim of securing land in connection with the implementation of the local land development plan. As the Court acknowledged on many occasions, this corresponded to the of the community. The impugned measures had served the general interest as they had been intended to resolve the communications and environmental problems of the municipality of Milan\u00f3wek."], "id": "21b753f0-f457-4773-aed1-c1fd6932bc7e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicant maintained in particular that the interference complained of could not be justified in the of a democratic society as it placed the gardeners at an advantage without any justified reason. The owners had been unable to use the land for forty years and the relevant law had impaired their situation in that it had allowed the gardeners to continue benefiting from the land on conditions which were detrimental to the owners. In particular, the applicant alleged that the rent which the gardeners had been obliged to pay for the use of her land was negligible compared with the market rent which could be received for the land."], "id": "5063ab14-8263-4b26-b4bf-dc2d90bc38f9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["34. The Government claimed that the interference with the applicant\u2019s property rights had been lawful and justified. In particular, divesting the applicant of his right to the early-retirement pension had been provided for by law and was in the . There was also a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the interference and the interests pursued. In particular, the Government further submitted that the applicant had not been forced to resign from work in order to receive the EWK pension because he had been unemployed at the relevant time and that he undertook employment six days after the EWK pension had been revoked."], "id": "edbc2555-3a4d-4921-a4cb-385faa80d424", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["86. The Government reiterated the criteria set out by the Court for a measure to be qualified as State interference with the use of property, and stressed the State\u2019s considerable margin of appreciation. Concerning the legality of the UAR\u2019s decision of 27 June 1996, they submitted that the task of interpreting and applying domestic law lay primarily with the national courts, although the Court could intervene in cases of manifest abuse, a description which did not apply to the applicant\u2019s case. As to the legitimate aim of the measure, the Government asserted that the UAR\u2019s decision had been designed to promote the , having been intended to ensure that all the decisions concerning admission to and exclusion from the legal profession were made by the same competent body under the relevant legislation."], "id": "4afec984-6111-4354-9bfa-d4584a821679", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["61. The applicant further submitted that the interference was not proportionate to the . While it could be maintained that it had been in the general interest to provide accommodation for refugees, displaced persons or persons whose property had been destroyed in the war, these considerations were not applicable in the present case since V.P. did not fall within these categories. Rather, he had been awarded to run a restaurant in the applicant's property and, unlike the applicant, had been in no need for accommodation."], "id": "94522584-696a-40fd-a1a3-cc38adb618ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general interest", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["31. The applicants have not argued that the interference with their \u201cpossessions\u201d was not in accordance with the law, or that it did not pursue a legitimate aim in the public interest. The salient question is therefore whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the of the community and the applicants\u2019 rights (see Yavashev and Others, cited above, \u00a7 62)."], "id": "0e10e657-1b57-4657-8044-e7d434dcb148", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["45. The Government indicated that fourteen families had lived in the hostel. They had all belonged to socially unprotected groups of the population, for example, G., a single mother. The Government noted that Article 8 of the Convention imposed on the State, that is to say to take measures to protect an individual\u2019s rights to respect for private life and in particular housing (the Government cited mutatis mutandis, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, and Mente\u015f and Others v. Turkey, 28 November 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011VIII). The applicants had tried to create unsuitable living conditions in the hostel (for example, by cutting off the electricity) in order to evict the occupants. The prosecutor\u2019s office had concluded that the applicants had breached the occupants\u2019 right to respect for their homes, as indicated in its complaint to the court and its appeal against the decision of 23 January 2006. By having awarded the applicants adequate compensation, the courts had balanced their rights against the public interest. The Government further noted that the applicants had been deprived of their property in accordance with the law."], "id": "3872213c-48a0-4b64-af69-21a5bbde1ea0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["116. The applicants complained that the authorities had failed to comply with their to take appropriate measures to mitigate the risks to their lives against the natural hazards. The first applicant complained that the domestic authorities were responsible for the death of her husband in the mudslide of July 2000. She and the other applicants also complained that the domestic authorities were responsible for putting their lives at risk, as they had failed to discharge the State's positive obligations and had been negligent in the maintenance of the dam, in monitoring the hazardous area and in providing an emergency warning or taking other reasonable measures to mitigate the risk and the effects of the natural disaster. They also complained that they had had no redress, in particular they had not received adequate compensation in respect of their pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides:"], "id": "539ae78b-a17f-477a-9f99-0770377ecd79", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government admitted that the State might have an obligation to assist creditors in recovering their money from an insolvent debtor. However, it had fulfilled its by establishing an appropriate legal framework for insolvency procedures. Thus, special legislation (the 1992 and 1998 Acts) had been enacted in order to protect the interests of creditors. The legislation provided for the distribution of the assets of an insolvent company on a pari passu basis. Those Acts (sections 31 and 21 respectively) guaranteed the right of the creditor to complain to the court about actions or omissions on the part of the liquidator. The liquidator was personally accountable for his acts to the creditors. The 2002 Act went even further by requiring mandatory professional insurance for liquidators. The Government referred to the practice in several other member States where the liquidator was personally liable vis-\u00e0-vis the creditors of an insolvent company."], "id": "f8224fc2-5c5b-4feb-9a7f-45c675b57d97", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["66. The Government argued that the Chamber\u2019s conclusion that \u201call situations of unintentional death\u201d came within the scope of Article 2 had given rise to an unprecedented extension of the inherent in that provision. In their submission, the Chamber\u2019s reasoning departed from the position adopted by the Court in recent cases on the subject, such as Mastromatteo v. Italy ([GC], no. 37703/99, ECHR 2002-VIII), and was not supported by the cases to which it had referred, in particular Osman v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII) and Calvelli and Ciglio (cited above), in which no violation of Article 2 had been found."], "id": "b6f5ef84-79ae-4617-9861-75b2678a99ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["157. The applicant considered that the State had failed to provide him with access to information in violation of his rights under Article 8. The Court observes that, in addition to the primarily negative undertakings in Article 8 of the Convention, there may be inherent in effective respect for private life. In determining whether or not such a positive obligation exists, it will have regard to the fair balance that has to be struck"], "id": "a534c247-aea3-444d-8cdf-d12b7cead1f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["34. The applicant noted that the State had under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, \u00a7\u00a7 109-113, 3 April 2012). He further asserted that the failure to adopt the necessary legal mechanisms with a view to implementing section 43 of the Mining Act had constituted an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions because his right to be exempt from electricity and gas payments had been breached."], "id": "db53b80f-f89b-4d30-a5d6-a4c10e5fb8a8", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["76. The applicants contested these arguments, considering that the measures referred to by the Government had had no practical effect on their situation. Furthermore, they argued that the Sofia City Court had interfered with MTFU\u2019s corporate affairs in an arbitrary manner and in blatant disregard of the applicable legal provisions and of the requirements of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention for it to be fair, independent and impartial, and to uphold the rule of law. After that, the courts and the authorities had not only made possible, but had also tolerated and sanctioned \u2013 at one point in breach of the interim injunction issued by the Sofia District Court \u2013 the unlawful actions of the new management of the company, which had, amongst other things, resolved to cancel all existing shares and MTFU\u2019s company register and had thus extinguished the applicants\u2019 shareholdings in the company. Despite the numerous complaints lodged by the applicants, neither the prosecuting nor any other authorities had intervened to prevent that from happening. As for the courts, instead of reacting swiftly to the legal challenges brought by the applicants, they had taken an unreasonably long time to examine them, disregarding the very high stakes involved. Those developments had had a negative effect on MTFU, which had been a successful, growing company before July 1999. As a result of the actions of the new management, it had, in fact, stopped functioning. As of 2010 it had retained only two employees and had declared losses. All of that had amounted to a serious breach of the State\u2019s negative and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."], "id": "4ae9a0c6-82f6-407b-b20f-3a7f87b8406e", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["47. The Government further argued that if each creditor had been allowed to act individually in order to collect his or her debt, that would inevitably have led to the insolvent local authority becoming paralysed and to a haphazard situation where only the most powerful or best assisted creditors could collect their debt. In the Government\u2019s submission, the difficulty in collecting the debt had not been attributable to the authorities\u2019 action, but to a purely factual situation beyond the State\u2019s control, resulting from the financial failure of the local authority. The State, in intervening through the insolvency procedure, had sought to secure to all creditors an equal treatment in the collection of their debts and therefore to fulfil its ."], "id": "3937d1d0-43ce-401d-a6a9-dd65c7e61b7b", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["75. The Government further argued that the decision to sell the applicant\u2019s share in the property had not been disproportionate given the circumstances, having particular regard to the rights of the enforcement creditor I.M. and related the State owed him on the one hand, and the applicant\u2019s conduct during the enforcement proceedings on the other. In this connection, they first highlighted that I.M.\u2019s claims against the applicant stemmed from final judicial decisions (see paragraphs 7-9 above) and as such represented possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It was the State\u2019s obligation under the Convention to make use of all available legal means at its disposal in order to enforce those decisions. In discharging that positive obligation, the State had been faced with disruptive conduct on the part of the applicant, who had done everything to avoid, or at least delay paying the debt as long as possible. That was evident from the fact that he had only commenced settling the debt after the first public auction had been scheduled, that is, three years after the enforcement proceedings had been instituted (see paragraphs 10 and 15-16 above). The Government found it implausible that during those three years the applicant had not had enough means to settle the debt and then, when the enforcement had reached its final stages, and when it had become certain that his share in the property would be sold, he had suddenly paid a large portion of the debt within a few months. Even when he had started settling the debt, the applicant had not respected the self-imposed time-limits, but had spread out the payments so that they had occurred after the enforcement court had already undertaken the next step in the proceedings, closer to the full satisfaction of the creditor\u2019s claim. The crucial proof of this bad faith was that only after his share in the property had been sold had the applicant paid off the debt in full, save for the costs of the proceedings (see paragraphs 21-23 above)."], "id": "754e9f4b-2152-4c65-a61e-3d4b7b85634f", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "positive obligations", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["38. The Government submitted that the circumstances of the case should be examined in the light of their complexity, the conduct of the applicants and that of the authorities. They further advocated that the domestic authorities had fulfilled their to ensure the enforcement of the final judgment in favour of the applicants. They also argued that on 5 September 2003 the company became the subject of insolvency proceedings and it could no longer fulfil its obligations in respect of the applicants. The Government submitted that the State did not have shares or other forms of participation in the debtor company and therefore could not be held responsible for its debts. They pointed out that the bailiff had taken reasonable steps and had even seized and auctioned the company\u2019s assets; however, the auctions had later been annulled at the request of third companies."], "id": "e21fc5a0-e9dc-4bad-9c32-9d3b1e98f769", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "82936d7e-d685-43db-868a-d6c66b30d961", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "7d82a790-54ca-40df-ad76-206977d91f48", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["73. The applicants took the view that the impugned measure had not been taken \u201csubject to the conditions provided for by law\u201d. They observed that, within the meaning of the Court\u2019s settled case-law, the notion of \u201clawfulness\u201d necessarily implied the of the legal consequences of the provision in question and that such foreseeability had been lacking in the present case. In this connection they first asserted that the Latvian authorities had not applied the ordinary procedure provided for by the General Expropriation Act, under which compensation had to be determined by agreement and to correspond to the value of the expropriated property, and, secondly, that the final sum had not been decided by the competent court but by the State Land Authority."], "id": "8d30f396-c331-495a-8145-ab1abbf90347", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["115. The applicant company submitted that the refusal to allocate it any broadcasting frequencies amounted to interference with the exercise of its rights under Article 10 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan, cited above, and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov, cited above). The interference had not been prescribed by law, as required by the Convention, on account of the un of the transitional legislation passed by the national parliament. The applicant company further pointed out that the Italian courts had applied the legislation in question and had found that compensation should be calculated with effect from 1 December 2004, contrary to what the ECJ had held in its judgment."], "id": "e122da6d-09d6-488b-8ba0-7390b995e1cc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants contended that, contrary to the respondent Government\u2019s assertions, the deceased, Ms Polikseni Pistika, had owned the immovable property in question since the Turkish courts had issued her a certificate of inheritance and all three buildings had been registered in her name at the local land registry office upon payment of the requisite tax. Polikseni had only been deprived of her property following unlawful confiscation by the Turkish authorities on the basis of a secret Government decree of 1964 which had already been annulled in 1988. Thus, the confiscation of the property of Polikseni had been illegal, arbitrary and abusive even under the domestic law of Turkey. Furthermore, the annulment of the certificate of inheritance had not met the requirements of precision and implied by the concept of law within the meaning of the Convention. Had it not been for this unlawful act and the respondent Government\u2019s continuous reliance on reciprocity, the applicants would have inherited the property in question as the sole heirs of Polikseni."], "id": "9b2a47a8-7682-4d0a-97c2-48988676d467", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["109. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "6193fe48-0c6f-4dbf-98ef-92dc13301841", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government claimed that in any event the damage to the applicant's property was lawful, as section 21 of the Law on Suppression of Terrorism \u201cpermits the deliberate inflicting of damage on legally-protected interests, including property rights\u201d. In the Government's submission, the legal act had been duly published and therefore met the requirements of clarity, accessibility and . They also insisted that the interference in question had pursed a legitimate aim, as the counter-terrorist operation had been launched in order to suppress criminal and terrorist activity, ensure security of individuals, and protect their rights and freedoms."], "id": "72f630ec-8f95-447b-b08b-6f1c9676feec", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["289. The Government pointed out, first of all, that the relevant applicants had not adduced any documents proving their title to the houses, or any detailed description of the property allegedly lost by them. The Government argued that it was incumbent on the relevant applicants to have their property rights confirmed under domestic law by the competent national authorities. They further argued that the alleged interference with the relevant applicants\u2019 rights secured by Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been lawful, as the counter-terrorism operation in the Chechen Republic, in the context of which the strikes of 19 October 1999 had been executed, had been launched and carried out on the basis of Presidential Decrees nos. 2137, 2166 and 2155c of 30 November and 9 December 1994 and 23 September 1999 respectively, Governmental Decree no. 1360 of 9 December 1994, and the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998. In the Government\u2019s submission, the aforementioned decrees, except for certain provisions, had been found compatible with the Russian Constitution by the Russian Constitutional Court. The Government insisted that all the aforementioned legal instruments had met the requirements of and accessibility."], "id": "2167b899-26c0-45ad-b14f-2900cb81661d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["143. The Government insisted that the applicants had had at their disposal effective domestic remedies as they could have claimed compensation from the State under the Civil Code. Compensation so awarded had to be paid from the federal budget and could not be at the respondent authority\u2019s expense. Referring to the Constitutional Court\u2019s and the Supreme Court\u2019s position (see paragraphs 96-97 and 101 above), the Government maintained that the exclusion of the present cases from the Compensation Act did not prevent the applicants from using the Civil Code provisions, which complied with the requirements of clarity, and certainty. Thus, the applicant Ms Kostyleva obtained two judgments by the domestic court acknowledging unlawful inaction on the part of the respondent administration and awarding substantial compensation in that regard (see paragraphs 82 and 84. above). The Government also provided three similar decisions by the courts of general jurisdiction awarding compensation for non-enforcement of judgments against the State authorities concerning the provision of housing: the judgment of 6 June 2008 by the Nevskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg awarding RUB 30,000 to each applicant for an enforcement delay of eight years, the judgment of 19 April 2012 by the Syktyvkar Town Court awarding RUB 35,000 for an enforcement delay of four years, and the judgment of 1 September 2010 by the Iglinskiy District Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan awarding RUB 50,000 to each applicant for an enforcement delay of five years. The courts justified their awards by reference to the Constitution, the Convention and the Court\u2019s case-law."], "id": "6e30b5bb-e0fa-4f44-a471-7ba45b3fa274", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government went on to argue that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions in the present case were fully in accordance with the law, as they had both been in line with the relevant provisions of the Enforcement Act and had met the Convention standards of lawfulness in terms of , precision and accessibility. They rejected the applicant\u2019s argument that after 2 May 2011, when he had made the last payment, the enforcement court should have discontinued the enforcement proceedings (see paragraph 69 above). In their view, the court could not have done so because the applicant\u2019s share in the property had already been sold before that date, on 17 March 2011 when the second public auction had been held (see paragraph 21 above). It was then that the applicant had lost his share in the property and the enforcement had essentially been completed. The decisions rendered later had only represented implementation or \u201ctechnical\u201d rulings, aimed at formally ending the proceedings. The applicant, who had been represented by an advocate throughout the enforcement proceedings, must have been aware of that. In fact, according to the Government, he himself did not contest that his share in the property had already been sold at the second auction, but tried to argue why the enforcement court should have nevertheless, after he had paid the debt in full, discontinued the proceedings and ordered restitution."], "id": "2697ab60-4529-4a92-9296-afb11f17d0e5", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "foreseeability", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of and accessibility required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "aecf7407-40e9-465c-b5aa-a1c621dae86d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["166. The applicants complained that the authorities' failure to maintain the mud-defence infrastructure, to monitor the hazardous area, to provide an emergency warning or to take other reasonable measures to mitigate the risk and the effects of the natural disaster also constituted a violation of their right to . They complained, in particular, that they had not received adequate compensation in respect of their losses. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides:"], "id": "1fd194ed-ff5b-4aae-b3ca-4acdbdc914ed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["74. The applicant further alleged that in its decision of 12 November 1996 the Kaunas City Municipality had unlawfully reduced the size and modified the location of the plot of land assigned to him. In particular, he contended that on 17 November 1992 the Kaunas City Board had restored his property rights to 1/12 of the plot of land adjacent to the disputed premises, measuring 1,288 sq. m. However, the aforementioned decision of 12 November 1996 specified that the overall size of the plot in question was 950 sq. m. The applicant invoked the right to the under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention."], "id": "2aedb702-b3bc-462b-8533-a0ed9379cf48", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["49. The Government submitted further that the interference with the applicant\u2019s property rights was in proportion to the legitimate aim sought to be realised. The issue of the proportionality of the 1993 Act had been discussed at length in the Standing Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament as well as in its Standing Legal Affairs Committee. They had emphasised the need to give due consideration to the provided for in the 1919 Constitution, meaning above all that the weakening of the creditors\u2019 position, although inevitable, should not lead to unreasonable results. It was noted that a private individual was not released from his or her liability to reimburse a debt even when declared bankrupt. The effects of debt adjustment on the position of creditors therefore had to be assessed in the light of their ability to obtain payment from the debtor\u2019s future income and assets. As the debt would be reduced and the debtor freed from his or her liability to reimburse a debt only where debt adjustment by other means was not possible, such an adjustment would not in reality weaken the position of creditors."], "id": "7b782153-29e0-4a26-8a8a-44565fa3a03a", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["14. The Government submitted that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to had been based on law and pursued the general interest of securing the collection of outstanding tax debts. It had moreover been necessary and proportionate in that the share held by the applicant had been attached for want of other seizable assets. In their view, the applicant had not been able to show that the attachment, in its value, had significantly exceeded the amount it had owed; therefore, the measure could not be regarded as excessive."], "id": "39ba6ebd-f7c4-46ba-8dc1-cafed09a8552", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["53. The applicant contested that submission, arguing that by complaining about a breach of his human rights and the unlawful seizure of the car in the criminal proceedings, he had in substance complained also about an unlawful interference with his possessions. Furthermore, there was nothing in the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision to suggest that it had not dealt with the right to ."], "id": "fbe1766c-8478-457e-8699-3cee8c2e7eed", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "protection of property", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["103. The Government submitted that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guaranteed the which was in an individual\u2019s lawful possession. The mere fact that Land Certificates no. 30020006 and no. 300200006 had been issued in Mr Zhigalev\u2019s name did not suffice for him to be considered as the lawful owner of the plots of 30.9 and 315 hectares of land."], "id": "c3cfd557-693b-48e1-9792-1a4a4f185f0c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general principles of international law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["23. The applicant argued that the interference with his property rights could not be justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The policies of the \u201cTRNC\u201d could not furnish a legitimate aim since the establishment of the \u201cTRNC\u201d was an illegitimate act condemned by the Security Council. For the same reason, the interference could not be found to be in accordance with the law and the . Nor had the interference been proportionate. The need to re-house displaced Turkish Cypriots could not justify the complete negation of the applicant\u2019s property rights. This conclusion was reinforced by evidence showing that much of the property taken from Greek Cypriots had been used to house settlers from mainland Turkey."], "id": "d78f4c1b-debd-4bc5-a898-48380319f52d", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general principles of international law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["27. The applicants argued that the policies of the \u201cTRNC\u201d could not furnish a legitimate aim since the establishment of the \u201cTRNC\u201d was an illegitimate act that had been condemned by the UN Security Council. For the same reason, the interference could not be found to have been in accordance with the law and the . Nor had it been proportionate. The need to rehouse displaced Turkish-Cypriots could not justify the complete negation of their property rights."], "id": "c3da51df-e092-4976-960c-8f1f21db9585", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "general principles of international law", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["64. The applicants argued that the interference with their property rights could not be justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The policies of the \u201cTRNC\u201d could not furnish a legitimate aim since the establishment of the \u201cTRNC\u201d had been an illegitimate act condemned by the UN Security Council. For the same reason, the interference could not be found to be in accordance with the law and the . Nor had it been proportionate. The need to rehouse displaced Turkish Cypriots could not justify the complete negation of the applicants' property rights. This conclusion was reinforced by the existence of evidence that much of the property taken from Greek Cypriots had been used to house settlers from mainland Turkey. In particular, the applicants' properties had not been used to house displaced Turkish Cypriots from the south, as since 1974 Famagusta had become a ghost town."], "id": "1cc44aff-dbe7-4237-be0e-ef5bf436b0fc", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "secure the payment of taxes", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["28. The Government submitted that the application was manifestly ill-founded. They accepted that charging VAT to the applicant constituted interference with the applicant\u2019s property rights. However, this interference was justified under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, providing that the States should not be prevented from enforcing such laws as they deem necessary to control the use of property in the public interest and to ."], "id": "aed2bed2-3c1f-471d-8401-8bd97121d388", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "secure the payment of taxes", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["78. The Government maintained that the relevant legislation regulating the use of prisoners\u2019 money was compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They argued that that provision did not impair the right of States to adopt such laws as they deemed necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to and other contributions or penalties."], "id": "9deb2618-6426-407d-85f4-bdad5dd03dd7", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "secure the payment of taxes", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["37. The Government considered that the interference amounted to a control of the use of property to , that it thus fell under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it was compatible with that Article in so far as the measure was lawful and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued."], "id": "c214729c-dc17-417b-a192-61f8f2aca5f0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["106. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "e5dba470-1321-4a4e-b456-83b3d7f442de", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["110. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "98968b4e-9945-4b18-935e-6b27b481f470", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["289. The Government pointed out, first of all, that the relevant applicants had not adduced any documents proving their title to the houses, or any detailed description of the property allegedly lost by them. The Government argued that it was incumbent on the relevant applicants to have their property rights confirmed under domestic law by the competent national authorities. They further argued that the alleged interference with the relevant applicants\u2019 rights secured by Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been lawful, as the counter-terrorism operation in the Chechen Republic, in the context of which the strikes of 19 October 1999 had been executed, had been launched and carried out on the basis of Presidential Decrees nos. 2137, 2166 and 2155c of 30 November and 9 December 1994 and 23 September 1999 respectively, Governmental Decree no. 1360 of 9 December 1994, and the Suppression of Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998. In the Government\u2019s submission, the aforementioned decrees, except for certain provisions, had been found compatible with the Russian Constitution by the Russian Constitutional Court. The Government insisted that all the aforementioned legal instruments had met the requirements of foreseeability and ."], "id": "fad42ca0-0671-4662-a230-fc5a07b2036c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["118. The Government claimed that in any event the damage to the applicant's property was lawful, as section 21 of the Law on Suppression of Terrorism \u201cpermits the deliberate inflicting of damage on legally-protected interests, including property rights\u201d. In the Government's submission, the legal act had been duly published and therefore met the requirements of clarity, and foreseeability. They also insisted that the interference in question had pursed a legitimate aim, as the counter-terrorist operation had been launched in order to suppress criminal and terrorist activity, ensure security of individuals, and protect their rights and freedoms."], "id": "c76f061f-8335-402f-bc3a-9de7fb985d6c", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["109. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "8c46394a-d6a4-4c9c-be2b-e8bc45e043d0", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["100. The Government of Cyprus submitted that the applicant had been wrongly tried for acts which did not amount to offences under national or international law, and which in any event failed to meet the standards of foreseeability and required by the Convention (see G. v. France, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 325-B), in violation of Article 7 of the Convention."], "id": "b8ad23cc-c09c-48e5-9e9a-cdf3aa8a7cc9", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["57. The Government submitted that the court\u2019s decision on costs in a final judgment depended on the outcome of the proceedings, in particular the extent to which the applicant had won the case. They submitted that the applicant had claimed compensation of a very significant amount, although a party to civil proceedings who requests exemption from court fees is obliged to bring claims of a balanced amount. Relying on the Court\u2019s case Kupiec v. Poland (no. 16828/02, 3 February 2009), the Government argued that applicants who deliberately inflate the value of their claims for compensation cannot be expected to be exempted entirely from the payment of court fees or from the requirement to contribute a reasonable amount toward the costs of taking the action. They stressed that the applicant\u2019s success in the proceedings amounted to only six and a half per cent of his claim. The decision on court fees met the requirements of transparency, predictability and ."], "id": "d1eb5640-8a09-4ddd-900a-6bcb3ee3d434", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"} +{"obj_label": "accessibility", "echr_article": "P1-1", "masked_sentences": ["74. The Government went on to argue that the domestic courts\u2019 decisions in the present case were fully in accordance with the law, as they had both been in line with the relevant provisions of the Enforcement Act and had met the Convention standards of lawfulness in terms of foreseeability, precision and . They rejected the applicant\u2019s argument that after 2 May 2011, when he had made the last payment, the enforcement court should have discontinued the enforcement proceedings (see paragraph 69 above). In their view, the court could not have done so because the applicant\u2019s share in the property had already been sold before that date, on 17 March 2011 when the second public auction had been held (see paragraph 21 above). It was then that the applicant had lost his share in the property and the enforcement had essentially been completed. The decisions rendered later had only represented implementation or \u201ctechnical\u201d rulings, aimed at formally ending the proceedings. The applicant, who had been represented by an advocate throughout the enforcement proceedings, must have been aware of that. In fact, according to the Government, he himself did not contest that his share in the property had already been sold at the second auction, but tried to argue why the enforcement court should have nevertheless, after he had paid the debt in full, discontinued the proceedings and ordered restitution."], "id": "70ce8171-cb76-4514-a7b5-2614541fe769", "sub_label": "ECtHR_Terminology"}