Medvid v. Ukraine: Perspectives for Release for Lifers in Ukraine
The application concerns the introduction of the possibility for life sentences imposed in Ukraine to be reduced in length and the compliance thereof
Tetunashvili v. Georgia: the Use of Force by Police Officers in the Course of the Arrest
The case concerns the applicant’s complaints, under Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention, that his arrest was unlawful, that he was ill-treated by
Oleksandr Garskyy, Dmytro Yagunov: The Court (Defining the Concept)
A court is any formal tribunal presided over by one or more professional judges in which legal issues, disputes and claims are heard
Kunshugarov v. Türkiye: Extradition to Kazakhstan and Inadequate Conditions of Detention in the Centre for the Expulsion of Foreigners
The applicant is a national of Kazakhstan. The applications mainly concern(i) his threatened removal to Kazakhstan, where he would allegedly face a risk
The Irish Case: Why Did the ECtHR Decide Not to Review Its Judgement?
According to the Judge of the European Court of Human Rights from the Republic of Ireland, Siofra O’Leary, ‘the judgment in Ireland v.
Ireland v. the United Kingdom (2018 Revision): Dissenting Opinion of Judge O’leary
1. Pursuant to Rule 80, the Court was requested to revise its judgment in Ireland v. the United Kingdom insofar as the latter found that, while
Ireland v. the United Kingdom (2018 revision)
The case originated in an application (no. 5310/71) lodged on 16 December 1971 with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) by the Government of Ireland
Ireland v. the United Kingdom: Separate Opinion of Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice
1. On Articles 5 and 6 (and in consequence with reference to Articles 14 and 15), and also on Article 50, I voted
Ireland v. the United Kingdom: Separate Opinion of Judge O’Donoghue
On the findings of the Court summarized at pp. 94 to 96 of the judgment I share the unanimous views of my colleagues
Ireland v. the United Kingdom: Separate Opinion of Judge Zekia
With respect, I subscribe to the main part of the judgment of the Court. I maintain, however, a different view as to the