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
- Access to procedures 3
- Alevis 1
- Anti-terrorism law 4
- Appeal / Right to appeal 3
- Arbitrary arrest and detention 13
- Armed groups / Militias / Paramilitary forces / Resistance movements 26
- Asylum-seekers 4
- Blood feuds 1
- Chechen 2
- Children's rights 2
- Christian 2
- Citizenship / Nationality law 2
- Civil and political rights 4
- Crime prevention 1
- Criminal justice 39
- Death penalty 1
- Decision on admissibility 4
- Deportation / Forcible return 27
- Disappeared persons 2
- Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity 7
- Domestic violence 2
- Effective protection 1
- Effective remedy 28
- Elections 1
- Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) 4
- Exhaustion of domestic remedies 2
- Expulsion 10
- Extradition 4
- Extrajudicial executions 1
- Family reunification 2
- Forced marriage 1
- Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment 50
- Freedom of assembly and association 10
- Freedom of conscience 4
- Freedom of expression 17
- Freedom of movement 3
- Freedom of religion 4
- Freedom of speech 1
- Gender discrimination 1
- Habitual residence 1
- Housing, land and property rights (HLP) 2
- Human rights and fundamental freedoms 3
- Human rights courts 1
- Human rights law 2
- Human rights monitors 1
- Illegal entry 2
- Immigration Detention 21
- Immigration law 3
- Independence of judiciary 1
- Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) 1
- Jehovah's Witness 1
- Kurd 7
- Legal representation / Legal aid 9
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) 2
- Mental health 3
- Military courts 2
- Military law 1
- Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription 6
- Minorities 1
- Muslim 1
- National security / Public order 1
- Non-refoulement 3
- Non-self-governing territories 2
- Non-state agents of persecution 1
- Persecution based on class/wealth/occupation 1
- Persecution based on political opinion 2
- Persecution of family members 1
- Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity 2
- Police 5
- Political groups 5
- Political parties 8
- Political situation 2
- Pre-trial detention 21
- Prison or detention conditions 19
- Prosecution vs persecution 3
- Protestant 1
- Public health 2
- Racial / Ethnic persecution 1
- Racism / Xenophobia / Hate Crimes 1
- Re-entry 1
- Refoulement 2
- Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures 1
- Refugees 11
- Regional instruments 4
- Registration 3
- Rejection at border 1
- Religious discrimination 1
- Religious persecution (including forced conversion) 2
- Residence permits / Residency 7
- Right to education 2
- Right to family life 16
- Right to health 2
- Right to justice 8
- Right to liberty and security 31
- Right to life 8
- Roma 1
- Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness 9
- Safe third country 1
- Security forces 2
- Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) 3
- Social group discrimination 1
- Social group persecution 1
- State protection 1
- Terrorism 17
- Torture 1
- Transit 1
- Treaties / Agreements / Charters / Protocols / Conventions / Declarations 2
- UNHCR mandate 1
- Uighur 1
- Visas 1
- Witnesses 2
|
CASE OF SHENTURK AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 41326/17 and other applications
– see appended list)
10 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Extradition - Non-refoulement | Countries: Azerbaijan - Türkiye |
|
AFFAIRE E.K. c. GRÈCE
Although the applicant, who had entered Greece illegally, had benefited from satisfactory conditions of detention, the review of the lawfulness of his detention had been inadequate 15 January 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Greece - Türkiye |
|
CASE OF ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY (Application no. 47287/15) (Grand Chamber)
The Court found in particular that the Hungarian authorities had failed in their duty under Article 3 to assess the risks of the applicants not having proper access to asylum proceedings in Serbia or being subjected to chain-refoulement, which could have seen them being sent to Greece, where conditions in refugee camps had already been found to be in violation of Article 3. In a development of its case-law, it held that Article 5 was not applicable to the applicants’ case as there had been no de facto deprivation of liberty in the transit zone. Among other things, the Court found that the applicants had entered the transit zone of their own initiative and it had been possible in practice for them to return to Serbia, where they had not faced any danger to their life or health. Their fears of a lack of access to Serbia’s asylum system or of refoulement to Greece, as expressed under Article 3, had not been enough to make their stay in the transit zone involuntary. 21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rejection at border - Right to liberty and security - Safe third country - Transit | Countries: Bangladesh - Greece - Hungary - North Macedonia - Serbia - Türkiye |
|
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 | Document type: Case Law | 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 - Türkiye |
|
CASE OF BATYRKHAIROV v. TURKEY (69929/12)
5 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | 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 - Türkiye |
|
CASE OF AMERKHANOV v. TURKEY (Application no. 16026/12)
5 June 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Kazakhstan - Türkiye |
|
AFFAIRE A.E.A. c. GRÈCE (Requête no 39034/12)
The possibility of introducing an asylum claim is a conditio sine qua non for the effective protection of persons in need of international protection. If authorities do not guarantee unhindered access to the asylum procedure, asylum-seekers can not make use of the procedural rights foreseen within the asylum procedure and are at risk of being arrested at any time. Hence even if the asylum procedure offers effective safeguards, these are of no use if, as in the present case, the asylum claim is not registered for a long period of time. [85] violation of article 13 (effective remedy) in combination with article 3 ECHR. 15 March 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Effective protection - Effective remedy - Registration | Countries: Egypt - Greece - Sudan - Türkiye |
|
Case of M. Özel and Others v. Turkey (Applications nos. 14350/05, 15245/05 and 16051/05)
17 November 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Human rights law - Right to life | Countries: Türkiye |
|
Khaldarov v. Turkey
5 September 2017 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Asylum-seekers - Residence permits / Residency - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Türkiye - Uzbekistan |
|
Qaateh and Others v. Greece
20 January 2017 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Legal Articles/Analyses/Commentaries |
