Last Updated: Thursday, 29 September 2022, 11:15 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 51-60 of 1,292 results
Guide to Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens

31 December 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

Guide on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights - Right to education

31 December 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

Lyudmyla Mykolayivna KANDYBA and Others against Ukraine

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its decision in the Kandyba and Others against Ukraine case regarding payment of pensions to residents of non-governmental controlled areas (NGCA) of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. In their application to national courts, several pensioners requested cancelation of some provisions of Governmental Resolution #595 of 7 November 2014. This Resolution suspended the payment of pensions in the non-controlled territory. The applicants’ request was satisfied in 2016. Pensioners considered that with cancelation of the contradictory provisions in the governmental resolution, their pensions will be reinstated automatically. However, this did not take place and applicants decided to apply to the ECtHR. The Court dismissed the claim stating that applicants should have applied to a different respondent (the Pension Fund of Ukraine) and specifically asked to reinstate the suspended pensions. The ECtHR mentioned that there are upcoming judgements in cases where they will consider whether or not there is an obligation of the state to pay pensions to people living in NGCA.

19 November 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Ukrainians | Countries: Ukraine

CASE OF B AND C v. SWITZERLAND (Applications nos. 889/19 and 43987/16)

The Court considered that criminalisation of homosexual acts was not sufficient to render return contrary to the Convention. The Court found, however, that the Swiss authorities had failed to adequately assess the risk of ill-treatment for the first applicant as a homosexual person in the Gambia and the availability of State protection against ill-treatment from non-State actors. Several independent authorities noted that the Gambian authorities were unwilling to provide protection for LGBTI people.

17 November 2020 | 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): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) | Countries: Gambia - Switzerland

AFFAIRE M.A. c. BELGIQUE (Requête no 19656/18)

The case concerned the applicant’s removal to Sudan by the Belgian authorities in spite of a court decision ordering the suspension of the measure. The Court found in particular that on account of procedural defects attributable to the Belgian authorities prior to the applicant’s removal to Sudan, he had been prevented from pursuing the asylum application that he had lodged in Belgium and the Belgian authorities had not sufficiently assessed the real risks that he faced in Sudan. In addition, by deporting the applicant in spite of the court order to suspend the measure, the authorities had rendered ineffective the applicant’s successful appeal.

27 October 2020 | 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): Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Suspensive effect | Countries: Belgium - Sudan

Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Right to respect for private and family life

31 August 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

Guide on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Freedom of Expression

31 August 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

Guide on Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Derogation in Time of Emergency

31 August 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

Guide on Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Prohibition of Abuse of Rights

31 August 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

Guide on Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Limitation on Use of Restrictions of Rights

31 August 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

Search Refworld

Advanced Search | Search Tips
UNHCR logo