LinkedIn Slideshare

    Welcome to CDCJ



    Co-operation projects

    Completed work

    Restricted site



Hammerton v. The United Kingdom                                                                          Violation of Articles 5 § 1, 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)
Application no. 6287/10
Press Release: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{"fulltext":["6287/10"],"itemid":["003-5328932-6641262"]}

In the case William Hammerton v United Kingdom was committed to prison for civil contempt of court in family proceedings. The applicant, relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), complained about his committal to prison, alleging in particular that his detention had been unlawful. Also relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of own choosing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that, although the UK courts had acknowledged that there had been a violation of his rights, they had failed to award him financial compensation and that domestic law had prevented him from receiving such damages.

CASE:  Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland                                                                          Violation of Article 8
Application No. 60119/12

Press Release:   http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{"fulltext":["60119/12"]}

In the case of Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland, the Court found that there had been no violation of the Convention. The applicants, who had had a religious marriage in Iran at the ages of 14 and 18, had complained of the refusal by the Swiss authorities to recognise their marriage as valid and to take it into account for their asylum application.

The Court found that the Convention could not be interpreted as requiring a State to recognise a marriage entered into by a child of 14.

Nazarenko v. Russia
                                                             Violation of Article 8
Application No. 39438/13,
10 June 2015
Press Releases: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"appno":["39438/13"],"itemid":["001-156084"]}

Inflexibility of Russian family law: complete and automatic exclusion of non-biological father from child’s life when it was revealed that he was not the biological father -  violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).

Case: Khoroshenko v. Russia
                                                           Violation of Article 8
Application No. 41418/04, 10 June 2015
Press Releases:  http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx#{"itemid":["001-156059"]}

Judgment in a case concerning restrictions on family visits to life prisoners.  Allowing only short-term family visits twice a year over ten-year period violated prisoner’s right to family life.

Cases: Mennesson v. France and Labassee v. France                           Violation of Articles 8 and 41
Application Nos. 65192/11 and 65941/11, 26 June 2014 
Press Release:  http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/Pages/search.aspx#{"itemid":["003-4804614-5854905"]} (in French only)
No violation of article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of the human rights with regard to the right of the applicants to respect for their family life.
Violation of article 8 with regard to the right of the child to respect for their private life.

These cases concern the refusal in french law to recognise a filiation legally established in the United States between children born through surrogacy (GPA) and the couples having had recourse to this method.

Case: Polidario v. Switzerland                                                                                                         Violation of Article 8
Application No. 33169/10, 30 July 2013
Press Release:  http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx#{"itemid":["003-4448978-5354287"]} (in French only)

The applicant is a national of the Philippines and lives in Geneva. She had a child with a Lebanese man who had acquired Swiss nationality. She was required to leave Switzerland and she returned to the Philippines with the child. She signed an affidavit authorising the father to have his son in Switzerland for the holidays. The father did not then return his son to the Philippines. The father was then awarded custody of the child and the applicant had access rights which had to be exercised in Switzerland, whereas she had no authorisation to stay there. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), she complained that the refusal by the Swiss authorities to issue her with a residence permit for over six years had breached her right to respect for her family life.

Case: X and Others v. Austria                                                                         Violation of Articles 14 and 8
Application No.
19010/07, 19 February 2013
Press Release: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx#{"itemid":["003-4264492-5083115"]}
Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and
No violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 when the applicants’ situation was compared
with that of a married couple in which one spouse wished to adopt the other spouse’s child

The case concerned the complaint by two women who live in a stable homosexual relationship and the Austrian courts’ refusal to grant one of the partners the right to adopt the son of the other partner without severing the mother’s legal ties with the child (second-parent adoption).

Case: Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey                                                                                                      Violation of Article 10

Application No.
3111/10, 18 December 2012
Press Release:

The case concerned a court decision to block access to Google Sites, which hosted an Internet site whose owner was facing criminal proceedings for insulting the memory of Atatürk. As a result of the decision, access to all other sites hosted by the service was blocked.

Case: Miller v. Sweden                                                                                                                               Violation of Article 6
Application No. 55853/00, 8 Feb. 2005
Press Release: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx#{"itemid":["003-1254201-1314567"]}

The case concerns an applicant that applied for disability benefits. He claimed that, even before his 65th birthday in 1983, he had incurred extra costs due to his illness, (Charcot-Marie-Tooth: patients suffering from this disease slowly lose their normal use of their feet/legs and hands/arms as nerves to the extremities degenerate), from which he had suffered since the 1970s and which had been diagnosed in September 1982. The Social Insurance Office of the County of Stockholm rejected the application, finding that the applicant’s disability had not reached the level required before he turned 65 years of age.