Avenue de l'Europe
Schneider v. Luxembourg 
| 2007
To force a small landowner to allow hunting on her land so that third parties can use it in a way totally contrary to her convictions is a disproportionate burden, which is not justified...
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 10th July 2007
Catherine Schneider was ethically opposed to hunting. She owned some land on which hunting took place. She wanted this to stop. However, under a law from 1925 she was obliged to be a member of a hunting syndicate and to allow hunting on her land.
The court recognised that Mrs Schneider had strong feelings against hunting. Forcing her to be part of a hunting syndicate therefore violated her right to freedom of association. Similarly, forcing her to allow hunting on her land breached her right to use her property as she wished.
A new Law on Hunting was adopted in 2011. This allows land owners who are ethically opposed to hunting to withdraw from hunting associations – meaning that they are also no longer obliged to allow hunting on their land.
An NGO organised a series of demonstrations in Warsaw, to highlight discrimination against women and minorities. The gatherings were banned, after the city’s mayor said that he was against them because they included support for gay rights. The European court ruled that the ban violated the right to public assembly. This led to changes to Polish law to protect the right to protest.
Anatoliy Burdov was exposed to radiation whilst working on the emergency response to the Chernobyl disaster. He was entitled to certain social benefits, but the authorities refused to pay - even when ordered to do so by Russian courts. The European court said that this violated Mr Burdov’s rights. As a result, reforms were introduced to improve the enforcement of judgments.
When Karol Rummi’s husband died, his valuable possessions were arbitrarily confiscated by the police. When Mrs Rummi tried to get them back, she was not allowed to make her case in court and told that the property now belonged to the state. The European court ruled that her right to property had been breached. She was compensated and the law was changed to prevent similar problems happening again.
Luxembourg
Poland
Russian Federation*
Estonia