Cases

Wackenheim case: dwarf tossing -> goes against human dignity. But the person decides to do it so aren’t we
imposing conventional moral views of the majority over the rest of society?

Bankovic v. Belgium: NATO bombed buildings in Serbia but the victims couldn’t bring a case against NATO
so they brought it against Belgium being a member of NATO (to make it admissible for the Court). The court
declared the application inadmissible because the acts did not fall within the jurisdiction of the respondent
states (instantaneous acts/omissions outside territory).

Bosphorus Airways v. Ireland: The case concerned the impounding of a Yugoslav aircraft by Irish authorities
in compliance with EU sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (>< right to property). The
judgment was important because the Court established the “Bosphorus presumption,” holding that states
remain responsible under the ECHR when implementing EU law, but are presumed to comply with the
Convention where the EU affords protection equivalent to the ECHR unless that protection is manifestly
deficient.

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and Others v. Switzerland: The case was brought by a group of elderly women
who argued that Switzerland’s insufficient climate policies exposed them to increased health risks from
heatwaves linked to climate change. The case was important because the Court found a violation of Article 8
ECHR, recognizing for the first time that inadequate state action on climate change can breach human rights
obligations by failing to protect individuals’ private and family life.

Korolev v. Russia: Russian authorities needed to pay back the applicant around one euro -> Strasbourg
denied this application on the basis that the disadvantage was insignificant.

H.F. and Others v. France: The case concerned French nationals who were prevented from returning to
France with their children after having lived in territories controlled by ISIS in Syria, where the children were
exposed to serious risks. The Court said that a State’s jurisdictional competence is primarily territorial and
deemed the application inadmissible.

Ben El Mahi and Others v. Denmark: The applicants complained that Denmark’s refusal to prosecute or
sanction a newspaper for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad violated their rights as Muslims. The
case was important because the Court declared the application inadmissible, reaffirming under Article 10 that
states have a wide margin of appreciation in protecting freedom of expression and that the Convention does
not grant a right to be free from offence to religious feelings. The applicants were also from Morocco -> court
said that this is outside the jurisdiction of Denmark -> application inadmissible.

Soering v. United Kingdom: The case concerned the proposed extradition of a German national from the UK
to the United States (bcs he murdered someone), where he faced the death penalty. The Court held that
extradition engaging a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment violates Article 3 ECHR, establishing that
states can be responsible under the Convention if they know that the persons rights are going to be violated in
the other state. In the end Soering was extradited to the US under the diplomatic guarantee that the death
penalty would not be executed.
M.N. and Others v. Belgium: The case concerned a Syrian family who applied for humanitarian visas at the
Belgian embassy in Beirut in order to seek asylum in Belgium, but whose applications were refused. The case
was important because the Court held that the applicants did not fall within Belgium’s jurisdiction under Article
1 ECHR because there was not a sufficiently intense link with their jurisdiction.

Hirst v. United Kingdom: The case concerned the blanket statutory ban on convicted prisoners voting in
parliamentary elections in the UK. The judgment was important because the Court held that a general and
automatic ban for prisoners to vote violates the right to free elections, because it was disproportionate.

RTBF v. Belgium: The case concerned an injunction prohibiting the Belgian public broadcaster from airing a
programme about the dangers of surgery; surgeon didn’t want this to air. It was important because the Court
clarified that an interference with Article 10 must have a sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable legal
basis, and that broad or vague rules may fail to meet the “prescribed by law” requirement (Belgium had too
many different rules and it was unclear).

Macaté v. Lithuania: Schoolbooks for children for sexual education were saying that hetero and homosexual
relationships were equal -> the government intervened because they wanted to stop that message -> not a
legitimate aim.

Hatton and Others v. United Kingdom: The case concerned residents near Heathrow Airport who
complained that night-time aircraft noise violated their right to respect for private and family life under Article 8
ECHR. The Court held that the UK had struck a fair balance between individual rights and economic interests,
emphasizing that environmental nuisances must be assessed in light of proportionality and states’ margin of
appreciation.

Lautsi v. Italy: The applicant challenged the Italian legal requirement to display crucifixes in state-school
classrooms as a violation of her and her children’s rights to freedom of religion and education. The Grand
Chamber held that the mandatory presence of a crucifix did not breach the Convention, emphasizing that such
passive religious symbols fall within a state’s wide margin of appreciation and do not amount to indoctrination
or an impermissible interference with religious freedom or educational rights.

Parrillo v. Italy: The case concerned an Italian woman who was prohibited by Italian law from donating
embryos created through in vitro fertilisation to scientific research and argued that this interfered with her rights
to respect for private life and peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 8 and Protocol No. 1. The
Grand Chamber held there was no violation, emphasising that Article 8 does not guarantee a right to decide
the fate of embryos for research and that states enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in sensitive moral and
ethical matters where there is no European consensus.

Marckx v. Belgium: The applicant, an unmarried mother, challenged Belgian law that denied her automatic
legal parent-child bond and equal inheritance rights for her “illegitimate” daughter, requiring special procedures
and giving the child fewer rights than those born in marriage. The case was a foundational judgment on
Article 8 (private and family life) and Article 14 (non-discrimination), holding that such discrimination against
children born out of wedlock violated the Convention and prompting legal reforms to protect family life and
equality under the law -> the legal norm was not sufficiently precise to be self-executing and therefore needed
specific legislation.

Broniowski v. Poland: The case concerned the failure of Polish authorities to provide restitution or
compensation for property lost during World War II. It was important as a pilot judgment because the Court
found a systemic problem affecting thousands of people and required Poland to adopt general measures to
prevent similar violations, not just compensate the individual applicant.

W.D. v. Belgium: The case involved excessive delays in family law proceedings concerning the care of
children. The Court used the pilot judgment procedure to highlight structural deficiencies in the Belgian judicial
system and required the authorities to implement measures ensuring timely proceedings for all similarly
affected applicants.

Burmych and Others v. Ukraine: The case concerned unpaid social security pensions due to a systemic
failure in Ukrainian law to ensure timely payments. It was treated as a pilot judgment, with the Court
addressing the widespread nature of the problem and requiring Ukraine to adopt general measures to resolve
the mass non-payment issue rather than only awarding compensation to the individual applicants.

Salduz v. Turkey: The case concerned a minor who was denied access to a lawyer during police interrogation
and subsequently convicted. The Court held that this violated Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial), establishing
the principle that access to a lawyer must be provided from the first interrogation of a suspect, especially in
criminal proceedings, and that exceptions to this rule must be strictly justified.

Right to life

Vo v. France: The case concerned the accidental termination of a wanted pregnancy due to medical
negligence, where French law did not allow prosecution for unintentional homicide of a fetus because they
didn’t consider it to be a ‘person’. It was important under Article 2 ECHR because the Court held that there is
no European consensus on when life begins and that the unborn child is not clearly protected as a “person”
under Article 2, leaving states a wide margin of appreciation. Only 7/17 judges completely agree with this
judgement (minority of the court).

Ribcheva and Others v. Bulgaria: The applicants’ relatives were killed during a police operation involving the
use of firearms, and the investigation into the deaths was found to be ineffective. The case was important
because it reaffirmed that Article 2 requires not only justified use of lethal force but also an effective,
independent investigation into deaths caused by state agents.

Makaratzis v. Greece: The applicant was seriously injured when police fired numerous shots at his car during
a pursuit, even though he was unarmed. The judgment was significant as it clarified that Article 2 applies even
where death does not occur and that police use of firearms must be strictly regulated and absolutely
necessary (legal framework for usage of force by police).

McCann and Others v. United Kingdom: Three suspected IRA members were killed by British special forces
in Gibraltar based on intelligence that later proved incorrect. The Court held that while the soldiers honestly
believed lethal force was necessary, the UK violated Article 2 due to failures in planning and control of the
operation, which made the resort to lethal force unnecessary in the sense of Article 2.
L.C.B. v. United Kingdom: The applicant alleged that her father’s exposure to nuclear tests caused her
leukemia and that the state failed to protect her life. The Court emphasized that Article 2 includes positive
obligations to take preventive measures when authorities know or ought to know of a real and immediate risk
to life.

Öneryıldız v. Turkey: A methane explosion at a municipal rubbish tip killed several people living nearby,
despite authorities being aware of the danger. This was a landmark case because it recognized that Article 2
imposes positive obligations on states to protect life against risks arising from dangerous activities, including
environmental hazards. The authorities were aware of a real and immediate risk to life yet failed to take
reasonable preventive regulations.

Opuz v. Turkey: The applicant and her mother suffered years of domestic violence, culminating in the murder
of the applicant’s mother by her husband, despite repeated complaints to authorities. The Court held that
Turkey violated Article 2 by failing to take preventive measures, establishing that domestic violence can
engage state responsibility under the right to life.

Dink v. Turkey: Journalist Hrant Dink was assassinated after receiving death threats, of which the authorities
were aware but failed to act upon. The case was important because the Court found a violation of Article 2 due
to the failure to protect life and conduct an effective investigation, especially in the context of freedom of
expression (safety of journalists for expressing their opinion).

Mastromatteo v. Italy: The applicant’s son was killed during a shootout involving prisoners who had been
granted temporary release. The Court found no violation of Article 2, clarifying the limits of state responsibility
and emphasizing that not every risk created by state decisions automatically leads to liability.

Budayeva and Others v. Russia: Several people died in a mudslide after authorities failed to implement
preventive measures and warning systems despite known risks. The judgment reinforced that Article 2
requires states to take reasonable preventive steps to safeguard lives against natural disasters.

Lambert and Others v. France: The case concerned the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from a
patient in a vegetative state. The Court held there was no violation of Article 2, emphasizing procedural
safeguards and state discretion in end-of-life decisions. More care and consideration is needed in cases for
protection of vulnerable people.

Pretty v. United Kingdom: The applicant, suffering from a terminal illness, sought assistance in committing
suicide, which was prohibited under UK law. The Court ruled that Article 2 cannot be interpreted as conferring
a right to die, clarifying the scope of the right to life.

Mortier v. Belgium: The applicant complained about the euthanasia of his mother, alleging lack of sufficient
safeguards and oversight. The Court found a procedural violation of Article 2, stressing the importance of
effective control mechanisms in legal euthanasia regimes. There needs to be sufficient guarantees that the
person really wanted to die and a review mechanism (the physician who did the euthanisa also sat in the
review commission -> conflict of interest!).

Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy: The case concerned the killing of a demonstrator by a police jeep during the G8
summit in Genoa, where the officer fired a gun while surrounded by violent protesters. The Grand Chamber
held that there was no violation of Article 2, finding that the use of lethal force was not absolutely
disproportionate in the circumstances and that the investigation was effective.

Prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment

A and Others v. United Kingdom: The case concerned the indefinite detention without trial of foreign
nationals suspected of terrorism under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The reliance on
evidence possibly obtained through torture by foreign authorities in proceedings reviewing the applicants’
detention made a violation Article 3 ECHR, establishing that the prohibition of torture is absolute and that
evidence obtained by torture, even if inflicted abroad by third states, may never be used in legal proceedings.

Gäfgen v. Germany: The case concerned a suspect who was threatened with severe pain by police to reveal
the whereabouts of a kidnapped child, who was already dead. The Court held that the police threats amounted
to inhuman treatment in violation of Article 3 ECHR, and clarified that the absolute prohibition of ill-treatment
applies even in extreme situations.

Chahal v. United Kingdom: The case concerned the proposed deportation of a Sikh separatist to India on
national security grounds, despite a real risk that he would be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. The Court
held that Article 3 ECHR is absolute, prohibiting deportation where there is a real risk of torture or inhuman or
degrading treatment, regardless of the individual’s conduct or the state’s security interests.

Bouyid v. Belgium: The case concerned two brothers who were slapped in the face by police officers while in
custody at a police station. The Grand Chamber held that even a single slap by law-enforcement officers
constitutes degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 ECHR -> it was not necessary and the brothers were
young (mental effects).

Selmouni v. France: The applicant was subjected to repeated physical abuse and humiliation by police while
in custody. The Court held that the treatment amounted to torture under Article 3, marking an evolution in
standards by recognizing that conduct previously classified as inhuman treatment could now be considered
torture.

Tyrer v. United Kingdom: The applicant, a minor, was subjected to judicial corporal punishment (birching) on
the Isle of Man. The Court found a violation of Article 3, holding that corporal punishment constituted
degrading treatment and emphasizing the Convention as a “living instrument.”

Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978): The case concerned the use of five interrogation techniques (including
hooding and stress positions) by UK authorities in Northern Ireland. The Court held that the techniques
amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment but not torture (later jurisprudence evolved toward stricter
standards).

Greek Case (1969): The case concerned widespread torture, ill-treatment, and suppression of political
freedoms by the military junta that ruled Greece after the 1967 coup. It set up a hierarchy between torture,
inhuman treatment/punishment and degrading treatment/punishment.

Kudła v. Poland: The case concerned excessive length of criminal proceedings combined with poor
conditions of detention affecting the applicant’s mental health. The Court held that Article 3 may be engaged
by prison conditions but here there was no violation because the authorities had taken sufficient steps to
provide mental care.

Ramírez Sánchez v. France: The case concerned the prolonged solitary confinement of the applicant, a
convicted terrorist, for over eight years. The Grand Chamber found no violation of Article 3, clarifying that long-
term solitary confinement does not automatically amount to inhuman or degrading treatment if it is justified,
monitored, and accompanied by adequate safeguards (he could also sometimes go out, read and watch tv ->
sensory input).
E.B. v. Romania: The case concerned the failure of Romanian authorities to protect the applicant from
repeated domestic violence and to conduct an effective investigation despite her complaints. The Court found
violations of Articles 3 and 14 ECHR, holding that the state’s inaction amounted to inhuman and degrading
treatment and that gender-based violence requires effective protection and response without discrimination.

Chember v. Russia: The applicant, a Russian conscript with known health problems, was forced by his
military superiors to do excessive physical exercises as punishment, causing serious injury and long-term
disability; domestic authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation or provide an effective remedy. The
Court found violations of Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of inhuman treatment).

Jalloh v. Germany: The applicant was forcibly administered emetics by German authorities to obtain
evidence of drug possession (to make him vomit). The Court held this violated Article 3 ECHR, emphasizing
that the forced administration of substances causing intense physical and mental suffering constitutes
inhuman and degrading treatment, and that evidence obtained in such a manner cannot justify the violation.

R.R. v. Poland: The applicant, Ms R.R., was denied timely access to prenatal genetic testing despite medical
indications of severe fetal malformation, which prevented her from having a legally permitted abortion and
resulted in her giving birth to a child with Turner syndrome. The Court held that the authorities’ failure to
ensure effective access to the necessary healthcare and information amounted to inhuman and degrading
treatment under Article 3 ECHR.

Labita v. Italy: The case concerned the applicant, a minor, who was sexually abused and the Italian
authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation in a timely manner. The Court found a violation of
Article 3 ECHR due to the authorities’ inaction and delay. So only a breach of the positive obligation, not the
negative.

Tănase v. Romania: The applicant was severely injured in a road-traffic accident and complained that the
Romanian criminal investigation into the accident was ineffective and that his treatment should engage
Article 3 ECHR. The Grand Chamber held that Article 3 was not applicable but that states have to take
measures to ensure that people are not subjected to ill-treatment (including harm done by private individuals).

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece: An Afghan asylum seeker was transferred by Belgium to Greece, where he
was detained in severely overcrowded, unsanitary conditions and then left to live in extreme hardship while his
asylum claim went unprocessed. The Grand Chamber held that these detention and living conditions
amounted to degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 ECHR, and that Belgium also violated Article 3 by
exposing him to those conditions despite knowing of systemic deficiencies, establishing that states may not
transfer asylum seekers to countries where they face real risks of inhuman or degrading treatment.

G.M. and Others v. Republic of Moldova: The case concerned three women with intellectual disabilities in a
psychiatric institution who were subjected to forced abortions and, in one case, a contraceptive device
implanted without valid, informed consent, and the authorities repeatedly failed to investigate their complaints
effectively. The Court held this violated Article 3 ECHR, emphasizing that invasive medical interventions
without consent and a failure to protect vulnerable persons’ physical integrity, combined with ineffective
investigations, breach the Convention’s absolute prohibition of degrading treatment.

Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom: Iraqi nationals detained by UK forces were transferred by the
UK to Iraqi custody to face trial on charges carrying the death penalty, despite interim measures from the
ECtHR not to transfer them and despite the real risk they would be executed or subjected to inhuman
treatment. The Court found a violation of Article 3 ECHR because the psychological suffering caused by the
well-founded fear of execution and the UK’s failure to secure assurances against the death penalty amounted
to inhuman and degrading treatment, underscoring that states may not transfer individuals into circumstances
where they face a real risk of prohibited ill-treatment even in military or foreign contexts.

Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom: The case concerned whole-life prison sentences imposed on three
convicted murderers, meaning they had no realistic prospect of release. The Grand Chamber held that such
irreducible life sentences violated Article 3 ECHR, establishing that for life imprisonment to be compatible with
Article 3 there must be both a possibility of review and a prospect of release based on rehabilitation and risk
assessment.

Freedom of expression

Handyside v. United Kingdom: The case concerned the seizure of a book considered obscene under UK
law, which the applicant argued violated his freedom of expression. The case was important because the
Court established that Article 10 ECHR protects not only inoffensive information but also ideas that may shock,
offend, or disturb, and that states have a margin of appreciation in regulating morality.

Swedish Satellite dish case: The case involved an immigrant family evicted for installing a satellite dish to
receive Iraqi news after their landlord refused to allow it on the building. The Court ruled that the eviction
violated Article 10 ECHR, establishing that the right to receive information can outweigh a landlord’s property
rights when no reasonable alternative exists.

Ramazan Demir v. Turkey: The case concerned a detained lawyer who was denied access to the websites of
the European Court of Human Rights and the Turkish Constitutional Court while preparing his defense. The
Court found a violation of Article 10 ECHR, ruling that a blanket ban on accessing legal websites in prison is
disproportionate and that such information is essential for a prisoner's rehabilitation and legal rights.

Delfi AS v. Estonia: The case concerned a large, commercial news portal held liable for failing to remove
highly offensive and anonymous hate speech comments from its website, despite having an automated word-
filter and a notice-and-take-down system. The Court found no violation of Article 10 ECHR, ruling that
professionally managed, profit-making news portals have "duties and responsibilities" to proactively moderate
clearly unlawful content, such as hate speech or incitement to violence, rather than relying solely on user
notifications. (internet was new for the court then; judgements would be different now)

Sanchez v. France: An elected politician who was criminally convicted for failing to promptly delete
Islamophobic comments posted by third parties on his public Facebook wall during an election campaign. The
Court extended the liability principles from Delfi to individual social media account holders, ruling that a
politician’s status requires a higher "duty of care" to monitor their public pages for clearly unlawful speech to
protect the rights and reputations of others (no violation of art. 10).

Lingens v. Austria: A journalist convicted of criminal defamation for calling an Austrian politician "immoral"
and "undignified" due to his support for a former Nazi officer. The Court held that Article 10 ECHR requires a
higher tolerance for criticism of politicians than private citizens, and crucially distinguished between "facts"
(which must be proven) and "value judgments" (which cannot be proven), ruling that requiring proof of the truth
of an opinion is a violation of free speech.
New York Times v. Sullivan: The case involved an Alabama official who sued the newspaper for libel over
minor factual inaccuracies in a full-page advertisement concerning the civil rights movement. The Supreme
Court established the ‘breathing space’ so that the chilling effect won’t occur.

Von Hannover v. Germany: The publication of paparazzi photographs of Princess Caroline of Monaco going
about her daily life, which she argued violated her right to privacy. The Court ruled that even public figures
have a "legitimate expectation" of privacy in their private lives, and that the media must demonstrate that such
photos contribute to a debate of general public interest rather than merely satisfying public curiosity.

RTBF v. Belgium (No. 2): The case involved a court injunction that prohibited a broadcaster from airing a
television program about a medical error, which the broadcaster argued was a form of prior restraint. The
Court found a violation of Article 10 ECHR, ruling that any preventive restrictions on the media must be based
on a clear and predictable legal framework that provides sufficient procedural safeguards against censorship.
The court also found that the Belgian courts were doing the balancing exercise manifestly wrong.

Goodwin v. United Kingdom: A journalist who was ordered by a court to reveal the identity of an anonymous
source who had provided confidential financial information about a company. The Court ruled that the
protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom, and an order to disclose a
source can only be justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest. Right to protect journalistic
sources!

Baldassi and Others v. France: The case involved activists who were criminally convicted for inciting
discrimination after participating in a "Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions" (BDS) campaign at a supermarket,
where they urged customers to boycott Israeli products. The Court ruled that a boycott is a form of political
expression and protest, and that criminalizing such actions without evidence of hate speech or violence
violates Article 10 ECHR.

Baka v. Hungary: The President of the Hungarian Supreme Court who was removed from office three and a
half years before his term ended after he publicly criticized legislative reforms affecting the judiciary (and no
legal remedy was possible). The Court found that his removal was a reaction to his exercise of free speech,
emphasizing that the "chilling effect" of such sanctions on judges undermines judicial independence and the
rule of law.

Castells v. Spain: An opposition politician who was convicted of insulting the government after publishing an
article alleging that the state was complicit in the murders of Basque activists by far-right groups. The Court
established that the limits of permissible criticism are wider for the government than for a private citizen or
even a politician, ruling that the dominant position of a government makes it necessary for it to display restraint
in resorting to criminal proceedings.

E.S. v. Austria: The case involved the criminal conviction of a woman for "disparaging religious doctrines"
after she gave public seminars suggesting that the Prophet Muhammad's marriage to a six-year-old child
amounted to pedophilia. The case was important because the Court found no violation of Article 10 ECHR,
ruling that states have a margin of appreciation to punish speech that is likely to incite religious intolerance or
disturb the "religious peace" if it is judged to be a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance. And she only got
a fine, not imprisonment.

Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy: The case concerned a legal philosophy professor who was refused a contract
renewal at a Catholic university after the Holy See determined his views were "in clear opposition to Catholic
doctrine," without providing him with specific reasons or an opportunity to debate them. The Court found a
violation of Article 10 ECHR, ruling that even if a religious university has the right to preserve its doctrine, it
cannot bypass procedural guarantees; meaning the applicant must be informed of the specific views being
criticized and have the chance to challenge the decision.

Vogt v. Germany: A permanent secondary-school teacher who was dismissed from her civil service post
because of her active membership and leadership roles in the German Communist Party (DKP). The Court
held that while states may require civil servants to be loyal to the constitutional order, the dismissal was a
disproportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR since there was no evidence that her political
activities had any negative impact on her actual teaching or performance.

Guja v. Moldova: The case involved a press officer at the Prosecutor General’s Office who was dismissed
after leaking two internal letters to the press that revealed political interference in criminal proceedings by high-
ranking officials. The case was important because the Court established the "whistleblower protection" criteria
under Article 10 ECHR, ruling that the public interest in being informed of government misconduct can
outweigh a civil servant’s duty of loyalty, provided there is no other effective way to disclose the information.

Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy: A television broadcasting company was granted a national
license by the Italian government but was unable to broadcast for years because the state failed to allocate the
necessary frequencies, effectively favoring existing broadcasters. The Court found a violation of Article 10
ECHR, ruling that states have a positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and administrative
framework to guarantee pluralism in the media and prevent the monopolization of airwaves.

Appleby and Others v. United Kingdom: Environmental activists were prevented by a private company from
distributing leaflets and collecting signatures in a privately owned shopping mall that served as the town's main
commercial center. The Court found no violation of Article 10 ECHR, ruling that while states must sometimes
protect free speech on private property, there is no automatic right to use a private mall for protest if other
effective ways to reach the public are still available (FoE is not a right to a certain access).

Fuentes Bobo v. Spain: A television producer was dismissed from the state broadcaster after making
offensive and critical remarks about the management during a radio interview while protesting the cancellation
of his program. The Court found a violation of Article 10 ECHR, ruling that although the comments were harsh
and used "disrespectful" language, they were made in the context of a labor dispute and public debate, making
dismissal a disproportionate sanction that could have a chilling effect on free speech.

Jersild v. Denmark: A journalist was convicted after making a programme with extremists; he was treated as
if he said those things, creating a chilling effect. If you can’t even use other people's words to express
something, it gets dangerous -> they need to be able to show this for academic purposes.
Féret v. Belgium: The case concerned a Belgian politician convicted for inciting hatred after distributing
election flyers that depicted immigrants in a derogatory light and other slogans. The Court found no violation of
Article 10 ECHR, ruling that political speech that incites racial discrimination or hatred does not enjoy the same
protection as other political discourse, especially when it targets vulnerable groups during an election. But
three judges disagreed, saying the leaflet is a contribution to the public debate.

Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden: Individuals were convicted for distributing leaflets in lockers in a
secondary school opposing homosexuality. The Court found no violation of Article 10 ECHR, establishing that
speech does not have to directly incite violence to be restricted; "hate speech" that is deeply insulting to a
group based on sexual orientation can be punished to protect the rights of others. The small fine was
appropriate because there was also a direct confrontation (locker).

Perinçek v. Switzerland: Turkish politician who was criminally convicted in Switzerland for publicly denying
the Armenian massacre. The Court found a violation of Article 10 ECHR because the sanction was
disproportionate.

Lilliendahl v. Iceland: An individual was fined for posting homophobic comments on a news website in
response to a local council’s proposal to strengthen LGBTQ+ education in schools. The Court declared the
application inadmissible, confirming that "hate speech" (even if not inciting violence) that promotes intolerance
and detestation of a group is not protected by Article 10 ECHR, and that states have a broad right to penalize
such comments to maintain social inclusion.

Protection of privacy (20)

KA and AD v. Belgium: The case concerned a judge and a doctor who were criminally convicted for assault
and "incitement to debauchery" after engaging in extreme sadomasochistic acts with a woman who eventually
required medical attention and withdrew her consent. The Court found no violation of Article 8 ECHR, ruling
that while individuals have a right to sexual autonomy, the state is justified in intervening to protect health and
safety when practices involve a real risk of serious injury or when the participants cannot guarantee that
consent can be withdrawn at any time. And the judge was drunk!

Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. United Kingdom: The case involved a group of men who were prosecuted
for assault occasioning actual bodily harm after police discovered video tapes of their consensual, private
sadomasochistic encounters. The Court ruled that there was no violation of Article 8 ECHR, establishing that a
state may criminalize the intentional infliction of physical harm even between consenting adults, as
determining the "tolerable level of harm" falls within the state's margin of appreciation for the protection of
health. BDSM rules: apply the standards of sports + stop-word (that isn’t stop).

Dudgeon v. United Kingdom: The case concerned a gay man in Northern Ireland who was interrogated by
police and threatened with prosecution under 19th-century laws that criminalized consensual homosexual acts
between adults in private. The Court ruled that these laws violated Article 8 ECHR, establishing that a person's
sexual orientation and private consensual behavior are essential aspects of personal identity that the state
cannot criminalize without a particularly serious reason + although the man didn’t get sanctioned, he was a
potential victim (important for victim status for applications).

A, B and C v. Ireland: Three women traveled to the UK for abortions because they were unable to obtain the
procedure in Ireland, where it was criminalized except when the mother's life was at risk. The Court found a
violation of Article 8 ECHR regarding the third applicant, ruling that while the state has a margin of
appreciation to restrict abortion on moral grounds, it must provide a clear and accessible legal framework for
women to determine whether they qualify for a life-saving abortion under existing law.

S.H. v. Austria: The case concerned two couples who challenged an Austrian law that prohibited the use of
donated eggs and sperm for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), arguing it violated their right to family life. The Grand
Chamber found no violation of Article 8 ECHR, ruling that since there was no clear European consensus on
the sensitive moral and ethical issues surrounding gamete donation, the state enjoyed a wide margin of
appreciation to regulate assisted reproduction in a way it deemed necessary to prevent "split motherhood" and
the commercialization of human life.

LB v. Hungary: The case concerned a taxpayer whose personal data were published on the Hungarian tax
authority’s website in a "list of major tax debtors." The Grand Chamber found no violation of Article 8 ECHR,
ruling that while the publication of a home address is a serious interference with privacy, the state has a wide
margin of appreciation to use public "shaming" as a tool to improve tax discipline and inform the public about
the financial reliability of others.

S. and Marper v. United Kingdom: Two individuals were arrested for offenses but never convicted, yet the
police retained their fingerprints and DNA profiles indefinitely. The Court found a violation of Article 8 ECHR,
ruling that the "blanket and indiscriminate" retention of biometric data of persons who have not been convicted
of an offense is disproportionate and fails to strike a fair balance between the public interest in crime
prevention and the right to private life.

Gardel v. France: The case concerned a man convicted of sexual assault on minors who was required to be
listed in a national automated database for sex offenders, which involved reporting his address to the
authorities for 20 years. The Court found no violation of Article 8 ECHR, ruling that the retention of data on
convicted sex offenders is a necessary and proportionate measure for the prevention of crime + it had a time
limit / only accessible by a limited number of people working in police services.

S.A.S. v. France: The case concerned a French law banning the concealment of the face in public places,
which effectively prohibited the wearing of the full-face veil. The case was important because the Court
accepted “living together” as a legitimate aim under Article 8 and Article 9, granting France a wide margin of
appreciation in regulating religious expression in the public sphere.

Gough v. United Kingdom: The case concerned the "Naked Rambler," a man who was repeatedly arrested,
prosecuted, and imprisoned for breach of the peace and contempt of court because he insisted on walking in
public entirely naked as a matter of principle. The case was important because the Court found no violation of
Article 8 or Article 10 ECHR, ruling that while public nudity can be a form of expression, the repetitive and
antisocial nature of his conduct justified the state’s criminal sanctions to protect public order and the standards
of public decency.

Chapman v. United Kingdom: A Roma woman was refused planning permission to live in a caravan on her
own land and was subsequently prosecuted for failing to comply with an enforcement notice. While the Court
found no violation of Article 8 ECHR, it recognized that the occupation of a caravan is an integral part of Roma
identity and that "home" under Article 8 includes traditional lifestyles; however, it ruled that the state’s interest
in enforcing environmental and planning laws outweighed the applicant's right to live in a specific location.

Evans v. United Kingdom: The case involved a woman whose partner withdrew his consent for the use of
their jointly created embryos after the couple separated, meaning the embryos would have to be destroyed
and she would lose her only chance of having a biological child. The Court found no violation of Article 8
ECHR, ruling that the right to "become a parent" does not outweigh the right "not to become a parent," and
that national laws requiring the continuous consent of both parties up until the moment of implantation are
within the state's margin of appreciation.

Tysiąc v. Poland: The case involved a woman with severe myopia who feared that her third pregnancy would
lead to permanent blindness, yet was denied a therapeutic abortion after various doctors gave conflicting
opinions on whether her condition met the legal threshold for a "risk to health." The Court found a violation of
Article 8 ECHR, ruling that once a state allows for legal abortion in certain circumstances, it has a positive
obligation to create an effective procedural framework to ensure that a woman can actually exercise her right
to an abortion when the legal criteria are met.

López Ribalda v. Spain: A group of supermarket employees were dismissed after their employer used
surveillance cameras to investigate significant stock losses, catching them stealing items at the checkout. The
Grand Chamber found no violation of Article 8 ECHR, ruling that while the covert nature of the filming was a
serious intrusion, it was justified by the "reasonable suspicion" of serious misconduct and the fact that the
surveillance was limited in time, focused only on the checkout area, and intended to protect the employer's
legitimate property rights.

Söderman v. Sweden: The case concerned a 14-year-old girl who discovered that her stepfather had hidden
a camera in the bathroom to film her naked as she prepared for a shower. Although the stepfather was
prosecuted, he was acquitted on appeal because Swedish law at the time required an "intent for the victim to
discover the act" for it to constitute sexual molestation. The Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 8
ECHR, ruling that Sweden had failed in its positive obligation to provide an effective legal framework to protect
a minor's personal integrity; it established that states must have adequate criminal or civil remedies to address
such intimate breaches of privacy.

Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom: The case involved a post-operative transgender woman who faced
significant legal and practical obstacles because the UK refused to change her birth certificate or recognize
her new gender for purposes like marriage, social security, and pension age. The Court found a violation of
Articles 8 and 12 ECHR, marking a major turning point in its jurisprudence. The Court ruled that the "biological
test" for gender was no longer sustainable in the 21st century and that the state's failure to provide legal
recognition left trans people in an "intermediate zone" that violated their dignity and right to personal
autonomy.

Parrillo / Verein Klimaseniorinnen / Hatton / Von Hannover

Fair trial (6)

Engel and Others v. The Netherlands: The case involved five soldiers in the Dutch armed forces who were
subjected to various forms of "light," "aggravated," and "strict" disciplinary detention for offenses such as
absence without leave and undermining military discipline. The case was important because it established the
"Engel criteria" for determining whether a proceeding is "criminal" in nature (regardless of how the state
classifies it) thereby triggering the protections of Article 6 ECHR.

Golder v. United Kingdom: The case concerned a prisoner who was prevented by prison authorities from
contacting a lawyer in order to bring a civil action for defamation. The Court held that Article 6 ECHR implicitly
guarantees a right of access to a court, establishing access to justice as a core component of the right to a fair
trial. It is not because someone is deprived of their liberty, that they are deprived of all their rights.
Airey v. Ireland: A woman from a modest background wished to obtain a legal separation from her physically
abusive husband but could not afford the high legal costs, and Ireland did not provide civil legal aid at the time.
The Court found a violation of Article 6 ECHR, ruling that the right of access to a court must be "effective"
rather than "theoretical or illusory."

Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France: The case concerned a lawyer who challenged a government decree
designating his land as a protected site, but his appeal was declared inadmissible because he had missed a
specific filing deadline. The Court found a violation of Article 6 ECHR, ruling that the French legal rules
regarding the notification of administrative decisions were so complex and incoherent that they created "legal
uncertainty." The Court held that the right of access to a court is violated when procedural rules become a
"technical trap" that prevents an individual from having their case heard on the merits.

Semenya v. Switzerland: The case involved the double Olympic champion Caster Semenya, who challenged
World Athletics regulations that required "DSD" athletes (differences of sexual development) with high natural
testosterone to take hormone-suppressing drugs to compete in certain female events. The Court found a
violation of Article 8 ECHR, ruling that the Swiss courts had failed to provide Semenya with sufficient
institutional and procedural safeguards. Possibility to waive art. 6 through arbitration but only if it is not
obligatory and there is sufficient judicial review.

Sporrong and Lönnroth

Right of property (11)

Stec v. United Kingdom: A group of individuals challenged UK social security legislation that linked certain
injury-related benefits to the state pension age, which at the time was different for men (65) and women (60).
The Grand Chamber clarified that all social security benefits fall under the protection of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (protection of property). All pensions are considered assets and fall under the protection.

Stuwadoorarrest: The case involved several shipping companies that had sued the Belgian state for
damages caused by the negligence of state-employed maritime pilots; however, the Belgian Parliament
passed a retroactive law that granted the state immunity from such claims to avoid massive financial liability.
The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, ruling that a "legitimate expectation" to a debt or a
compensation claim constitutes a "possession." The Court held that while the state can change laws, it cannot
retroactively extinguish existing legal claims for damages unless there is an exceptional "public interest" that
justifies such a radical interference.

Doğan and Others v. Turkey: Several Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin were forcibly evicted from their
village by the security forces during a state of emergency and were subsequently prevented from returning to
their homes and land for many years. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, ruling that the
refusal of the authorities to allow the applicants access to their property constituted a disproportionate
interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden: The case concerned property owners in Stockholm whose buildings
were subjected to long-term "expropriation permits" and "prohibitions on construction" that lasted for over 20
years, significantly devaluing their property and making it impossible to sell or develop. The case was
important because it established the "fair balance" test for property rights; the Court found a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1, ruling that although the state has a right to control the use of land in the public interest,
leaving owners in a state of prolonged legal uncertainty without compensation imposes an "individual and
excessive burden" that breaks the required balance between the community's interest and the individual's
rights. Also a violation of Art. 6 because there was no effective judicial review to challenge the (duration of the)
permit.

The Former King of Greece v. Greece: The case concerned the 1994 Greek law that stripped the former
King Constantine II and his family of their citizenship and confiscated their remaining royal estates without
compensation. The Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, ruling that even when a
state undergoes a fundamental constitutional change it cannot seize private property without paying some
level of compensation. However, the Court also acknowledged a wide margin of appreciation in such historical
transitions, ultimately awarding the King only a small fraction of the billion-euro compensation he had originally
claimed.

Scordino v. Italy: The case involved a family whose land was physically occupied by the state for a housing
project under the Italian legal doctrine of "constructive expropriation," which allowed the state to acquire
ownership of land simply by building on it, even if the initial seizure was illegal. The Grand Chamber found a
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 ECHR, ruling that the compensation offered (based on a
retroactive law that capped payments far below market value) was inadequate.

Bäck v. Finland: A man had been ordered to pay a debt following a court judgment; however, before the debt
was settled, a new law was introduced, which allowed the court to discharge a portion of his debt due to his
financial hardship. The creditor challenged this, arguing it was a retroactive interference with his property
rights. The Court found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, ruling that states have a wide margin of
appreciation to enact social and economic policies to manage widespread insolvency or economic crises. The
Court held that the "legitimate expectation" of a creditor to be paid can be modified by the state for the greater
public interest, provided the measure is not arbitrary and maintains a fair balance between the parties.

Beyeler v. Italy: The case concerned an art collector who purchased a painting by Vincent van Gogh through
an intermediary, only for the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage to exercise its right of pre-emption and seize
the painting at its 1977 purchase price many years later, ignoring its massive increase in market value. The
Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, ruling that while the state has a legitimate
interest in protecting national cultural heritage, it must act with "exemplary precision" and "good faith." The
Court held that the Italian authorities had stayed silent for over a decade while knowing of the purchase, only
to later "punish" the applicant by seizing the work at an undervalued price, which imposed an individual and
excessive burden on him.

Fredin v. Sweden: The owners of a plot of land held a permit to extract gravel, which was revoked by the
Swedish government following a change in environmental protection laws aimed at preserving the landscape.
The case was important because the Court found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, ruling that the
revocation was a "control of use" of property rather than an "expropriation." The Court held that the state has a
wide margin of appreciation to implement environmental policies, and since the applicants had been given a
several-year closing-down period, the measure did not impose an excessive burden.

Gasus Dosier und Fördertechnik v. Netherlands: A German company that sold a concrete-mixing machine
to a Dutch firm under a "retention of title" clause, but the machine was seized by the Dutch tax authorities to
satisfy the buyer's unpaid tax debts. The Court found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, ruling that the
state’s power to "secure the payment of taxes" grants it a very wide margin of appreciation.

Stran Greek Refineries v. Greece: A commercial dispute where a company was awarded significant
compensation by an arbitration tribunal following a breach of contract by the Greek state; however, while the
case was pending before the Court of Cassation, the Greek Parliament passed a law declaring the arbitration
clause void and the award unenforceable. The Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 ECHR and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1. The state had to pay the compensation that was ordered by the tribunal.

Demir and Baykara v. Turkey: The case involved a trade union for municipal civil servants that had entered
into a collective agreement with a local council, only for the Turkish courts to later rule that the union had no
legal standing to form or enter into such agreements. The Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 11
ECHR (freedom of assembly and association), marking a historic shift in its jurisprudence. The right of
collective bargaining was read in the right of freedom of association -> very conventional stretch but maybe too
far?

European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) v. Belgium: The case concerned a group of trade union
organizations that were held civilly liable for damages caused by a "strike picket" that blocked access to a
major industrial site, preventing non-striking employees and suppliers from entering. The Court found no
violation of Article 11 ECHR, ruling that while the right to strike and organize pickets is protected, it is not
absolute and must be balanced against the rights of others to work and conduct business. The Court held that
the Belgian courts had remained within their margin of appreciation by imposing a proportionate civil penalty,
as the blockade had gone beyond a mere "disruption" and had physically obstructed the rights of third parties.