Case summaries

  • My search
  • Relevant International and European Legislation
    1
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Esc Del
Reset
ECtHR - Loizidou v Turkey, Application no. 15318/89, 18 December 1996
Country of applicant: Cyprus
Keywords: Armed conflict, Freedom of movement (right to), Race, Nationality, Membership of a particular social group, International armed conflict, Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Discrimination

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
Relevant International and European Legislation: ECHR (Frist Protocol),Council of Europe Instruments,Article 1,Article 3,Article 8,Article 14,Article 25,Article 28,Article 31,Article 32,Article 46,Article 47,Article 49,Art 1
ECtHR - Amuur v. France, Application no 19776/92, 25 June 1996
Country of applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Detention, Refugee Status

The Court found that the French authorities had violated Article 5 para 1 of the Convention by holding four Somali nationals in the international zone of the Paris-Orly airport.

Date of decision: 25-06-1996
Relevant International and European Legislation: 1951 Refugee Convention,EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,Article 3,Article 5,Article 6,Article 13,Article 25,Article 32,Article 43,Article 47,Article 50,Art 5.1
ECtHR - Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v The United Kingdom, Application nos. 9214/80; 9473/81 and 9474/81, 28 May 1985
Country of applicant: Malawi, Philippines, United Kingdom
Keywords: Effective remedy (right to), Family unity (right to), Race, Nationality, Discrimination, Family member, Family reunification

The ECtHR held that the 1980 UK Immigration Rules breached ECHR Article 14 taken together with Article 8 as they discriminated on the ground of sex against three female applicants settled in the UK who wished to be joined by their spouses. It was easier for men settled in the UK to be joined by a non-national spouse than women but no objective and reasonable justification was found for this difference of treatment.

Date of decision: 28-05-1985
Relevant International and European Legislation: Article 3,Article 8,Article 12,Article 13,Article 14,Article 25,Article 31,Article 32,Article 43,Article 44,Article 46,Article 47,Article 48,Article 50,ECHR (Fourth Protocol)