Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights
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
- Arbitrary arrest and detention 5
- Armed forces / Military 2
- Armed groups / Militias / Paramilitary forces / Resistance movements 2
- Asylum-seekers 2
- Azeri 1
- Belarusians 2
- Burden of proof 1
- Chechen 1
- Christian 8
- Civil and political rights 2
- Complementary forms of protection 1
- Country of origin information (COI) 9
- Credibility assessment 4
- Criminal justice 7
- Decision on admissibility 7
- Deportation / Forcible return 22
- Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity 1
- Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) 2
- Expulsion 7
- Extradition 1
- Extrajudicial executions 1
- Family law 1
- Family reunification 1
- Female genital mutilation (FGM) 1
- Forced marriage 4
- Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment 28
- HIV and AIDS 2
- Honour killings 3
- Human rights activists 1
- Human rights and fundamental freedoms 1
- Illegitimate children 1
- Immigration Detention 2
- Immigration law 1
- Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) 12
- Kurd 1
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) 4
- Mental health 6
- Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription 3
- Muslim 2
- National security / Public order 1
- Non-state agents of persecution 1
- Persecution based on political opinion 15
- Persecution of family members 2
- Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity 3
- Persons with disabilities 1
- Physical harm 1
- Political parties 2
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 2
- Prison or detention conditions 1
- Prosecution vs persecution 1
- Public health 2
- Refoulement 1
- Refugees 2
- Regional instruments 4
- Religious discrimination 1
- Religious persecution (including forced conversion) 4
- Residence permits / Residency 2
- Right to family life 6
- Right to health 1
- Right to justice 2
- Right to liberty and security 2
- Right to life 7
- Rights of non-citizens 1
- Roma 1
- Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness 1
- Sabean Mandean 2
- Security situation 4
- Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) 3
- Sharia law 1
- Social group discrimination 1
- State protection 3
- Statelessness 2
- Sunni 2
- Sur place persecution 1
- Terrorism 1
- Threats / Intimidation 3
- Torture 1
- Tutsis 1
- Uighur 1
- Unlawful departure 2
- Visas 2
- Well-founded fear of persecution 1
- Women's rights 1
- Women-at-risk 1
|
Bello v. Sweden
17 January 2006 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Forced marriage - Illegitimate children | Countries: Nigeria - Sweden |
|
Bader and Others v. Sweden
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. 8 November 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: Sweden - Syrian Arab Republic |
|
Hukic v. Sweden
27 September 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Deportation / Forcible return - Persons with disabilities | Countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina - Sweden |
|
Matsiukhina and Matsiukhin v. Sweden
21 June 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Belarus - Sweden |
|
Hussein Mossi v. Sweden
8 March 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - Sweden |
|
Najafi v. Sweden
6 July 2004 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - Sweden |
|
Salkic and Others v. Sweden
29 June 2004 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility | Countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina - Sweden |
|
Ndangoya v. Sweden
22 June 2004 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Visas | Countries: Sweden - Tanzania, United Republic of |
|
Nasimi v. Sweden
16 March 2004 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Visas | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - Sweden |
|
Lagerblom v. Sweden
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. The applicant is a Finnish national who settled in Sweden in the 1980s. In February 1993, he was charged with a criminal offence. He was convicted in May 1994. The sentence was confirmed in appeal in June 1995. During the whole procedure, the applicant, for whom a lawyer was appointed, spoke in Finnish and submitted documents in Finnish. He also wanted to be represented by a different lawyer, one who understood Finnish. Before the Court he complained on the basis of Art. 6 § 3 of the ECHR, that he was not allowed to be defended by a lawyer of his choice. As a consequence his appointed lawyer, who did not or understand speak Finnish, could not carry out his duties properly. The Court started by saying that the right to chose one's lawyer was not absolute, notably when free legal aid is concerned. In appointing lawyers domestic courts should have regard to the wishes of the accused but these can be overridden when necessary for the interests of justice. In this case, the Court noted that the applicant's command of Swedish was sufficient to communicate with his lawyer and that in any case interpretation was provided during the hearings and when submitting documents in Finnish. For all these reasons, the Court decided that there was no breach of Art. 6 § 3 of the ECHR. 14 April 2003 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Countries: Finland - Sweden |
