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 1
- Asylum-seekers 1
- Bail 1
- Children's rights 1
- Criminal justice 4
- Decision on admissibility 1
- Deportation / Forcible return 2
- Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) 1
- Expulsion 1
- Family law 1
- Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment 1
- Freedom of movement 1
- Immigration Detention 1
- Independence of judiciary 1
- Legal representation / Legal aid 1
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) 1
- Persons with disabilities 1
- Prevention of discrimination 3
- Residence permits / Residency 4
- Right to family life 6
- Right to justice 1
- Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness 4
- Safe country of origin 1
- Sexual and reproductive rights 1
- Single procedure 1
|
CASE OF BISTIEVA AND OTHERS v. POLAND (Application no. 75157/14)
violation of article 8 - child’s best interests cannot be confined to keeping the family together - detention is mesure of last resort -consideration should be given to alternative measures - detention of minors called for greater speed and diligence on the part of the authorities 10 April 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 - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Poland - Russian Federation |
|
Gorny v. Poland
8 June 2010 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Poland |
|
Kozak v. Poland
2 March 2010 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Family law - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Right to family life | Countries: Poland |
|
Adamkiewicz c. Pologne
2 March 2010 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Independence of judiciary - Legal representation / Legal aid | Countries: Poland |
|
Muskhadzhiyeva et autres c. Belgique
19 January 2010 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Children's rights - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Safe country of origin - Single procedure | Countries: Russian Federation |
|
A.E. v. Poland
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. 31 March 2009 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Freedom of movement - Right to family life - Right to justice | Countries: Libya - Poland |
|
Tysiac v. Poland
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. 20 March 2007 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Persons with disabilities - Sexual and reproductive rights | Countries: Poland |
|
Niedzwiecki v. Germany
15 February 2006 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Prevention of discrimination - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Germany - Poland |
|
Okpisz v. Germany
Final judgment: 15 February 2006. Similar to: Niedzwiecki v. Germany, Final judgment of 25 October 2005, Appl. No. 58453/00 Facts: The applicants in both cases are immigrants, in possession of residence permits for exceptional purposes. Their requests for child benefits were rejected as they were not in possession of unlimited residence permits or provisional residence permits, as required by law. In the Niedzwiecki case all appeals in the domestic proceedings were rejected. In the Okpisz case the applicant?s appeal was suspended after the Social Court of Appeal had referred some pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court. In a judgment of 6 July 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residential permit lacked sufficient justification. After that decision, the applicant?s appeal was again suspended pending the amendment of the applicable legislation. Complaint before the Court: The applicants complained that the German authority?s refusal of child benefits amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Legal Argumentation: The Court held that granting child benefits come within the scope of respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR and therefore Article 14 ? taken together with Article 8 ECHR ? is applicable. The Court found no ?objective and reasonable justification? for the applicants to be treated differently (para. 32 of Niedzwiecki v. Germany and para. 33 of Okpisz v. Germany) Therefore the Court found a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. 25 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland |
|
Gordyeyev v. Poland
3 May 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility | Countries: Belarus - Poland |
