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
- Albania 1
- Austria 1
- Azerbaijan 2
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 3
- Bulgaria 5
- Croatia 5
- Denmark 1
- Estonia 1
- Finland 2
- Georgia 4
- Germany 3
- Greece 1
- Kuwait 1
- Latvia 8
- Lebanon 1
- Malta 1
- Netherlands 2
- Nigeria 1
- North Macedonia 2
- Palestine, State of 2
- Romania 4
- Russian Federation 11
- Serbia 5
- Slovenia 4
- Sweden 2
- Syrian Arab Republic 2
- Uzbekistan 2
|
CASE OF ALPEYEVA AND DZHALAGONIYA v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 7549/09 and 33330/11)
Due to the authorities mishandling of procedures related to the granting of citizenship, the applicants had found themselves not only in a situation comparable to that in the Smirnova case, but also faced consequences affecting their social identity far more fundamentally as they had been deprived of any legal status in Russia. They had become stateless persons and remained so until 2010 and 2013 respectively. It had taken the authorities from 2007 until 2013 for the general problem to be solved. Since the authorities’ oversight had resulted in consequences for the applicants so severely affecting their private life, it amounted to an arbitrary interference. The authorities had thus failed to act diligently. 12 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Passports - Statelessness | Countries: Russian Federation |
|
CASE OF MAINOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 11556/17)
detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the ground of detention relied on by the Government; the place and conditions of detention should be appropriate; and the length of the detention should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued 15 May 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 - Statelessness | Countries: Russian Federation |
|
CASE OF HOTI v. CROATIA (Application no. 63311/14)
failure to regularize the residence status of a stateless migrant for many years considered violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) 26 April 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1954 Statelessness Convention | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Right to a nationality - Statelessness | Countries: Albania - Croatia - Serbia |
|
CASE OF MSKHILADZE v. RUSSIA (Application no. 47741/16)
- detention arbitrary since it should have been clear to the authorities that removal was impracticable - violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a possibility to take proceedings for review of the continued detention 13 February 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 - Statelessness | Countries: Russian Federation |
|
M.M. c. Bulgarie
8 June 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Immigration Detention - National security / Public order - Right to liberty and security - Statelessness | Countries: Bulgaria - Palestine, State of |
|
Mihhailov v. Estonia
30 August 2016 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Police - Prison or detention conditions - Statelessness | Countries: Estonia |
|
Ramadan v. Malta
On 21 June, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgement in Ramadan v. Malta, a case concerning the revocation of Maltese citizenship that rendered the applicant stateless. The Court did not find any violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but noted that arbitrary revocation of citizenship can in certain circumstances be problematic under Article 8 because of its impact on the right to private life. Judge Pinto de Albuquerque’s dissenting opinion called on the Court to recognize the right to citizenship as an autonomous right under the ECHR and referenced to UNHCR’s Global Action Plan to End Statelessness. A request to refer the case to the Grand Chamber is currently pending. 21 June 2016 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Statelessness | Countries: Malta |
|
Mukhitdinov v. Russia
21 May 2015 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Statelessness - Withdrawal of nationality | Countries: Russian Federation - Uzbekistan |
|
Petropavlovskis v. Latvia
13 January 2015 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Denial of nationality - Effective remedy - Freedom of assembly and association - Freedom of expression - Naturalization - Persecution based on political opinion - Rights of non-citizens - Statelessness | Countries: Latvia |
|
Adeishvili (Mazmishvili) v. Russia
16 October 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to family life - Statelessness | Countries: Georgia - Russian Federation |
