Ecrthr case summaries

ECtHR - Sen v. the Netherlands, Application no. 31465/96, 21 December 2001
Country of applicant: Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights found an infringement of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the rejection of their application for a residence permit for their daughter.

Date of decision: 21-12-2001
ECtHR - K.K.C. v. the Netherlands, Application No. 58964/00, 21 December 2001
Country of applicant: Russia

The present case, which ended in a friendly settlement between the parties, concerned the allegations of a Russian national that he would be exposed to ill-treatment if expelled to Russia.

Date of decision: 21-12-2001
ECtHR - Hilal v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 45276/99, 6 June 2001
Country of applicant: Tanzania

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the proposed expulsion of a Tanzanian national from the United Kingdom to Tanzania will expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Date of decision: 06-06-2001
ECtHR - Cyprus v. Turkey , Application no. 25781/94, 10 May 2001
Country of applicant: Cyprus

Turkey’s continual and severe failure to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of disappearance of Greek-Cypriots, who were at the time under the control of its agents, constituted a violation of Articles 2,3 and 5 of the ECHR. The circumscription of freedom of movement, religion and association of Greek-Cypriots in Northern Greece constituted violations of Articles 9 and 10 and the continual violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 by virtue of preventing Greek Cypriot owners from having access to, control and use of their property was also found by the Court.

Date of decision: 10-05-2001
ECtHR - Jabari v. Turkey, Application no. 40035/98, 11 July 2000
Country of applicant: Iran

The proposed deportation of the applicant to Iran would violate Article 3 ECHR, and as she was prevented from having the merits of her claim examined due to non-compliance with procedural time limits, there was a breach of Article 13 ECHR.  This was because she had no chance to challenge the decision on appeal, or access to a remedy with suspensive effect.

Date of decision: 11-07-2000
ECtHR - Velikova v. Bulgaria , Application no.41488/98, 18 May 2000
Country of applicant: Bulgaria

Applicant complained under Articles 2, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention in relation to the death of her partner while in police custody.

Date of decision: 18-05-2000
ECtHR - T.I. v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 43844/98, Decision as to the Admissibility, 7 March 2000
Country of applicant: Sri Lanka

The case involved a Sri Lankan asylum seeker whose application was rejected in Germany, and upon seeking asylum in the UK, was rejected on the basis of the Dublin Convention and that his application corresponded to Germany. The Court found no breach of a Convention obligation from the UK by its decision to remove him to Germany.               

Date of decision: 07-03-2000
ECtHR - Vedran Andric v. Sweden, Application no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999, decision as to the inadmissibility
Country of applicant: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia

The application of a Bosnian Croat concerning the collective expulsions from Croatia to Bosnia-Hercegovina is found to be manifestly ill-founded and thus the application is inadmissible. 

Date of decision: 23-02-1999
ECtHR - D. v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 30240/96, 2 May 1997

The case involved the proposed removal of a convicted alien drug courier dying of AIDS to his country of origin, St Kitts, where he had no access to proper medical treatment, nor accommodation, family, moral or financial support. The Court found that his deportation would amount to a breach of Art. 3 obligations by the UK. 

Date of decision: 02-05-1997
ECtHR - Loizidou v Turkey, Application no. 15318/89, 18 December 1996
Country of applicant: Cyprus

Mrs Loizidou argued that the refusal by Turkish troops to allow her access to property she claimed to own in northern Cyprus violated her right to peaceful enjoyment of her property. The Court held that Turkey could be held responsible for what was a continuing violation of the right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Date of decision: 18-12-1996