Last Updated: Friday, 01 November 2019, 13:47 GMT
Refworld Home

Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights

The Court, based in Strasbourg, was set up as a result of the European Convention on Human Rights, created in 1950. This set out a catalogue of civil and political rights and freedoms. It allows people to lodge complaints against States which have signed up to the Convention for alleged violations of those rights. Although founded in 1950, the Court did not actually come into existence until 1959. It gained its present form as a single European Court of Human Rights when Protocol No. 11 to the ECHR took effect in 1998.

The Court is currently made up of 47 judges, one in principle for every State signed up to the Convention. They are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and serve for six years. Judges sit on the Court as individuals and do not represent their country.  Website: www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 94 results
CASE OF G.B. AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Application no. 4633/15)

The Court further notes that the move in international law towards adopting alternative measures to the administrative detention of migrants appears to concern not only children, but also their parents. violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the failure of both the Istanbul Magistrates’ Court and the Constitutional Court to conduct a review of the lawfulness of their detention in an effective and speedy manner. The Court notes, once again, that the review mechanism set out under Law no. 6458 appears to be wholly ineffective in a case, such as the present one, where the detention of a minor in the immigration context is not based on an administrative decision.

17 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Russian Federation - Turkey

H.A. et autres c. Grece (application no. 19951/16)

The case concerns the arrest of the applicants, nine unaccompanied minors, and their placement in different police stations in northern Greece and in the Diavata centre. The Court found violations of articles 3 on the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (no violation on living conditions), violation of article 13 on the right to an effective remedy and a violation of article 5 (1) and (4) on the right to liberty and security, right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of a detention measure.

28 February 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Greece - Iraq - Morocco - Syrian Arab Republic

CASE OF KHANH v. CYPRUS (Application no. 43639/12)

4 December 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Cyprus - Viet Nam

CASE OF BATYRKHAIROV v. TURKEY (69929/12)

5 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Kazakhstan - Turkey

J.R. and Others v. Greece (AFFAIRE J.R. ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE)

The Court found in particular that the applicants had been deprived of their liberty for their first month in the centre, until 21 April 2016 when it became a semi-open centre. The Court was nevertheless of the view that the one-month period of detention, whose aim had been to guarantee the possibility of removing the applicants under the EU-Turkey Declaration, was not arbitrary and could not be regarded as “unlawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f). However, the applicants had not been appropriately informed about the reasons for their arrest or the remedies available in order to challenge that detention.

25 January 2018

Time Exceeded

Your action exceeded the time limit.