Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2023, 15:20 GMT

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
Selected filters: Case Law
Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 1,222 results
A.D. v. Greece, Application no. 55363/19

4 April 2023 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Prison or detention conditions - Reception | Countries: Greece

AFFAIRE R.M. ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE (Requête no 11247/18)

9 February 2023 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Children's rights - Expulsion - Right to liberty and security - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Poland - Russian Federation

AFFAIRE M.K. ET AUTRES c. FRANCE (Requêtes nos 34349/18, 34638/18 et 35047/18)

The ECtHR considered it more appropriate to examine the complaints concerning the failure of France to comply with the interim relief orders of the Administrative Court ordering that the applicants must be taken into emergency accommodation and the absence of an effective emergency procedure for the enforcement of an interim relief order solely under Article 6 ECHR (§§ 91, 92). The ECtHR considered that the decision to grant or refuse emergency accommodation constituted a civil right and thus held that Article 6 § 1 ECtHR was applicable. The case concerned asylum-seekers who were without accommodation at the time of the events, and in whose favour the urgent-applications judge of the administrative court ordered the State to provide them with emergency accommodation.

30 December 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - France - Georgia

CASE OF GASHKOV AND SATIROV v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 31147/20 and 772/21)

The applicants complained of the deficiencies in the proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention

15 December 2022 | 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 | Countries: Russian Federation

M.K. and Others v. France (Applications no. 34349/18, 34638/18, and 35047/18)

Holding: France’s failure to enforce orders by the urgent-applications judge of the Administrative Court for the provision of emergency accommodation to a number of homeless and particularly vulnerable asylum-seekers was in violation of Article 6 § 1 ECtHR.

8 December 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Reception | Countries: France

CASE OF M.T. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN (Application no. 22105/18)

1. The application concerns the Swedish authorities’ refusal to grant residence permits to a mother and her son, who were in Syria, on the basis of their family ties with another son/brother who had been granted subsidiary protection in Sweden. The applicants complained that the Law on temporary restrictions on the possibility of being granted a residence permit in Sweden (which had entered into force on 20 July 2016 and had remained in force until 19 July 2019) had suspended their right to family reunification in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, and that the difference in treatment, with regard to family reunification, of persons granted refugee status and of persons (such as the second applicant) who had been granted subsidiary protection status, had constituted discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8.

20 October 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: Sweden - Syrian Arab Republic

CASE OF T.Z. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (Application no. 41764/17)

The present case concerns numerous refusals of the Polish authorities to examine the applicants’ requests for international protection, their denied entry to Poland and return to Belarus

13 October 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Effective remedy - Entry / Exit - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Belarus - Poland - Russian Federation

CASE OF T.Z. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (Application no. 41764/17)

The present case concerns numerous refusals of the Polish authorities to examine the applicants’ requests for international protection, their denied entry to Poland and return to Belarus.

13 October 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion | Countries: Poland - Russian Federation

CASE OF LIU v. POLAND (Application no. 37610/18)

1. The applicant complained that his extradition to China would violate Article 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as – if extradited and tried – he would be at risk of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment; moreover, he would be denied a fair trial. He also complained under Article 5 § 1 that his detention pending extradition was unreasonably long and, therefore, arbitrary.

6 October 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Diplomatic assurances - Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: China - Poland

CASE OF H.K. v. HUNGARY (Application no. 18531/17)

The applicant complained that he had been part of a collective expulsion on 3 September 2016, in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention, that he had had no remedy at his disposal that would have enabled him to complain of a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

22 September 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion | Countries: Hungary - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Serbia

Search Refworld